Blogging through the Bible

One other thought

2006-02-08T16:58:00.000-06:00

I want to extend heartfelt thanks to everyone who took the time to visit, especially those who posted comments. I valued your insights and truly appreciate them. Good luck to all, and those of you who have your own blogs can expect me to continue checking in on you there.

I give up

2006-02-08T16:49:00.000-06:00

It's been a while coming and I've probably been in denial, but now I'm admitting defeat. I'm giving up on this project. I just don't have the time I had available when I first launched it, and I feel the need to devote time to another long-lingering writing project that could actually result in a paycheck. Call it the perils of being self-employed.

Beyond that, I'm sorry to say that this endeavor has become a chore that I dread. I have to force myself to do Bible readings, viewing them more as an assignment than a choice. And I think this perspective is causing me to miss a lot. I just push through a day's readings to reach the allotted number of pages, and I'm relieved when I finish. I spend little or no time pausing to think about the implications of what I'm reading or have read and regard my entries as a tedious exercise in regurgitation. I thought jumping ahead to the NT would help, but I find myself thinking, "Yeah, yeah, I've heard this in church a hundred times."

I hate to be a quitter, but I have to confess that it's a pleasure not to have that Bible sitting on my desk, silently tut-tut-ing me for not picking it up. Judge me as you will.

Let's try this again

2006-02-02T19:13:00.000-06:00

So I finally picked up the Bible again this week, getting started on the gospel of Mark. Per the NRSV introduction, “Mark may have been the first sustained, literary interpretation of the traditions about Jesus in primitive Christianity.” It’s theorized that Mark was the first of the four gospels written and served as source material for Matthew and Luke. But who/what were Mark’s sources?

I was surprised to read that Mark covers little of Jesus’ teaching and no stories of his birth and resurrection. I guess that’s why “Mark has been overshadowed” by the other gospels. Onward …

Mark opens by quoting the prophet Isaiah: “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way …” The scene then shifts to John the Baptist—presumably the messenger Isaiah references—baptizing scores of people in the river Jordan. John foretells the coming of Jesus, saying, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me.” Well, that depends on how you define “after me,” as Jesus actually shows up at the river to be baptized by John. As Jesus comes out of the water, he sees the heavens tear apart and the Spirit descends on him, accompanies by a proclamation from heaven that “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” The Spirit (this is the Holy Spirit we’re talking about, I assume) immediately drives Jesus into the wilderness, where he withstands 40 days of temptation by Satan.

At some later point, “after John was arrested,” Jesus goes to Galilee to proclaim the good news of God. He urges the people to repent and believe because God’s kingdom has come near. As he moves along the Sea of Galilee, Jesus recruits the fishermen (and brothers) Simon and Andrew: “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” I thought the line was “fishers of men”—different version, I guess. I know this is a horrid segue, but when I read that line right now, my mind immediately went to an article I saw about an hour ago on the Chicago Tribune Web site about a priest accused of recently molesting some boys. Fishers of men, indeed. Ugh.

Anyway, Jesus also connects with James and John, and the five men travel to Capernaum. Jesus teaches in a synagogue and astounds the people, “for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Take that, scribes. While he is teaching, a man with an unclean spirit approaches Jesus and cries out to him, asking if Jesus has come to destroy them. Jesus rebukes him; more precisely, he rebukes the unclean spirit occupying the man by calling him out. After the spirit leaves the man, Jesus’ fame begins to spread, and his fame grows after he heals Simon’s mother-in-law and many others who were sick or possessed by demons.

Like any smart rock star, Jesus decides to go on tour, traveling to neighboring towns to proclaim his message, “for that is what I came out to do.” Along the way, he cures a leper. Jesus send the former leper away to show himself to the priest. He warned the man not tell anyone what had happened, but the man couldn’t resist. He went out and freely relayed his story, “so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country.” Much like a rock star, some might say.

Next: Healing and parables

***
On a totally unrelated note ...

Today is the 30th anniversary of my father’s death (I should say “the discovery of” my father’s death—he died in a room at the local Holiday Inn and was found by a maid, so there’s some uncertainty about the actual time of death). I was 8-years-old, with three older siblings. Two, in high school, were still at home; the third was away at her freshman year of college in the city. She moved to California within the next year or two, never to return but for fewer than 10 visits. But Death Day, as we so macabre-ly call it, is being eclipsed this year because my other two sibs and I are going to Carlsbad to consolidate her belongings before she returns to the Chicago area, where she will be forced to stay with my mother because she has lost her home, job, and, finally, the car she has been sleeping in for two months. She is two years older than my mother was when our father died. My brother, who has four kids, is the age my mother was when she was widowed. I’m the age my mother was when she gave birth to me. And my mother now lives in a retirement community that was previously a Catholic boarding school that my oldest sister attended for her first year of high school. She’ll return to live there almost 34 years after she left. At least she won’t have to wear a plaid skirt.

I'm rambling. Suffice it to say that life is really, really strange and unpredictable.

Progress report

2006-02-01T17:52:00.000-06:00

I've started reading Mark this week, and I hope to make a posting tomorrow.

In the meantime, because I don't hesitate to get on my soapbox when I see what I consider to be hypocritical Christian behavior, I want to link to a story from yesterday's LA Times. It talks about Evangelicals who are moving beyond abortion and gay marriage to other political issues that overlap with Christian precepts, such as global warming, affordable housing, fewer tax cuts for the rich, and more food stamps for the poor. I found the piece encouraging.

Addendum:
But then I read this, about Christians accusing AOL of blasphemy for using two of the most common words in the English language in their marketing. And then there's this, about Christians protesting a film about missionaries because one of the actors is gay. Yep, these particular Christians really know how to focus their energies in positive ways--if you consider it positive to spend your days looking for things that offend you.

Another bite at the apple

2006-01-19T17:30:00.000-06:00

OK, rather than dump this project altogether, I've decided to change course. After all, only the stubborn and foolish insist on staying the course when it's obviously not working. So I'm going to shift my attention to the NT, delving into Mark at the end of this month. Until then, I'm going to let myself soak in the delusion that, because I can wear shorts every day in my new home, I'm actually on vacation. Of course, having applied for my new drivers license and picked up California plates today, it might be more difficult to continue the delusion, but the license won't arrive for a week or two and, hey, no rush in putting on the new plates, right? The Illinois plates don't expire until May, and who needs to drive when you have a bike?

I'm looking forward to the NT--I suspect I'll find its teachings more applicable to life today than the OT, despite the recent allegations that God remains actively engaged in smiting. Or will I have a hard time reconciling the OT God with His NT son? We'll see.

I've been remiss

2006-01-09T10:33:00.000-06:00

I was posting a comment on a friend's blog yesterday, and I had to stop and think for a while before I could come up with my login info for Blogger.

In other words, it's been a while since I've made a posting, and it's been even longer since I posted an entry directly related to my Bible reading. As I wrote in November, I needed to go on hiatus while I prepared for my move from Chicago to California after Thanksgiving. At the time, I wrote that I would return to my Bible reading in December. Well, we're safely into January, and I've yet to resume my reading. And here's the problem--I'm not feeling at all motivated to do so.

I've found the OT so tedious and redundant that I have little desire to dive back into it. Perhaps I'd find it more interesting if I did believe in a literal interpretation, but, as it is, I find it difficult to get through. And, honestly, living in California, about a mile from the beach, probably isn't helping much, either. No, not because it's such a decadent, humanist Blue State, but because the weather is so much better than the Midwest. Going for a run or a bike ride, to the driving range, for a hike, etc. is so much more appealing than reading the Bible (as you can imagine, I'm also having a hard time fitting work in to my schedule). It was much easier when I launched this project--in Chicago last February, where I wasn't very inclined to go outside and had plenty of extra time on my hands.

Now, I'm not generally one for quitting. But I also don't see the virtue in forcing myself to do something I'm dreading and don't feel I'm getting anything out of in the end. Perhaps I need to take a different approach, rather than the chronological order I've been following. When I first started thinking about this last year, and was checking out different Bibles, I came across some Bibles that were broken down into daily readings. Maybe that's the way to go ...

Just when I think the Right can't make me any sicker ...

2005-12-19T19:51:00.000-06:00

... I see where the House found the time last week to pass H. Res. 579, titled "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for those who celebrate Christmas" (the resolution was amended to tack on those last five words, according to the Washington Post). Not surprisingly, it passed by a vote of 401-22. And you know those 22 legislators who dared to take a stand against this absurdity will be depicted in their next campaigns as the candidates "who voted against Christmas." Horrors!

As Rep. Scott of Virginia noted, this is the same House of Representatives that in recent weeks slashed funding for food stamps, Medicaid, and student loans, while gleefully extending tax cuts for the richest among us. Yes, Virginia, this is a governmental body that truly "recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas." As people used to say, actions speak louder than words.

A little perspective, please

2005-12-07T16:18:00.000-06:00

I was just reading an article in the Washingtong Post about religious conservatives getting up in arms because the White House holiday card doesn't mention Christmas and is adorned with a secular photo--the Bush family's pets frolicking on a White House lawn.

When will these so-called Christians recognize that the president is the president of the entire country, regardless of religious orientation or lack thereof? It's absurd that Laura Bush's press secretary actually has to explain: "Certainly President and Mrs. Bush, because of their faith, celebrate Christmas. Their cards in recent years have included best wishes for a holiday season, rather than Christmas wishes, because they are sent to people of all faiths." Duh! Why do these people refuse to recognize that Christmas is not the only holiday celebrated in December?

The Post notes that the press secretary's rationale is the same offered by major retailers for generic holiday catalogues, including those currently subject to boycotts initiated by various overreaching [my word] Christian groups. And it's not just overtly religious groups--the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, claims that there is a "war on Christmas" involving an "ever-stronger push toward a neutered 'holiday' season so that non-Christians won't be even the slightest bit offended."

It was a quote from "one of the generals on the pro-Christmas side" in the Post article that really caught my attention. Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association (which I believe was behind the threatened boycott against Ford for advertising in gay-oriented publications), said, "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok," he said. "I think in the case of the White House, it's just political correctness." Of course, it's not sinister, whether on the part of the White House or retailers! The White House sends cards to people of all faiths and maybe even some atheists, God forbid--it's a matter of sensitivity to send secular cards to non-Christians. For retailers, it's a matter of trying to appeal to the broadest possible market (capitalism, anyone?). And, as these blowhards so conveniently overlook, in the case of governmental institutions, it's a matter of constitutional law. There's just nothing sinister about it.

But, of course, "Wildmon does not give retailers the same benefit of the doubt [he gives the White House]. This year, he has called for a consumer boycott of Target stores because the chain issued a holiday advertising circular that did not mention Christmas. Last year, he aimed a similar boycott at Macy's Inc., which averted a repeat this December by proclaiming 'Merry Christmas' in its advertising and in-store displays." The forced capitulation turns my stomach.

These people are just out of control. If they expended only a fraction of the energy they devote to combating their persecution fantasies to emulating the Messiah they claim to want to protect, perhaps more hurricane victims would be back on their feet. But who has time to help those in need when Target is saying Season's Greetings?

Go, Vatican, go!

2005-11-18T18:46:00.000-06:00

Another Vatican official has come out against intelligent design in the science classroom. The Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory is quoted as saying, "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be."

"Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent. 'God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,' he wrote. 'He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.' If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Yep.

On the same page as the Vatican

2005-11-14T17:25:00.000-06:00

It seems so rare, I felt I had to take a minute to acknowledge my pleasure with the Catholic Church.

A Vatican official last week proclaimed that Genesis and evolution are "perfectly compatible," adding that "the fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim."

At a press conference, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator." He warned that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it severs its links with reason.

Poupard further said "it's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

Amen to that!

Bible break

2005-11-11T08:49:00.000-06:00

I've got some bad news for loyal readers (are there any?): I need to put my Bible blogging on hold for a bit while I prepare for a cross-country move. I've tried to keep up, but with all the sorting and packing, mapping and planning, good-bye events with friends and family, and, oh yeah, work, I'm having trouble keeping my head above water. Add to that the need to take a 124-mile detour to San Diego to bail out my sister (an unbelievably long story), I won't be able to return to Ezra until December. I will, however, make occasional posts on religion-related items I see in the news or other media, like my past two postings. I hope readers can be patient with me and will continue with me on my journey through the Bible next month.

And now I'm off to get a tuneup--gotta make sure the Silver Bullet is in good shape for the 2,000+ mile drive.

From God's lips to Pat Robertson's ears?

2005-11-10T17:12:00.000-06:00

So Robertson seems to believe.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Dover elections, where every school board member who supported intelligent design over evolution was voted out of office. According to Robertson, the people of Dover have thereby damned themselves:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

I wasn't aware God ran in elections, or only exists in cities where the populace votes a certain way. More to the point, I wasn't aware that Pat Robertson spoke for God. The arrogance of the guy is beyond comprehension, as is the mindset of his followers. Aside from their warm reception for Robertson, how can they worship a God who they perceive to be so fickle?

Argh.

A mixed bag on intelligent design

2005-11-09T18:36:00.000-06:00

I was distressed, but not surpised, last night when I read that the Kansas Board of Education voted that "high school students should be told that aspects of widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial." Not surprisingly, I side with the Washington Post columnist who imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: "Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, OK?"

The debate in Kansas received a lot of news coverage, but I hadn't heard anything about its prominence in the campaigns for the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania. I'm taking heart in the results there--voters kicked out all eight members of the board who had supported intelligent design. Thank God (and I mean that) reason prevails in some parts of the country. Maybe we'll dodge the impending theocracy yet.

2 Chronicles (Part II, cont'd): Exile!

2005-11-07T17:57:00.000-06:00

About 13 years after Josiah leads the great Passover celebration, he sets out against King Neco of Egypt, who is leading a fight on the Euphrates. Neco sends envoys to Josiah to inquire why Josiah is challenging him. Neco is not coming after Josiah, after all, but following God’s command to hurry and attack the house with which Neco is at war. Josiah is warned: “Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you.” But Josiah fails to heed the warning. As a result, he is killed by archers. According to the notes, this represents divine retribution because Josiah disobeyed God’s word, as revealed by Neco. Seems a little harsh—Josiah has done much good, but, because he doesn’t recognize God’s word being spoken through a foreign king (king of a land that had oppressed the Israelites, no less), down he goes.

Anyway, Josiah is followed by Jehoahaz, his son. He reigns only three months before the king of Egypt (the same king through whom God spoke to Josiah!) deposes him. The Egyptian king makes “his [Jehoahaz’s] brother Eliakin king over Judah and Jerusalem,” changing his name to Jehoiakim. “But Neco took his brother Jehoahaz and carried him to Egypt.” Jehoiakim does what is evil, and King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon comes up against him. The Babylonian king carries both Jehoiakim and some of the vessels from the house of the Lord to Babylon.

Jehoiakim is succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who is only eight years old. He reigns three and one-third months, and, despite his age and brief reign, manages to do evil in the sight of the Lord. His reign ends when Nebuchadnezzar sends for him and more precious vessels to be brought back to Babylon.

Jehoiakim is replaced by Zedekiah, who does evil and rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. “All the leading priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful.” God continues to send them prophets, but the people “kept mocking the messengers, despising His words, and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy.” So He sends the Chaldeans against them. The Chaldeans kill their youths, burn down the house of God, break down the wall of Jerusalem, etc. The Chaldean king takes those who had escaped death into exile in Babylon (why not in his own land?), and they become his servants.

2 Chronicles ends with King Cyrus of Persia, “in fulfillment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah," declaring liberty for the exiles: “The Lord … has charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem … Whoever is among you of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up.”

On to Ezra.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): More back and forth

2005-11-03T09:57:00.000-06:00

After Hezekiah unites the people of Judah and some of the people of Israel at Passover, all who are present go out and break down pillars, sacred poles, and high places—all of the pagan shrines. Hezekiah then commands the people of Jerusalem to pay taxes to the priests and Levites, “so that they might devote themselves to the law of the Lord.” The people give in abundance, and the priests and Levites are reorganized and strengthened. Much of this shadows the version in 2 Kings, but the Chronicler makes no mention of, among other things, Hezekiah’s consultations at this time with the prophet Isaiah or faith in foreign alliances.

Despite Judah’s faithfulness, it suffers an invasion by Assyria. Hezekiah gathers his troops and plans to stop the flow of water into Jerusalem, where the Assyrians are headed. He also builds towers and walls and makes weapons and shields. He tells the people that they shouldn’t fear the Assyrians because the people have God on their side. The Assyrian king sends his servants to deliver a message to the people in Jerusalem. The messengers warn them against relying on Hezekiah and point out that no other nation’s god has been able to stop the Assyrian attack. But Hezekiah and Isaiah pray together, and God responds by wiping out the Assyrian army.

As in 2 Kings (but told here in a far shorter version), Hezekiah subsequently falls ill. God heals him after prayer, but Hezekiah “did not respond according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud.” God's wrath comes down on the king and Judah, but then Hezekiah humbles himself “so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah.” It’s coming, though—make no mistake about that.

After Hezekiah’s death, his son Manasseh succeeds him. Over his long reign, he primarily acts in an evil way, rebuilding high places, altars, and sacred poles and practicing child sacrifice. He goes so far as to set a carved image of an idol in the house of God. Further, he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that they did more evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the people of Israel.” Contrary to Kings, however, Manasseh repents—although not until he is captured by Assyria and taken to Babylon in manacles. I’d think that would cheapen things. Nonetheless, “God received his entreaty, heard his plea, and restored him again to Jerusalem and to his kingdom.” His successor and son Amon doesn’t follow his lead. “He did not humble himself before the Lord.” His servants kill him, but then the people kill the servants. They proceed to make his son Josiah king.

According to the notes, “Josiah is the best of all Judean kings in following the example of David.” He purges Judah of the high places, etc. and oversees the restoration of the house of God. When the book of law is discovered during the repair process, Josiah reacts dramatically, tearing his clothes. He sends the priest Hilkiah to inquire of God about the book. The prophet Huldah conveys God’s message: “I will indeed bring disaster upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book … because they have forsaken me.” And yet, “because your heart was penitent and you humbled yourself before God … I also have heard you … I will gather you to your ancestors and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring on this place and its inhabitants.” So another generation is spared God’s wrath.

Josiah renews the covenant with God, making “all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin pledge themselves to it.” He also leads the people in a grand celebration of Passover. “No Passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of the prophet Samuel.” Unfortunately, though, Josiah will falter, leading to his downfall. More later.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): A rock star king

2005-11-01T17:00:00.000-06:00

After a leprous King Uzziah dies, Jotham takes over and—say it with me—does what is right. Unfortunately, the people continue to follow corrupt practices. And Jotham’s successor Ahaz (Jotham doesn’t get much coverage from the Chronicler) goes the same route, even going so far as to make cast images for the Baals.

“Therefore the Lord his God gave him into the hand of the king of Aram,” as well as the king of Israel. The people of Israel capture 200,000 of “their kin” (presumably the citizens of Judah) and take their booty back to Samaria. The prophet Oded meets and chastises them for their excessive killings and enslavement. He concedes that Judah is wicked but urges them to send the captives home. The people of Israel agree after their chiefs point that “our guilt is already great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.”

Despite being somewhat spared due to the God’s mercy, Ahaz turns to the king of Assyria for help. When will these guys learn to turn to God? The Assyrian king turns him down, and Judah suffers multiple attacks by other kingdoms. Eventually, the king of Assyria himself comes against Ahaz and oppresses him. “In the time of his distress [Ahaz] became yet more faithless to the Lord,” engaging in apostasy.

Ahaz is succeeded by Hezekiah, a good king who does what is right—the notes refer to him as a second David and especially a second Solomon. He has the temple cleaned and makes a covenant with God, “so that His fierce anger may turn away from us.” The people and leaders bring sacrifices and re-launch worship practices at the temple. “Thus the service of the house of the Lord was restored. And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced.”

Hezekiah then attempts a reunification with Israel. He sends word that the people of Israel should come to keep the Passover at the temple. He pleads with them to return to God “so that He may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria … For the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him.” But many of the Israelites scorn and mock the couriers relaying Hezekiah’s message. “Only a few … came to Jerusalem.” The celebration goes well, though—so well that the people decide to extend it another week. “The Lord heard Hezekiah, and healed the people.” The Chronicler describes great joy in Jerusalem, and the notes say Hezekiah united the people in sacrificial worship, but what about all the people in Israel who didn’t rally around? If only a few came to the temple, can you really call this unity?

At any rate, I have about 10 more pages to read in 2 Chronicles. According to a list I made while reading 2 Kings, seven kings (six of them evil) will reign in those pages, leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. It’s tempting to just skip ahead to Ezra, thinking “Been there, done that,” but I will persevere.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): Of child kings and lepers

2005-10-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

Joash begins his reign at age seven and does what is right. At some point, he sets his eyes on restoring the house of the Lord. He asks the priests and Levites to make a special collection of funds. “All the leaders and all the people rejoiced and brought their tax…” There’s a sentence you don’t see often.

And yet, after going to the trouble to restore the house of God, Joash and the people eventually turn away from God. After the priest Jehoiada dies, they abandon God’s house to serve the sacred poles and idols. “And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this guilt of theirs.” God sends Zechariah, Jehoiada’s son, to condemn the people: “Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.” What does he get for his trouble? The people conspire against and stone him. As he lies dying, Zechariah calls out, “May the Lord see and avenge!”

Yes, He may. God delivers Judah into the hand of the much smaller army of Aram. When the army withdraws, it leaves Joash severely wounded. Angry over the murder of Zechariah, Joash’s servants kill him in his bed.

Joash’s son Amaziah is the next to step up to the plate. “He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not with a true heart.” After killing the servants who killed his father, Amaziah assembles troops to go against the Edomites, including some troops he hires from Israel. An oracle warns him against this, telling Amaziah that he should go to battle without the troops from Israel, “or God will fling you down before the enemy.” For once, a king heeds a prophet—Amaziah sends those troops home; unfortunately, their dismissal stokes their anger against Judah. I’m not sure why—they were paid their silver and got to avoid the risk of battle.

So Amaziah goes out with his own people and strikes down 10,000 men of Seir, capturing many others who are subsequently thrown down from the top of a rock and “dashed to pieces.” But then Amaziah brings back the gods of the Seir, sets them up as his god, and worships them. When will these people learn? Can retribution be far behind?

Not far at all, it turns out. While Amaziah and his men were in Seir, the troops from Israel attacked several cities in Judah. Amaziah sends the messenger Jehu to Israel, apparently to make peace, but King Joash of Israel (not to be confused with Joash of Judah) scorns him. Joash condemns Amaziah for his arrogance and warns him against a military confrontation. “Amaziah would not listen—it was God’s doing, in order to hand them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom.” Amaziah and Joash do battle, with Joash capturing Amaziah. He survives Joash by 15 years, but it’s not clear if he spends that time imprisoned.

The people of Judah enthrone Amaziah’s son Uzziah (aka in 2 Kings as Azariah). Like his father, he starts off following the right path but eventually goes wrong. Early on, he battles the Philistines and others, builds cities, and commands an impressive army. “His fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped until he became strong.” As so often happens, pride follows his success, and his fall isn’t far behind. After attempting to make an offering on the altar in the temple (only priests were allowed to make such sacrifices), disease breaks out on his forehead. Uzziah remains leprous until his death, living in a separate house and buried away from the other kings.

Next: More ups and downs

Become a Republican

2005-10-26T18:34:00.000-05:00

They've almost convinced me. Don't miss screen #6, which addresses the Bible.

Warning: It's loud, so turn your sound down or off.

2 Chronicles, Part II: Stop me if you've heard this before

2005-10-26T17:45:00.000-05:00

Having killed his brothers and marrying Ahab’s daughter, Jehoram rules Judah and does what is evil. He benefits from the covenant between David and God, though—without it, it seems, God would destroy the house of David, including Jehoram.

Jehoram makes high places in Judah and leads its inhabitants into unfaithfulness. Eventually, he receives a letter from the prophet Elijah, who has been critical of Ahab, king of Israel. The letter accuses Jehoram of following in the ways of the northern kings and killing his brothers. For these acts, Elijah writes, God will bring a plague on the people and a harsh bowel disease on Jehoram (I’ll spare you the details). God also stirs up the Philistines and Arabs against Jehoram. They come up against Judah and steal away with the king’s possessions, wives, and children, leaving only his youngest son Jehoahaz. “After all this the Lord struck him in his bowels,” and Jehoram dies two years later.

The Chronicler reports that Jehoram is succeeded by “his youngest son Ahaziah.” Uh, didn’t he just write that Jehoahaz was his youngest son? Perhaps the names are just variations of each other? The NRSV notes don’t address this discrepancy, so who knows. Anyway, Ahaziah, too, walking in the ways of the house of Ahab, “for his mother was his counselor in doing wicked.” Like mother, like son, I guess. He also apparently followed the advice of counselors from Ahab’s house, and, as we already know, he teamed up with Jehoram of Israel against the Aramean king in Ramoth-gilead.

As ordained by God, Ahaziah’s downfall comes when he goes to visit the injured Jehoram after that ill-advised battle. En route, Ahaziah runs into Jehu, “whom the Lord had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab.” Jehu kills Ahaziah, as well as his brothers, leaving no one to rule Judah. Jehu, having also inflicted the wounds that subsequently kill Israel’s Jehoram, takes over Israel.

In a story we encountered in 2 Kings, Ahaziah’s mom steps in for him, while the king’s daughter hides his son Joash. After seven years of hiding Joash, the priest Jehoiada enters an agreement with the commanders and others. The “whole assembly made a covenant with the king [i.e., Joash] in the house of God.” They proclaim him king and kill Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mom (and, presumably, Joash’s grandmother). The priest then makes a covenant between himself, the people, and the king “that they should be the Lord’s people.” To celebrate, they all go to the house of Baal and tear it down. Just like the looting I’m expecting in Chicago tonight, only much more pure. Do I sound bitter?

Pardon the lull

2005-10-25T20:54:00.000-05:00

Hectic week so far. Between receiving an offer and signing a contract to sell my place, starting to make arrangements to move West, getting rear-ended on the way to a client meeting, and dealing with ongoing shenanigans involving an out-of-control sibling--not to mention obsessing about Plamegate--I've definitely neglected my blogging. Look for the latest on Jehoram tomorrow.

Tell me how the Republicans came to be the Christian party?

2005-10-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

So a millionaire Republican Senator just won more than $800,000 in the lottery. Surely, he plans to donate much of the money to any of the many worthy causes in dire need of contributions now, right? Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and South Asia all come to mind. But the senator and his wife plan to use the money for remodeling projects. Nice.

How can he even joke about his remodeling projects (not that he was actually joking) when so many Americans have lost their homes recently?

The guy, Judd Gregg, has assets between $2,697,000 and $9,430,000, mostly in an extensive stock and real estate portfolio, and he lives in New Hampshire, which doesn't impose state income taxes. Later news coverage does indicate he'll donate a "portion" to his family's charitable foundation, but c'mon. Let's see some of those Christian values in action.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): A mixed bag

2005-10-21T10:40:00.000-05:00

Jehoshaphat takes over Judah after Asa’s death, and “the Lord was with Jehoshaphat.” Surrounding countries resist attacking because of their fear of God, and the king has “great riches and honor.” He also makes a marriage alliance with the Northern Kingdom’s Ahab, though, marrying Ahab’s daughter. This will likely come back to haunt him, if not Judah as a whole.

After the marriage, Ahab induces Jehoshaphat to join him in attacking Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat first requires assurance that the Lord is behind such action. Four hundred prophets in Ahab’s court all tell him that God is indeed on board, but Jehoshaphat insists on also asking Micaiah, even though Ahab warns him that this prophet never gives him favorable prophesies--what's the point of consulting experts if they don't give you the answers you want, after all? As is his suit, Micaiah predicts dire results, reporting that he had a vision of all of Israel scattered on the mountains like sheep without a shepherd. Ahab reacts by throwing the prophet in prison, only to be released when the king returns safely from battle. “If you return in peace,” Micaiah says, “the Lord has not spoken by me.” Well, the Lord has spoken by Micaiah, and Ahab is killed in battle. No mention is made of the prophet’s fate after that--does he ever get out of prison?

Jehu, a prophet from Judah, visits Jehoshaphat upon his return and scolds him for forming an alliance with the Northern Kingdom, “those who hate the Lord.” On the positive side, the king has destroyed the sacred poles and set his heart to seek God; presumably, this saves him from God’s wrath over the ill-advised alliance. Jehoshaphat also goes on to institute judicial reforms, appointing judges in the fortified cities and a central court in Jerusalem. According to the NRSV notes, he “extends his own jurisdiction and restricts the influence of the local courts” by appointing his own judges. Harriet Miers, anyone?

Despite these acts that are good in the eyes of God, Judah is attacked by the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir. Terrified, Jehoshaphat turns to God, praying for help and proclaiming a fast. He reminds God that the three countries were spared when Israel came to the promised land; yet “they reward us by coming to drive us out of your possession that you have given us.” God directs all of Judah to go down against the attackers but to only take position. They needn’t fight because God will take care of everything for them. They do as instructed and witness the Ammonites and Moab attack those from Mount Seir and then ultimately turn on each other. Jehoshaphat and his people have only to collect the booty after the destruction. Not surprisingly, “the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel.”

This is where the Chronicler confuses me a bit. Toward the end of Chapter 20, he says that Jehoshaphat did “what was right in the sight of the Lord.” But, he says, the high places were not removed (contradicting an earlier statement), and the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their ancestors. Further, he recounts that Jehoshaphat joined with King Ahaziah of Israel, “who did wickedly.” This is in addition to his earlier alliance with Ahab. So, I’d say Jehoshaphat was kind of a mixed bag, overall, not all good and not all evil.

His son and successor Jehoram, on the other hand, is pretty darn evil all around. He starts off his reign by killing his brothers and some of the officials of Israel (wouldn’t that provoke the king of Israel to seek revenge?). The Chronicler writes that Jehoram, although a king of Judah, “walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done; for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” No doubt the wife’s fault, if I had to guess.

More on Jehoram and his successors later. I suspect, however, that much of the remaining 25 or so pages in 2 Chronicles regurgitates 2 Kings, which I’ve already covered in earlier posts.

2 Chronicles, Part II: Here come the kings

2005-10-19T12:57:00.000-05:00

With Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam becomes king. Of course, we know from 1 Kings that God became disgusted with Solomon in his final year and therefore promised his throne to his servant Jeroboam. Chronicles makes no mention of how Jeroboam escaped to Egypt to hide from Solomon when the sitting king learned of God’s plans. Instead, the Chronicler’s first mention of Jeroboam comes upon his return from Egypt after Rehoboam is made king.

The story in Chronicles about his return closely mirrors that told in Kings: Jeroboam complains to Rehoboam about Solomon’s oppressive rule and asks him to lighten up. Rehoboam consults with his father’s counsel, who advise him to do as requested, and his own posse, who suggest he tell the Israelites that his “little finger is thicker than my father’s loins” (apparently a reference not to his finger but another appendage, per the NRSV). Rehoboam opts for the tough-guy stance and informs the Israelites that his reign will be even harsher for them. This leads to the division of the Israelites, as those in Judah follow Rehoboam and the others follow Jeroboam.

Despite Rehoboam’s hard-ass streak, he seems to have God’s favor. He builds up Judah to fight Israel, but he heeds God’s instruction to let everyone go home. The priests and Levites turn to Rehoboam, after Jeroboam bans them for liturgical service, followed by others “who had set their hearts to seek the Lord.” Now, this makes little sense to me. Isn’t Jeroboam God’s chosen successor? So why are good Israelites turned away from him and to Rehoboam?

Regardless, Rehoboam and Judah eventually abandon the law of God. As a consequence, Egypt attacks Jerusalem, causing Rehoboam and his officers to humble themselves before God. In response, God relents—a bit. He won’t destroy them, but they will become Egypt’s servants, “so that they may know the difference between serving [God] and serving the kingdoms of other lands.”

Rehoboam is succeeded by his son Abijah, who becomes involved in war with Jeroboam. At one point, Abijah harangues Jeroboam: “Do you not know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? …you think that you can withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David? … The Lord is our God, and we have not abandoned him … you have abandoned him.” Sure enough, God delivers Judah from Jeroboam; “the people of Judah prevailed, because they relied on the Lord.” Jeroboam, in fact, is struck down by God and dies.

When Abijah dies, he is followed by his son Asa, who does what is good. As a result, Judah builds and prospers. When the Ethiopians come up against them, Asa relies entirely on God to protect Judah, and it works. “The Lord defeated the Ethiopians.” The prophet Azariah encourages Asa to continue his reforms, and the people enter a covenant to seek the Lord with all their heart and soul—“whoever would not seek the Lord … should be put to death.” The people rejoice, and God gives them peace for a while.

But Baasha, the new king of Israel, goes up against Judah. Asa approaches the king of Aram (Syria) to propose an alliance. The Aramean king agrees and sends his troops against the cities of Israel. Good news for Asa, right? Not—the seer Hanani chastises him for relying on the Aramean king instead of God. Because of this foolish move, “from now on you will have wars.” Suddenly Asa, formerly described as doing what was good, turns—he jails Hanani and inflicts cruelties on others. And reform is not in the cards. When he comes down with a foot disease, he seeks help from a physician, not God, and subsequently dies. Is this where Christian Scientists get the idea that professional medical care is a bad thing?

Next up: Jehoshaphat et al. (again)

2 Chronicles, Part I: Deja vu

2005-10-17T17:47:00.000-05:00

After several days devoted primarily to preparing for and holding a garage sale, it's time to get back on track here. [Note: I'm posting this before editing it or checking for typos because I've got to run but wanted to get something up. Bear with me!]

2 Chronicles opens with Solomon establishing his place as king, following the death of his father David. He leads the Israelites on a pilgrimage to Gibeon, where God’s tent of meeting remained. That night, God appears to Solomon, and the king asks for wisdom and knowledge. Because Solomon didn’t ask for possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate” him, God grants him the wisdom and the knowledge requested and “riches, possessions, and honor.” No mention of the lives of those who hate him, though. Guess you can’t have everything.

After a brief description of Solomon’s military and commercial activities, the Chronicler (that sounds like a comic book name to me, but it’s the title the NRSV notes give the author) recounts the preparations for the building of the temple. The account of the temple construction closely parallels that of 1 Kings, as summarized here. In that previous post, I noted my surprise that Solomon conscripted thousands of laborers to perform the necessary work. I shook my head at that again in 2 Chronicles, but I was also taken aback to read in 2:17 that Solomon took a census. Oh—I literally just noticed that his census, as opposed to David’s, counted the aliens living in Israel. That must explain why he didn’t incur the wrath of God that David suffered after taking a census of the Israelites.

Once the temple is constructed, the ark, with its two tablets from Moses, is brought into the temple, carried by the Levites. As described in Kings, the temple then fills with a cloud, “for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God.” Solomon dedicates the temple and acknowledges that God has fulfilled His promises—Solomon has succeeded his father and has built the temple “for the name of the Lord.” He proceeds to kneel and give praise to God: “[T]here is no God like you … you who have kept for your servant, my father David, what you promised to him.” He asks God to also keep His dynastic promise to David. Solomon goes on to ask God to keep his eyes open to the temple, so He may heed His servants when the pray toward it. As I covered in the earlier post, Solomon names several types of calamities that might result from the Israelites’ sins—including drought, famine, sickness, and military defeat—and asks God to forgive them when they repent. He even urges God to listen to the prayers of foreigners, so “that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you,” as do the Israelites. The prayer is answered with fire from heaven, and “the glory of the Lord filled the temple.”

God subsequently appears to Solomon again. He responds favorably to the prayer: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice … if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgiven their sin and heal their land.” There you have it—humble yourself, pray, seek God, and turn from your wicked ways, and God will forgive you. This pretty much describes the sacrament of Confession, but for the omission of any mention of a priest or middleman. Of course, the resource I consulted about this discrepancy only refers to NT bases for confession, not OT. Still, I find the rationale for the need to confess to a priest suspect. It strikes me as self-serving for a Catholic priest to say, “Human beings need rituals and ceremonies to celebrate the important moments in life.” And I disagree with that basic premise—humans may desire rituals and ceremonies to celebrate important moments in life, but I don't think they need them. By this argument, the important moments of life are limited to those that are deemed by I don’t know whom as deserving of rituals and ceremonies. But many, if not all, of the most important moments of my life were not of the type that is subject to such formal recognition, and I wouldn’t want them to be. If there are only seven sacraments (I can’t believe I remember that), does that mean the Catholic Church believes those are the only important moments in a person’s life? I guess I just continue to be put off by religions’ demand for sanctioned structure and intermediaries. Why can't it be between you and God? Don't get me wrong--I believe that ministers can help people improve their relationships with God. I just don't believe that clerical involvement is a prerequisite to a relationship with God.

Getting back to 2 Chronicles, though, I didn’t read much new about Solomon. To the contrary, the Chronicler opts to exclude information that appears in Kings, such as references to his foreign wives. The Chronicler fails to even mention that God ultimately decided to punish Solomon by giving His kingdom to one of the king’s servants after Solomon’s death.

Next: 2 Chronicles, Part II , and Babylonian captivity for the Israelites

1 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): The passing of the crown

2005-10-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

David’s days seem to be dwindling. He gathers all of Israel’s officials, commanders, warriors, etc. and tells them of his plans to build a house for God. “But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.’” [Now, if I’m one of the warriors in the crowd, I’m getting a little worried, but that’s just me.] Instead, David charges his son Solomon with building the temple, per God’s instructions. David urges Solomon to seek out God and not forsake Him.

David goes on to give Solomon his written plans for the temple. David, it turns out, is a bit of a micromanager—the plans are extremely detailed, down to the weight of gold for each lampstand. Or maybe it’s God who is the micromanager, for David declares, “All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.” Considering that this is the first we hear of God’s directions for the temple, other than that Solomon should build it and not David, I’d say that claim is a little suspect. The NRSV notes don’t address this verse (28:19), but I wonder if the Chronicler inserted it for some reason.

David acknowledges to the assembled leaders that Solomon is young and inexperienced; he explains that this is why he has provided so many of the necessary building supplies, including gold, silver, and bronze. He then solicits contributions from others. As the notes point out, “since only the Levites are permitted in the temple, lay participation in building is impossible.” After they make their contributions, “the people rejoiced because these had given willingly, for with single mind they had offered freely to the Lord.” I can’t remember the verse or phrase, but I always understood that people should keep their good deeds to themselves—it seems kind of inappropriate for the contributors to celebrate their own donations.

Following the slapping of their own backs, David gives praise to God. He recognizes God’s greatness and asks Him to keep a generous spirit in the people’s hearts and to direct their hearts toward Him. He also asks God to grant Solomon “that with single mind he may keep your commandments.” David and the whole assembly make sacrifices and offerings the next day, and Solomon is anointed king. “He prospered, and all Israel obeyed him … The Lord highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel.” But the Chronicler also says that “all the leaders and the mighty warriors, and also all the sons of King David, pledged their allegiance to King David,” which directly contradicts 1 Kings. The first chapters there describe a struggle for the throne as David’s death approaches, with Adonijah trying to claim it for himself.

The Chronicler also parts ways with 1 Kings in the telling of David’s death. In 1 Chronicles, David dies full of “riches and honor.” In Kings, however, David required the warming body of a young virgin in his dying days.

At any rate, on to 2 Chronicles.

1 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): War is okay, but censuses? Bad

2005-10-10T09:52:00.000-05:00

Having made a new covenant with God and settled in, David returns to war against the Philistines, among others. “The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went.” Here’s what I don’t get, though—God has declared that David shouldn’t be the one to build Him a temple because, basically, David has too much blood on his hands from his warring ways. And yet God delivers all of these other armies into David’s hand. That seems like a bit of a mixed message. Anyway, Chapter 19 describes David’s defeats of the Ammonites and Arameans, which I think were previously described in 2 Samuel. Unlike Samuel, though, the Chronicler omits any mention of David’s affair with Bathsheba or her husband’s death. Who knew the Chronicler was a pre-cursor to Fox News?

After these conquests, “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” I’m unclear on why taking a census is such a transgression, but David’s right-hand man Joab immediately recognizes that it is, telling the king: “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundredfold! Are they not … all of them my lord’s servants? Why then should my lord require this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?” Despite his protests, Joab submits to David’s orders and takes a census of Israel and Judah (“but he did not include Levi and Benjamin …, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab”). God, as Joab predicted, is not pleased and strikes Israel. David realizes his mistake and begs God to forgive him. God gives him three choices: three years of famine, three months of devastation by his foes, or “three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.” David decides he prefers to fall into the hand of God, who has great mercy, than human hands, so God sends a pestilence, wiping out 70,000 people. God also sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem, but He relents at the last minute. David, however, notices the angel hovering between earth and heaven with a drawn sword. He pleads with God to punish David and his house, not the people.

The angel directs David to erect an altar to God on the threshing floor of Ornan, which is where David was standing when he noticed the angel. David offers Ornan full price for the site “so that the plague may be averted." Ornan offers it for free, but David insists on paying Ornan in gold. He proceeds to make sacrifices at the threshing floor and then declares that the floor will be the site of the temple. Although God has made it clear that David himself cannot build the temple, David goes about collecting materials and otherwise preparing for the temple’s eventual construction by his son Solomon (his preparations, BTW, includes gathering aliens for forced labor—not cool, David). He charges Solomon with building a house for God and cautions him to observe the statutes and ordinances to stay on His good side.

“When David was old … he made his son Solomon king over Israel.” He also organizes the Levites into four groups—priests, officers and judges, gatekeepers, and musicians. The next few chapters describe the groups, their appointees, and their respective duties. The Chronicler similarly describes the military divisions, tribal leaders, and other civic officials.

Next: The final transition from David to Solomon

1 Chronicles, Part II: Some biblical reruns

2005-10-05T15:39:00.000-05:00

The second part of 1 Chronicles begins with the death of Saul and his sons. As we read earlier, Saul dies by falling on his sword so that the Philistines can’t kill him. 1 Chronicles reminds us that Saul died for his unfaithfulness in failing to keep God’s command. Upon his death, according to God’s word as revealed previously to the prophet Samuel, David is anointed king of all Israel.

Chapter 11 recounts the individual exploits of several of David’s warrior chiefs, who all support the new king. Support for David seems pretty universal. Several tribal groups supported him when he was in Hebron, unable to move about freely of Saul’s pursuit, including some of Saul’s own tribe Benjamin. “Indeed from day to day people kept coming to David to help him, until there was a great army.” Chapter 12 lists the size of the various armies who come to Hebron, noting that they all “came to Hebron with full intent to make David king over all Israel; likewise all the rest of Israel were of a single mind to make David king … there was joy in Israel.”

Eventually, David decides to send for the ark of God, which resides in Kiriath-jearim. Again repeating an earlier story, 1 Chronicles tells us how the Israelites carry the ark on a cart driven by Uzzah and Ahio. “David and all Israel were dancing before God with all their might,” but then Uzzah puts his hand on the ark to steady it. Angered, God strikes him down, in turn angering David. David is also fearful, though, so he leaves the ark in the house of Obed-edom and returns to Jerusalem. Some battles against the Philistines ensue, with David prevailing through God’s intervention. “The fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him on all nations.”

Perhaps emboldened by his victories, David decides again to bring the ark to Jerusalem. This time, he commands that only Levites may carry the ark. He tells some Levites that “because you did not carry it the first time, the Lord our God burst out against us, because we did not give it proper care.” That pronouncement and the result of the first attempt seem a little unfair to Uzzah—he apparently was following his king’s command and acted with good intention to prevent the ark from falling. Anyway, this time the ark is successfully moved to Jerusalem, accompanied by much music and shouting, and placed in the tent.

The Israelites are then led in prayer, though I’m uncertain whether it’s David or the Levites reciting the thanksgiving. The prayer encourages the Israelites to make God’s deeds known and “to tell of all his wonderful works” (is this a key section for Evangelicals? it doesn't say anything about trying to convert people). They’re urged to continually seek God’s presence and strength and reminded that they are “offspring of his servant Israel, children of Jacob, his chosen ones.” Interestingly, the prayer observes that, when the Israelites were few in number and strangers in the land, God “allowed no one to oppress them.” But didn’t Egypt, Babylon, and various countries oppress, or at least do battle with, them? It also notes that “the world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.” I wonder how that jibes with the End Times predictions.

In another repeat story, the Chronicler writes of David’s wish to build a temple for God. As we learned in 2 Samuel, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, dissuades him. God tells David that He will give him an enduring dynasty, including a son who will build the temple: "He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever … I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you.” David accepts that and gives a prayer exalting God.

Well, that's somewhat reassuring

2005-10-03T17:45:00.000-05:00

A recent poll shows that only 23 percent of the respondents believe the hurricanes were a deliberate act of God; 67 percent believe they were "an occurrence on God's Earth but not a deliberate act on God's part." Good to see calmer, more rational heads prevailing. Of course, as we've seen with abortion, Terry Schiavo, and so many situations, it's the vocal minority that makes the noise and gets the attention.

Just what does "born-again" mean?

2005-10-02T17:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I read this excerpt on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"What surprises me is how many of my conservative friends are still hot'n'heavy for W. Some of them are born-again Christians, and Bush is a born-again Christian, and that's what does it for them. Fair enough, I suppose, if that's the most important thing in your life, but what about the rest of us? What about us benighted folk who aren't born-again Christians, but are nonetheless conservative, believing in small government, self-support, fiscal prudence, individual liberty, national security, orderly immigration, judicial restraint, traditional values, and equal opportunity? W doesn't really offer a whole lot to us, does he? Sure, John Roberts was a good pick for SCOTUS, but who's the next pick? Alberto 'La Raza' Gonzalez? No thanks. Sorry, George, the bloom is off the rose. I can't even imagine voting for a Democrat, and I’m not a third party sort of guy, but… is this really the best we can do?" - John Derbyshire, National Review Online.

I find the the overall point intriguing politically, but it was the reference to "us benighted folk who aren't born-again Christians" that caught my attention and got me thinking. Here’s my question: Is it better to be a born-again Christian than a lifelong Christian? I don’t want to say “many,” but some born-agains certainly give off an air of superiority about their status. Why? Doesn’t born-again by definition mean that you were less-than-Christian before your transformation? And how exactly is one born again? Do they believe it's not possible to be a full-fledged Christian without first hitting bottom, kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous? Isn’t it preferable to have remained steady in your faith and practice than to wake up hungover at age 40, after decades of self-indulgence, and decide to convert? And do they think that becoming born-again gives them a clean slate, invalidating all prior non-Christian actions and entitling them to judge others whose actions mirror their own pre-rebirth actions? That would certainly make some conversions suspect.

I think I need to look into this whole born-again thing. It seems awfully convenient and open to manipulation and opportunism.

1 Chronicles, Part I: Lists, lists, and more lists

2005-09-29T08:39:00.000-05:00

The good news is that I’m already through the first part of 1 Chronicles (Ch. 1-9); the bad news is that there’s not much to recount. As the introductory notes explain, the first section consists of genealogies and lists that trace the story from Adam up to the post-exile Israelite community.

It runs from Adam to Abraham to Jacob (aka Israel) and includes Jacob’s brother Esau (aka Edom). It runs through the 12 tribes descending from Jacob, particularly the descendants of Judah, which the notes call “the most important tribe in the postexilic community.” With regard to the descendants of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, it observes they had valiant warriors. The warriors received help from God “because they trusted in him.” But later they transgressed against God and “prostituted themselves to the gods of the peoples of the land, whom god had destroyed before them.” God responded by sending Assyria against them, and they were taken away.

The first section also goes through the descendants of David and Solomon. It covers musicians appointed by David and the settlements given to the Levites. It concludes by explaining that Judah was taken into exile in Babylon, and that the first to return to Jerusalem were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants.

Here’s hoping there’s better narrative around the bend.

Two sides to every story

2005-09-28T16:06:00.000-05:00

In light of the latest news out of Washington, I can’t help thinking—yet again, I know—about the people who have been exultantly reading God’s wrath, End Times, etc. into the current news landscape. If I were so inclined, I’d have to point out that:

--the states being ravaged by catastrophic weather, from hurricanes to heat waves, are so-called Red States
--the decadent and sinner-filled French Quarter was relatively spared from the worst damage
--the modern-day Pharisees falling under investigation for corruption, insider trading, influence peddling, cronyism, and other transgressions belong to the party of the self-righteous Religious Right, as do the legislators and others attempting to undermine environmental protections (stewardship, anyone?) in their rush to fill the pockets of their greedy corporate buddies

The list goes on and on. Thank God I’m not so inclined.

2 Kings, Part II (cont'd): The fall of Judah

2005-09-26T12:15:00.000-05:00

After Amon is killed by some servants, the people anoint his son Josiah to succeed him. Per the NRSV notes, “even more than the highly praised Hezekiah, Josiah was obedient to God’s law.” Among other things, he directs repairs of the temple. The repair process leads to the discovery of a book of law. Josiah realizes that his ancestors’ failure to obey the book brought God’s wrath, and, through a prophetess, God confirms this. However, He also says, “because your heart was penitent, and you humbled yourself before the Lord … I also have heard you … your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring on this place.”

Inspired by the law book, Josiah goes on to institute wide-ranging religious reformations. He makes a new covenant with God, in which all the people join. He destroys vessels made for Baal, deposes idolatrous priests, breaks down the houses of the temple prostitutes, removes the high places, etc. Josiah also commands the people to keep the Passover; “no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges …” And yet “still the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah.” He pledges to remove Judah from His sight, just as He has done with Israel.

So, once Josiah is killed in battle by the Egyptian Pharaoh, you know there’s a bad moon on the rise. The Pharaoh names Josiah’s son Jehoiakim to replace him, taking away his other son Jehoahaz, whom the people had anointed (why Pharaoh gets to name the Judean king, I don’t know). To give silver and gold to the Pharaoh, Jehoiakim heavily taxes the land. In general, he does evil. He becomes servant to the king of Babylon for three years, but eventually rebels. God goes against him, though, sending bands of Chaldeans (i.e., Babylonians), Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites to destroy Judah. Jehoiakim is killed and succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who also does evil.

Jehoiachin is reigning when Babylon attacks Jerusalem and besieges the city. He gives himself up to the Babylonian king. The Babylonians take all the treasures and leave only the poorest people. The Babylonian king makes Jehoiachin’s uncle, Mattaniah, king in his place and changes his name to Zedekiah. Again, I’m not sure why the Babylonian king even bothers naming a king for Judah.

Zedekiah, an evil king, rebels against Babylon. The Babylonians again lay siege to the city and capture Zedekiah. They kill his sons in front of him, poke out his eyes, and take him to Babylon. To maintain some political stability (according to the notes), the Babylonian king installs Gedaliah, a Judean, as governor. Gedaliah advises the remaining people to serve the Babylonian king, but he ends up slaughtered by Ishmael and his men. “Then all the people, high and low, and the captains of the forces set out and went to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans.” Thus, Judah has fallen.

2 Kings ends with the release of Jehoiachin (the last survivor of the Davidic monarchy?) from prison.

On to 1 Chronicles.

2 Kings, Part II: Let's just leave it to future generations

2005-09-23T09:49:00.000-05:00

As Hezekiah, a king of Judah who did right, nears death, he is visited by the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah tells Hezekiah he won’t recover, so Hezekiah prays to God, pointing out that he walked before God in faithfulness and did what is good in God’s sight. God relents and grants Hezekiah another 15 years of life. Not only that, but God will “deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria.” [obviously, this story in Ch. 20 doesn’t follow proper chronological order, as the deliverance from Assyria occurred at the end of Ch. 19]

After his illness, Hezekiah is visited by some envoys from the king of Babylon. He welcomes them, but Isaiah doesn’t approve. The prophet chastises Hezekiah for letting the envoys see all the things in his treasure house: “Days are coming when all that is in your house, and that which your ancestors have stored up until this day, shall be carried to Babylon … Some of your own sons who are born to you shall be taken away” to become eunuchs in the Babylonian king’s palace. Oddly, Hezekiah responds favorably to this prediction, thinking, “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?” So I guess imposing your debts on future generations to get the heat off yourself is nothing new.

Upon Hezekiah’s death, his son Manasseh succeeds him. He commits many of the same sins that doomed the Israelites to exile. “He rebuilt the high places that his father … had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal;” and so on. He “misled [his people] to do more evil than the nations had done that Lord destroyed before the people of Israel.” Further, he “shed very much innocent blood,” although the writer doesn’t elaborate. God sends Manasseh the message that He will bring upon Jerusalem and Judah “such evil that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle.” God will “wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down” to remove all remnants. He will give them to their enemies.

Amon succeeds his father Manasseh. He continues the evil ways, but it doesn’t appear that God has fulfilled His threat above yet. Amon rules for 22 years, until some servants kill him. The people then kill the servants and make Amon’s son Josiah the king.

Josiah, as we will see, adheres to God’s word. I’ll cover his reign and the remaining seven pages of 2 Kings (thank God) in the next entry.

Religious blame game, Part II: My bad

2005-09-21T15:24:00.000-05:00

Silly me. I thought the theory was that God sent Katrina (and no doubt Rita, as well) to send a message about abortion and homosexuality. Apparently, the hurricane can also be directly tied to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. And subsequent passage by the California legislature of a gay marriage bill, the recent district court decision about the Pledge of Allegiance, and Palestinian torching of Gaza synagogues demonstrate that secularists continue to disregard God's message: "Hundreds dead and half-a-million homeless weren’t going to stop them from strutting their stuff."

Ironically, the organization that makes these claims is called GrassTopsUSA. Needless to say, its spokesman doesn't address the possibility that God is wreaking havoc to punish our poor treatment of His creation.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Playing the religious blame game

2005-09-20T08:29:00.000-05:00

Hmmm. I just read an op-ed piece published in the Portland Press Herald. Written by a minister, it focuses on finding Christ in compassion, but a particular passage jumped out at me:

"How much of what goes on in this world happens because we don't take care of the great gift that is our Earth? I've been hearing the science reporters and environmental experts telling stories about the loss of land on the coastlines, about the increasingly warm water temperature in the Gulf that is favorable for hurricanes, about how much more built-up and vulnerable Biloxi was than it was for Hurricane Camille in 1969. "

Now, I don't believe that God sends hurricanes and the like to punish us. But it's interesting to me that those who do claim to hold such beliefs always attribute these disasters to His anger with the tolerance of homosexuals, abortion, or other things they condemn. As the Church Lady would say, how con-veen-ient. God has, after all, charged us with being stewards of the earth, right? The very first book of the Bible says, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it" (Genesis 2:15). Leviticus, the book so often cited in opposition to homosexuality, also says, "... the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land" (25:23-24). Even Revelation (11:18) refers to "destroying those who destroy the earth." So why don't these so-called Christians ever consider that maybe God is punishing us for being poor stewards of His land? Oh, yeah--that wouldn't provide them with ammunition for their positions.

Spin--it's not just for politicans and corporate public relations anymore.

I think Bill Maher had it right in the "New Rules" portion of his show last week, when he was ranting against devil-themed movies: "Bottom line: Some people think Satan is real, and some people think global warming is real. If you think stopping gays from doing 'it' is more important than the ice caps melting, the boogey man is you."

2 Kings, Part II: Israel in exile

2005-09-19T17:43:00.000-05:00

We left off with Hezekiah (good) reigning over Judah and Hoshea (evil-ish) over Israel. I say “evil-ish” because, while he did what was evil in the sight of God, his brand of evil was “not like kings of Israel who were before him.” At any rate, Hoshea becomes a vassal to the king of Assyria, only to end up confined when that king finds “treachery in Hoshea.” In fact, the king of Assyria lays siege to Samaria for three years, ultimately capturing it and moving the Israelites to Assyria.

I guess I jumped the gun in the last entry when I observed that it didn’t appear the people of Israel were behaving so badly; it was just their kings. As the writer makes clear, Israel’s exile to Assyria was due to the sins of its people. Among numerous transgressions, they worshipped other gods and “secretly did things that were not right against the Lord.” What a provocative sentence--did they think they could hide their actions from God? And what were these secret deeds? But I digress. God warned the Israelites repeatedly, but they would not listen. Thus, God removes them from his sight; “none was left but the tribe of Judah alone,” although “Judah also did not keep the commandments.”

Having displaced the Israelites, the king of Assyria moves other peoples into Samaria. Those people didn’t worship God, so He “sent lions among them, which killed some of them.” The king sends for an Israelite priest who can teach the people “the law of the god of the land.” The people do begin to worship God, but they also make gods of their own.

Meanwhile, over in Judah, Hezekiah is proving to be an admirable king. He institutes widespread religious reforms, removing the high places, etc. He keeps the commandments, and rebels against the king of Assyria, refusing to serve him. As a result, the Assyrian king captures all of Judah’s fortified cities. Eventually, each side sends a delegation to, presumably, negotiate a peace. The Judean delegation asks the Assyrians to speak in Aramaic, so any nearby Judeans can’t understand what is being said. One of the Assyrian delegates ignores the request and instead calls out to those in earshot, encouraging them not to believe Hezekiah’s assurances that God will deliver them. He points out that none of the gods of any of the other nations Assyria has captured was able to save its people.

Hezekiah decides to consult the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah tells him that God will put a spirit in the Assyrian king, causing him to hear a rumor and return to his own land, where he will be murdered. After the meeting, one of the Assyrian delegates returns to repeat their threat. In response, Hezekiah prays to God. Isaiah relays God’s response, which, according to the NRSV notes, indicates that Assyria’s victories over other countries “are all part of a divine plan that has been in existence since the beginning of the world.” (I have to admit that the note made me recoil a little bit, probably because of people who have said Katrina was part of God’s divine plan, which is a little too “End Times” for me.) The Assyrian king's arrogance in assuming he has been responsible for the conquests, rather than God, angers God. “Because you have raged against me and your arrogance has come to my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth; I will turn you back on the way by which you came.” His anger at Assyria seems to have bought Judah another chance, as God says: “I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of servant David.” And that very night, the angel of God strikes down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp. The next morning, the king’s sons kill him.

2 Kings, Part I (cont'd): So many kings, so little time

2005-09-16T10:48:00.000-05:00

As alluded to in my last posting, chapters 9-16 continue the recounting of the successive kings of Judah and Israel. In addition to being tedious, I found it was getting a tad confusing, what with the switching back and forth between Judah and Israel (not to mention different kings sharing the same name), so I made a couple of lists to track the lineages and whether the various kings "did what was evil" or "did what was right":

Judah's kings:
Jehoram (son of Jehoshaphat/evil)
Ahaziah (Jehoram's son/evil)
Athaliah (Ahaziah's mom/evil)
Jehoash (aka Joash/Ahaziah's son/right)*
Amaziah (Jehoash's son/right)
Azariah (aka Uzziah/Amaziah's son/right)
Jotham (Azariah's son/right)
Ahaz (Jotham's son/evil)
Hezekiah (Ahaz's son/right)

*represented restoration of Davidic monarchy

Israel's kings:
Jehoram (aka Joram/son of Ahab/evil)
Jehu (killed both Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah/right to some extent, so God says four generations of his sons shall reign)
Jehoahaz (Jehu's son/evil)
Jehoash (aka Joash/Jehoahaz's son/evil)
Jeroboam II (son of Jehoash/evil)
Zechariah (son of Jeroboam/evil)
Shallum (no relation--killed Zechariah; one month reign)
Menahem (no relation--killed Shallum/evil)
Pekahiah (Menahem's son/evil)
Pekah (no relation--killed Pekahiah/evil)
Hoshea (no relation--killed Pekah/evil)

So, clearly, Israel was burdened with years and years of consecutive kings who did what was evil in God's eyes. Judah enjoyed several successive reigns of kings who did right, but even they failed to remove the high places, instead allowing the people to go on sacrificing and making offerings on them. "Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his servant David since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his descendants forever" (Ch. 8:19). But why not destroy Israel? "The Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ch. 14:23). Also, I guess the people themselves weren't that evil, "for [under Jeroboam II] the Lord saw that the distress of Israel was very bitter; there was no one left, bond or free, and no one to help Israel. But the Lord had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam." Ch. 14:26-27. Now that's confusing because Ch. 14:24 says that Jeroboam "did what was evil ..." This excerpt doesn't make a lot of sense to me--shouldn't He be saving them from the hand of Jeroboam?

It also made little sense to me that Amaziah, a king of Judah who did right, lost in battle to Israel's evil King Jehoash. In fact, Amaziah ends up the victim of a conspiracy that kills him. And God strikes Azariah, another Judean king who does what is right, "so that he was leprous to the day of his death." I suppose I need to realize that the characterizations of kings as right or evil are made by the narrator, through his own perceptions, and may not be accurate. But doesn't he recognize the mixed messages he sends when the good kings suffer, while the evil ones seem to thrive in many cases?

Going off point for a moment, I made marks by the verses at 9:12 and 9:20. In the former, some of Jehu's officers are prodding him to share what had happened in his meeting with a prophet. He says, "You know the sort and how they babble." They reply: "Liar! Come on, tell us!" That just struck me as a very modern-day exchange. Several verses later, a sentinel says of Jehu, "he drives like a maniac." I guess this can be attributed to the NRSV translation, but it's kind of jarring (though amusing) to come across such language.

Anyway, here are a few other things to note from this section of 2 Kings:
--Jezebel dies a violent death, as predicted by Elijah
--Jehu wipes out the house of Ahab, as well as Baal, from Israel
--Jehoash of Judah, who became king at age 7, repairs and provides for the maintenance of the temple in Jerusalem
--Elisha dies during the reign of Jehoash of Israel, blessing the king before he dies; as a result, apparently, Jehoash recaptures several towns of Israel from Aram

OK--I'm exhausted. And I've reached the end of my reading thus far.

Bogged down in Kings

2005-09-14T15:33:00.000-05:00

Confession time--1 and 2 Kings are killing me. They're so tedious and repetitive! This guy rules over Israel, that guy rules over Judah. This guy does evil in the eyes of God, this guy does right (but doesn't get rid of the high places). Wars and attacks happen. Kings die, are succeeded by their sons, and the cycle continues. I was encouraged in my reading today when the Davidic monarchy was restored to power in Judah, but no new storyline really emerged from that. Some good Davidic kings reign, only to be succeeded by one who does not do right. And now Elisha, who at least livened things up a bit with miracles, has died, with no obvious replacement. I don't feel like I'm getting much out of this at the moment, and motivation is hard to come by.

Twenty pages to go--will Chronicles be any better? How I long for the NT!

2 Kings, Part I (cont'd): Elisha keeps rockin'

2005-09-13T09:51:00.000-05:00

Back at the ranch, the king of Aram is again at war with Israel. He shares some of his plans with his officers and is perturbed when word of those reaches the king of Israel. He discovers it was Elisha who warned Israel and sends an army to seize him. The army surrounds the city, and Elisha prays to God, who strikes them blind. Elisha then leads the soldiers to Samaria, where they regain their sight only to have the king of Israel inquire whether he should kill them. Per Elisha’s instruction, the king instead throws a feast for them before sending them home. “And the Arameans no longer came raiding into the land of Israel.”

Alas, it was only a temporary halt to the raids. “Some time later King Ben-hadad of Aram mustered his entire army” and laid siege to Samaria. As the siege continues, Samaria suffers from famine. One day, the king of Israel comes upon a woman who cries out to him. She explains that another woman duped her into cooking her own son for food. Rather than reciprocating, as the other woman had promised, that woman hid her son. Sickened, the king blames the situation on Elisha. In response, Elisha shares a prediction with the king that some choice meal and barley will become available for sale at the gate of Samaria. The king’s captain expresses doubt, noting, the lack of rain to grow such food, so Elisha tells him, “You shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat from it.”

Subsequently, four lepers who were hanging outside the city gate decide to go over to the Aramean camp, basically figuring they have nothing to lose. The camp is abandoned upon their arrival because God had caused the Aramean army to hear the sound of a great army. The lepers have their way with the camp, eating, drinking, and carting off valuables until some guilt descends on them. They return to the city to alert the king of Israel, but he thinks the Arameans are trying to lure him into the open country. He sends some men to check out the camp, and they return with the good news. “Then the people went out, and plundered the camp.” As a result, choice meal and barley are sold, as Elisha predicted. The captain witnesses this, also as predicted, but doesn’t enjoy any meal or barley himself, as “the people trampled him to death.” So another doubter learns his lesson.

Bear in mind, though, that the famine continues. In fact, Elisha directs the woman whose son he had resurrected to move away for seven years because the Lord has called for a famine. She returns at the end of seven years and appeals to the king for the return of her house and land. The king, recognizing her connection to Elisha, grants her request. I’m not exactly sure what the point of this episode is; perhaps it’ll come up again later.

The text moves from that incident to the death of King Ben-hadad of Aram. Recall that in 1 Kings, God had commanded Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Aram and Elisha as his own replacement. I guess Elisha steps into Elijah’s shoes for the purposes of the command, too, as Elijah never got around to anointing Hazael. Elisha doesn’t actual anoint him, though. As the notes observe, he merely plants the seeds of rebellion in Hazael’s mind by informing him that God has shown Elisha that Hazael is to be king of Aram. Of course, Elisha also tells Hazael, “I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel.” So why would God and Elisha not work against Hazael’s ascent to the throne? Why the passivity from Elisha, who cries as he shares that last bit with Hazael, implying that the Israelites won’t deserve the evil treatment?

Next: A new king for Israel

2 Kings, Part I: A lesson for Bush and his cronies

2005-09-08T16:02:00.000-05:00

While Elisha is proving his mettle by performing miracles, Jehoram is reigning over Israel. The narrator seems to lump him with Israel’s evil leaders, despite the fact that he tries to discourage the worship of Baal.

He also teams up with Judah’s King Jehoshaphat to battle Moab, which has rebelled against the king of Israel. Joined by the king of Edom, they set out on a seven-day march. Lacking water, Jehoram panics a bit, crying that “the Lord has summoned us, three kings, only to be handed over to Moab.” Fortunately, Jehoshaphat keeps his head and urges Jehoram to inquire of the Lord via Elisha. Elisha is resistant to helping Jehoram initially and taunts him by suggesting he consult his parents’ prophets. He gives in out of his regard for Jehoshaphat, telling the kings that God will provide water and hand over Moab. Elisha directs them to conquer every fortified city and every choice city, and destroy trees, water springs, and land. The NRSV notes point out that this “extreme destruction of Moab is a violation of the laws governing religious war.” And yet, there have been earlier accounts of God’s dander getting up because a king hasn’t destroyed his foe thoroughly enough (Saul, for example, paid the price for that, if I recall correctly).

Anyway, when the Moabites come out in the morning, they see the water but think it’s blood. They conclude the kings must have fought and killed each other. “Now, then, Moab, to the spoil!” They head to the camp of Israel, only to have the Israelites rise up and attack according to Elisha’s directions. The king of Moab responds by offering his firstborn son as a burnt offering. “And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” I find that unclear—how did “great wrath” come upon Israel and why? Inquiring minds want to know.

The scene shifts away from Jehoram and back to Elisha in Chapter 4. Several miracles are described. Elisha saves a woman from creditors who want to enslave her kids by filling her empty vessels with oil—she could then sell the oil and pay her debts. He also grants a miraculous birth to a wealthy but childless woman who gave him shelter. When the child subsequently dies, Elisha raises him. If that’s not enough to establish his legitimacy as a prophet, he also purifies a pot of stew during famine and feeds 100 men with only 20 loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain. Some of these miracles strike a familiar chord—the episode with the vessels of oil reminds me of Jesus’ miracle at the wedding in Canaan, the raising of the dead reminds me of [what I remember of] Lazarus, and the feeding of 100 men reminds me of the manna story. I’m surprised the NRSV notes don’t refer to any of these similar incidents.

In another miracle, Elisha healed the commander of the Aramean army. The commander, Naaman, suffers from a skin disease. One of his wife’s servants, a girl captured in Israel, suggests Naaman seek out “the prophet who is in Samaria.” She means Elisha, whom Naaman and his king assume works in the king of Israel’s royal court. The Aramean king sends Naaman to Israel with a letter beseeching the king there to cure him. The king of Israel jumps to the wrong conclusion—that the other king is making an impossible request to justify another raid. Fortunately, Elisha hears about this. He sends a messenger instructing Naaman to wash in the Jordan seven times. At first, Naaman is angry—he can’t believe a cure could come this easily. Eventually, his servants convince him to give it a try. He emerges from the river cured and accepting of God as the only god. He offers Elisha a present, but Elisha refuses. Elisha’s servant Gehazi, on the other hand, decides the prophet has let Naaman off too lightly. He goes after Naaman and weasels some gifts out of him. Then he denies any such impropriety to Elisha, leading Elisha to curse Gehazi and his descendants with leprosy. Elisha says: “Is this a time to accept money and to accept clothing, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves?”

It’s hard not to think about the implications of that last pointed question in the context of Katrina and the war in Iraq. What’s the term I’m searching for? Oh, yeah—profiteering. The oil companies, already raking in record profits before the hurricane, and Halliburton, king of the lucrative no-bid contracts, are the obvious examples that come to mind. But am I taking it too far to view cronyism through a similar prism? Like Gehazi, unqualified people like Mike Brown and Joe Allbaugh profit from their connections to powerful people like, say, our esteemed president. To paraphrase Elisha, is a post-9/11 world a time to accept salary and perks for a crticial security-related job for which you aren't qualified? Seems to me such cronyism is condemned by the Bible.

Elijah question

2005-09-08T14:51:00.000-05:00

Before he fades from our memory, now that Elisha has succeeded him, I have kind of a bizarre question about Elijah. Sad as it is to admit, whenever I hear his name, I think about an old Saturday Night Live skit. Jerry Seinfeld was the guest host, and the setting was a Jewish family sitting down for Passover dinner. They leave an empty chair, in case Elijah shows up, and Seinfeld as Elijah does indeed show up--drunk and bitter. Damn funny stuff, but I've always wondered why the chair is left open for Elijah. Nothing in my readings about him answered that question. Anyone?

2 Kings, Part I: Farewell, Ahaziah and Elijah

2005-09-06T10:11:00.000-05:00

I just don’t have the stomach to engage in these debates about the hurricane and its meaning. Suffice it to say, I don’t believe God is smiting Sin City, so let’s get back to the Bible—specifically, 2 Kings. The NRSV introduction seems to divide the book into three parts: Ch. 1-6, 7-16, and 17-23.

The first part opens with Ahaziah, son of Ahab, reigning over Israel. He’s a Baal worshipper, like his father before him, so, when he’s injured, he sends messengers to Ekron to inquire of their god Baal-zebub whether he will recover. God sends Elijah to intercept the messengers. He pointedly asks them, “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?” He then tells them that God has proclaimed Ahaziah shall surely die. When the king hears of this, he sends men to summon Elijah to meet with him. Twice, the fire of God comes down from heaven and consumes a group of men dispatched by Ahaziah to get Elijah. Elijah demurs to the third group and goes to the king. He informs Ahaziah that he shall surely die because he sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub, as if there was no God in Israel to inquire of His word. Sure enough, the king dies and is succeeded by his brother Jehoram.

The narrator shifts to Elijah’s ascent to heaven in Chapter 2. It happens while he and Elisha are traveling from Gilgal. Elijah apparently knows what is about to happen because he tries, fruitlessly, to persuade Elisha to stay behind while he goes on to Bethel. Instead, they go together to Bethel, where Elisha is greeted by a company of prophets who tell him God will take his master from him that day. Elijah again tries to persuade Elisha to stay behind, this time while he goes on to Jericho. Elisha again refuses. Jericho becomes a déjà vu, with another group of prophets telling Elisha the bad news. Elijah is set to move to the Jordan, and Elisha refuses to stay behind. The prophets accompany the pair, as well. Elijah parts the Jordan with his mantle, and the two walk across.

Elijah asks Elisha what he can do for his protégé before God takes him, and Elisha requests a “double share” of Elijah’s spirit. Fine, Elijah says, but he won’t get that share unless he sees his mentor being taken to heaven. Soon, a chariot and horses of fire separate the men, and Elijah ascends to heaven. Elisha picks up Elijah’s mantle and uses it to part the water. The company of prophets sees this from a distance and concludes that Elijah’s spirit rests on Elisha. Nonetheless, they ask for permission to search for Elijah, just in case “the spirit of the Lord has caught him up and thrown him down on some mountain or into some valley.” Elisha reluctantly agrees, but, needless to say, the prophets do not find Elijah.

Perhaps to confirm his place as Elijah’s successor, Elisha goes on to perform some miracles. First, he purifies some water for his followers. More strikingly, he then appears to retaliate against some small boys who jeer him and call him “baldhead.” He curses them in the name of the Lord (would the Lord condone cursing children, one wonders) and “then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys.” Huh? Boys will be boys, as they say—maulings by a bear seem a tad disproportionate to the crime. What a weird, fleeting tale, relayed in only two verses.

Next: Jehoram’s reign and more miracles

Who would Jesus blame?

2005-09-01T09:36:00.000-05:00

That was my sister's classic response to an email I sent her linking to Repent America (see below). Actually, her full response was: "You can't beat Christian compassion! Who would Jesus blame?"

Her son attends Tulane, but he and his father just returned to the Chicago area this past Sunday, unaware of what they were escaping. Steve will study abroad this year, so his education likely won't be affected, at least not immediately, but the ripples from Katrina are incredibly far-reaching. My sister's family put up four of my nephew's friends/New Orleans refugees for a couple days. They don't know what their educational future holds for them, but they know they're among the lucky ones.

I'm still waiting to see all the people who mobilized during the Schiavo drama earlier this year get down to the Gulf Coast and demonstrate their true moral fiber. And where are those members of Congress who rushed back to DC to pass a likely unconstitutional law to address the tragic situation of a single woman in a persistent vegetative state?

On the positive side, I've been moved to tears by stories about people opening their homes to Katrina's victims via Craig's List and other vehicles. That's the answer to the ubiquitous t-shirt question my sister referenced in her email.

New Orleans was asking for it?

2005-08-31T15:21:00.000-05:00

I'm due to write on the first chapters of 2 Kings, but Katrina is diverting me.

I believe disaster and misery are some of the truest tests of one's Christianity, spirituality, or whatever one calls it. So, as thousands click over to www.redcross.org to make donations, open their doors (or stadiums) to the homeless, and otherwise to reach out to the victims of Katrina, it strikes a vile note with me to see how others react. The so-called Christian organization Repent America blames the hurricane on New Orleans' tolerance of Southern Decadence, an annual gay festival held in the city. It points to Mardi Gras and the "Girls Gone Wild" videos as evidence that "New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin," and thus was apparently deserving of the devastation. Another group, Columbia Christians for Life, notes that Louisiana is home to 10 abortion clinics. (I'm not sure how they account for the concentration of damage in God-fearing Red States, not to mention the disproportionate suffering of the poor and powerless).

These groups bring to mind the "church" that is traveling around the country to demonstrate at the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers. The "pastor" claims God is killing American soldiers because "the government has turned the country over to faggots." The group's Web site currently proclaims "Thank God for Katrina."

What is wrong with such people? Are they nuts or just mind-bogglingly insensitive? Mired as I am in the reading of the OT (I admit to recent motivation problems), it's obvious to me that their lives are mired in literal readings of the OT and its vengeful God. I almost feel sorry for them. As Dan Schorr noted today on NPR, we're living in a time of drought, flood, famine, earthquake. How horrible to live in the belief that all of these conditions represent God's punishment of the masses for the acts of the few. I prefer to believe in a God that presents horrible circumstances as an opportunity for us to help others and appreciate our own good fortune, rather than an opportunity to condemn others while sitting back, content in your own moral superiority.

I guess the prevalence of the latter attitude shouldn't surprise me, considering that a recent Pew poll indicates 42% of Americans believe that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time (including 70% of white evangelical Protestants). But I still find it disheartening, and it makes me wonder why some people seem to cling to the OT to the point of excluding the teachings of the NT.

1 Kings, Part III (cont'd): The final chapters

2005-08-26T09:43:00.000-05:00

Elisha has become Elijah’s disciple, and Ahab continues to reign over Israel. Israel is engaged in a series of battles with Aram (modern-day Syria), presided over by King Ben-hadad. Aram lays siege to Samaria, and Ben-hadad demands Ahab turn over his silver and gold and his fairest wives and children (I’m not sure who determines which wives and children are “fairest”). For some reason, Ahab agrees without protest until Ben-hadad decides to send his servants to “lay hands on whatever pleases them.” Ahab calls together the elders, who advise him not to consent to the demands. This leads to escalating trash talk between Ahab and Ben-hadad, albeit via messengers, and Ben-hadad eventually orders his men to take their positions.

The text takes a bit of an odd turn here because the next passage offers prophetic support for Ahab. Until this point, he has been described as doing evil, but here a prophet visits him and tells him God will deliver his opponents into Ahab’s hand. So Ahab and his men head out, “while Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk” (at noon, no less!). Ben’s scouts alert him to the arrival of the Israelites, and he orders them to take the Israelites alive, regardless of whether they have come in peace or in war. But Israel prevails, although Ben escapes. The prophet, however, warns Ahab that Aram will return in the spring.

Sure enough, Aram’s men persuade him to give it another try against Israel. They theorize that the Israelites’ “gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we”; if they take the fight to the plain, they believe they will be stronger than the Israelites. Big mistake. As a man of God tells Ahab: “Because the Arameans have said, ‘The Lord is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys,’ therefore [God] will give all this great multitude into your hand.” The Israelites again kick ass, and Ben again flees. This time, his servants persuade him to seek mercy from Ahab. Surprisingly, Ahab accepts Ben’s overtures and makes a treaty with him. As in the past, though, God is angered that a king of Israel allows his enemy to live. A prophet relays the Lord’s word to Ahab: “Because you have let the man go whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore you life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.” I don’t understand why God punishes people for showing mercy. If He wants to eliminate someone like Ben-Hadad, why not take care of it Himself (are you listening, Pat Robertson)? With humans being so intrinsically weak, it seems to me that it’d be wiser for God to handle such work Himself, rather than confusing humans by sometimes condoning killing and sometimes condemning it.

Of course, Ahab wasn’t exactly an upstanding guy otherwise. Consider, for example, how he obtained Naboth’s vineyard. He starts off well enough, offering Naboth a better vineyard or money for his vineyard, which is adjacent to Ahab’s palace. After Naboth refuses to turn over his ancestral inheritance, “Ahab went home resentful … He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat.” Not exactly regal behavior. Jezebel notices his pouting and decides to step in. She sends letters in Ahab’s name to the elders and nobles in Naboth’s city. The letters direct them to frame Naboth for cursing God and the king, and then stone him to death. They do so, and Jezebel’s acts allow Ahab to seize the vineyard.

Needless to say, God doesn’t care for this behavior. He sends Elijah to tell Ahab that “in the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.” The king and his house are condemned for, basically, overstepping his royal bounds (shades of eminent domain, if you will). Ahab shows some remorse, donning sackcloth, fasting, etc. Apparently, this touches God, for he tells Elijah: “Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster on his house.” Doesn’t seem too fair, but it continues the pattern of penitence leading to a postponement or modification of judgment, as the NRSV notes observe.

In Ahab’s remaining days, he resumes war with Aram, this time teaming up with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. The prophet Micaiah predicts failure, though. He tells them he sees “all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd.” This prophecy contradicts those of the other prophets, and Ahab orders the imprisonment of Micaiah until Ahab returns in peace. He and his buddy (or not) head into battle, but Ahab disguises himself, so the Arameans will think Jehoshaphat is the king of Israel. Despite this subterfuge, “a certain man drew his bow and unknowingly struck the king of Israel,” killing Ahab. “Then about sunset a shout went through the army, ‘Every man to his city, and every man to his country!’” I assume this fulfills Micaiah’s prophecy about scattered Israelites. Moreover, dogs end up licking Ahab’s blood from his chariot. His son Ahaziah subsequently assumes the throne and serves Baal. Jehoshaphat survives and walks in the way of his father Asa, “doing what was right in the sight of the Lord,” although the people continue to sacrifice in the high places.

Onto to 2 Kings.

"Silver Ring Thing" gets rung

2005-08-25T07:49:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, in the midst of several posts related to the Bible in public school classrooms, I wrote about a federally-funded Christian abstinence-only program called The Silver Ring Thing. The ACLU sued the government, asserting it was funding religious activities because the program went beyond abstinence education to proselytize. According to the ACLU, "The complaint cites numerous violations, among them that the Silver Ring Thing's flagship three-hour program features members testifying about accepting Jesus Christ, quoting from Bible passages, and providing audience members with the Silver Ring Thing Bible. Within 24 hours of the filing of the lawsuit, the Silver Ring Thing substantially altered and removed religious content from its Web site."

All this is to say that the federal government has suspended funding for the program until it submits a plan detailing how it plans to incorporate "adequate safeguards to clearly separate in time or location inherently religious activities from the federally funded activities." I admit I'm surprised and, of course, gratified. This is an increasingly rare victory for supporters of the separation of church and state.

1 Kings, Part III (cont'd): Elijah keeps busy

2005-08-23T09:23:00.000-05:00

Ahab takes over for his father, Omri, as king of Israel and does more evil than all before him. Like Solomon, Ahab enters a prohibited intermarriage, with the Phoenician princess Jezebel. He goes on to serve Baal, even creating an altar for the god, who is believed to provide the rains that facilitate the fertility of the land. To bring the people to their senses about Baal, the prophet Elijah announces that God has decreed a three-year drought. The idea is to demonstrate that Baal doesn’t actually control the rains; rather, God does.

During the drought, Elijah lives by a streambed, where ravens bring him food. When the stream dries up, God sends him to live in Zarephath—the heart of Baal country. According to God’s direction, Elijah finds a widow to feed him. She hesitates and explains that she had little food and was about to “prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.” Elijah assures her that God will provide for her and her son, and he stays with her for several days. The son, however, becomes ill. Elijah is upset and stretches himself out over the child three times, pleading with God to let the son live. God listens and revives him.

In the third year of the drought, God sends Elijah to Ahab. Along the way, Elijah runs into Obadiah. Obadiah runs Ahab’s palace, but he reveres God greatly and even hid some prophets from Jezebel when she was killing off prophets. Elijah asks Obadiah to tell Ahab that the prophet has arrived. Obadiah worries that such a message will anger Ahab and result in his own death. He eventually acquiesces, though, and Ahab meets Elijah, greeting him with, “Is it you, you troubler of Israel?” Elijah counters that it is actually Ahab who has troubled Israel and proposes a contest pitting Elijah against hundreds of prophets of Baal. Baal’s prophets fail at their task of calling the god out to set afire a bull. Elijah mocks them and their god and, of course, wins the contest when the fire of God sets his bull ablaze. The people then realize that “The Lord indeed is God.” Elijah kills the other prophets, and the drought ends.

But Jezebel is pissed, so Elijah must flee. He travels for 40 days into the wilderness to Horeb, the site of the first covenant between God and the Israelites. Elijah spends the night in a cave and receives a visit from God. When God asks him what he’s doing there, Elijah says that he has been very zealous for God and now “they are seeking my life, to take it away.” God sends Elijah out of the cave, and he witnesses a great wind, an earthquake, and a fire, followed by “a sound of sheer silence.” God then repeats His question to Elijah, who merely repeats his prior answer. [I feel like I'm missing something in this passage] God responds by instructing Elijah to return to Damascus and anoint new kings over Aram and Israel (Hazael and Jehu, respectively) and a new prophet, Elisha, to take Elijah’s place. God declares: “I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

Elisha becomes Elijah’s disciple in short order, but Hazael and Jehu won’t come along for a while. In the meantime, the reigning kings of Israel and Aram—Ahab and Ben-hadad—will continue to struggle. More on that, and Ahab’s death, next time.

Christian "capo" calls for hit

2005-08-23T09:14:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, is calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. A Christian leader endorsing one human's killing of another--it boggles my mind. Don't these people think such decisions as life and death should be left up to God? They seemed to believe that when it came to Terri Schiavo--what makes this any different?

Regardless, the overreaching of so-called religious leaders is hitting seriously alarming levels.

1 Kings, Part III (cont'd): Evil reigns

2005-08-19T11:16:00.000-05:00

While things were deteriorating in Israel under Jeroboam and his son Nadab, Rehoboam and a series of successors reigned over a similarly screwed up Judah. “Judah did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their ancestors had done … They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.”

Abijam succeeded Rehoboam and continued his father’s sins. For the sake of his promise to David, though, God allows the dynasty to survive. Abijam’s son Asa provides a brief respite when he reigns, doing “what was right in the sight of the Lord.” He drives male temple prostitutes out of the land and removes false idols built by his ancestors. Asa ends up at war with King Baasha of Israel, who came to power after striking down Nadab and killing “all the house of Jeroboam.” Asa takes gold and silver from the treasures in the house of the Lord and the king’s house and sends them to King Ben-hadad in Damascus in hopes of breaking his alliance with Baasha and forming one of their own. It’s all very “Survivor.” Ben-hadad pulls off some conquests, and Baasha stops his construction of Ramah, which he was building to prevent people from coming or going to Asa in Judah. Asa uses the remnants of Ramah to build Benjamin and Mizpah. When he dies, his son Jehoshaphat succeeds him.

Over in Israel, Baasha is not pleasing God. God sends word that He will make Baasha’s house “like the house of Jeroboam.” Thus, when Baasha dies, his son Elah succeeds him, only to be killed by one of his chariot commanders. Zimri, the commander, assumes the throne and kills all the house of Baasha, “according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke against Baasha.” Following Zimri, the people of Israel split, with half following Tibni and the other half following Omri. Omri’s people conquer the Tibni-ites, though, so Omri becomes king.

Omri constructs a new capital in Samaria and goes on to do “what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did more evil than all who were before him.” He eventually dies, and his son Ahab follows him. Unlike the kings mentioned, Ahab’s experiences are recounted across several chapters. Look for those in the next entry.

1 Kings, Part III: Foreboding oracles

2005-08-17T13:22:00.000-05:00

Having made two golden calves and otherwise violated Deuteronomic law, Jeroboam is getting ready one day to offer incense by an altar. A man of God comes by and, speaking in God’s words, tells Jeroboam that “A son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on [the altar] the priests of the high places who offer incense on [the altar].” As a sign to guarantee the truth of this oracle, the man gives a sign, saying "the altar shall be torn down" and the ashes on it poured out.”

Jeroboam responds by ordering the seizure of the man of God. But, as Jeroboam stretches out his hand, it withers “so that he could not draw it back to himself.” The altar is torn down (although the text doesn’t indicate how that occurred) and ashes pour out. Terrified, Jeroboam begs the man of God to pray for him. He does so, and Jeroboam’s hand is restored. The king invites the man of God to dine with him, but he refuses, explaining that God has commanded him not to eat food, drink water, or return to Judah (from Bethel) by the way he had come.

Thus, the man of God sets out. While sitting under a tree, an old prophet from Bethel tracks him down and offers food. The man of God reiterates God's command, but the prophet lies to him, convincing him that an angel had instructed him to bring the man of God to his house so he can eat and drink. As they eat, the word God comes to the prophet, who proclaims: “Because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord … your body shall not come to your ancestral tomb.” Sure enough, the man of God is soon killed by a lion and ends up buried in the old prophet’s grave. “Even after this [none-too-subtle] event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way.”

Perhaps for this reason, Jeroboam’s son Abijah becomes ill. Jeroboam directs his wife to disguise herself and visit the prophet Ahijah to find out what will happen to the son. Ahijah is blind, but God warns him of the wife’s impending visit, and Ahijah calls her out when she arrives. He tells her to inform her husband of God’s words: “… you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my sight … you have done evil … therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam.” The message gets rather graphic, with warnings that “anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs shall eat; and anyone who dies in the open country, the birds of the air shall eat.” Ahijah continues, saying Abijah will indeed die and God will raise up a new king, who will cut off the house of Jeroboam. “He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and which he caused Israel to commit.”

Things don’t look good for the Northern Kingdom, but are things going any better over in Judah, under Rehoboam’s reign? Stay tuned.

1 Kings, Part II: Dueling dynasties

2005-08-15T09:13:00.000-05:00

The second section of 1 Kings runs only a single chapter. In Chapter 12, Solomon’s son Rehoboam has succeeded him, despite God’s promise to make Jeroboam king over Israel (contingent, of course, on Jeroboam following God’s commands, statutes, etc.). Jeroboam returns to Israel from Egypt, and he becomes kind of an activist or opposition leader.

Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel visit Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father … and we will serve you.” Seems reasonable. The NRSV notes indicate these comments refer to the taxes and forced labor necessitated by Solomon’s massive construction projects. After all, as our insightful president observed last week while signing a pork-laden transportation bill, “highways don’t just happen.”

Rehoboam consults with some of the older men who served his father. They advise him to serve the people and speak good words to them, so they will in turn serve him. But what kind of resolute leader heeds his father’s advisers? Especially when they don’t tell you what you want to hear? Instead, Rehoboam follows the advice of the young men who had grown up with him. They suggest adding to the people’s “yoke.” He tells the people: “My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.” Verse 15 explains that “the king did not listen to the people, because it was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfill his word” to Jeroboam. “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.”

Only the tribe of Judah continues to follow Rehoboam; the rest of Israel makes Jeroboam their king. But Jeroboam gets into hot water right off the bat (pardon my mixed metaphors). Worried that the Israelites might revert to the house of David if they continue to go to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices, he makes two golden calves and positions them in Bethel and Dan. “He also made houses on high places, and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not Levites.” He’s violating Deuteronomic law left and right.

I’m guessing things will continue to go downhill in the third section of 1 Kings.

1 Kings, Part I (cont'd): Solomon: Wise and yet not so much

2005-08-12T08:51:00.000-05:00

So Solomon has finished construction of the new temple. Let me rephrase that—he’s finished overseeing its construction (according to Chapter 9:15-22, Solomon conscripted slave labor to build the temple and numerous other structures). The priests install the ark of the covenant in the temple, signifying God’s presence there. They leave the temple, and a cloud representing the glory of God fills the house.

Solomon delivers a prayer/dedication speech in which he refers to God’s fulfillment of his promise to David. He follows this with seven petitions to God, essentially asking that He listen to the prayers of the Israelites when they are truly repentant. The petitions outline a series of circumstances (e.g., drought, famine, battle against enemies) under which they may turn to the Lord for help. Solomon asks, “Let your eyes be open to the plea of your servant, and the plea of your people Israel, listening to them whenever they call to you.” After the petitions, Solomon prays some more, urging the people to comply with the covenant. They all offer sacrifices to God, including 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep (sounds horrible, doesn't it? oy, the disorder and mess!).

With the temple construction complete, God again appears to Solomon. He tells Solomon that He will establish his throne over Israel forever, as long as Solomon follows God’s commands and statutes. If, however, Solomon or his children turn away from God, instead worshipping other gods, He will cut Israel off from the land and cast the temple out of His sight.

That established, Solomon is visited by the queen of Sheba, who had “heard of the fame of Solomon (fame due to the name of the Lord)” and came to test him with difficult questions, similar to the riddle Samson posed to the Philistines. Solomon answered all of her questions, leaving her very impressed and validating his position internationally. The queen and Solomon exchange gifts, and the text goes on to describe Solomon’s many extravagant belongings, such as an ivory throne overlaid in gold and golden drinking vessels. “Thus King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.” Solomon appears to be sitting pretty—surely, he wouldn’t do anything to jeopardize his exalted position, right?

Well, don’t forget that Solomon married the Pharaoh’s wife, violating the earlier prohibition against intermarriage. Yet, God never reacted to that, as far as we read. But then Solomon goes on to love many foreign women from the nations against which God had warned the Israelites. “Among his wives were 700 princesses and 300 concubines.” Among his wives? So he had more than 1,000 wives? Such stamina. Of course, that’s not the point—the point to be taken is that “his wives turned away his heart after other gods.” Worse, Solomon even builds temples to the other gods. Needless to say, God isn’t too pleased. Because Solomon has broken the covenant, He says, “I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand of your son.” Sure—why should Solomon have to pay a price for his sins? Better his son suffer. I suppose I should just be relieved that his wives weren't punished for leading him astray, a la Eve. I can only assume, though, that this punishment wasn’t intended to serve a deterrent function because it almost seems like an incentive. After all, if you can break the covenant and continue to live in style, with the only punishment doled out after your death, why not?

God did, however, raise up a couple of adversaries against Solomon during his lifetime, Hadad and Rezon. And Jeroboam, one of Solomon’s servants, also rebelled against the king. His rebellion came after the prophet Ahijah relayed a message from God: “See, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes.” God notes that He will allow Solomon to rule all his life, “for the sake of my servant David who I chose and who did keep my commandments and my statutes.” [Uh, actually, no, he didn’t –remember Bathsheba and other transgressions?] He tells Jeroboam that he will be king “if you listen to all that I command you … I will be with you, and will build you an enduring house.” Further, God says He will punish the descendants of David, “but not forever.”

Jeroboam becomes a hunted man when Solomon hears of this, but he flees to Egypt. He remains there until Solomon dies and his son Rehoboam succeeds him.

Savage tolerance

2005-08-10T10:38:00.000-05:00

Dan Savage is guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's site, and put up a great post yesterday, in response to some reader mail:

The funny thing about your letter, dear reader, is that you accuse me of something religious people are guilty of. It’s a common tactic. Who recruits? Not the gays. It’s always Witnesses and Mormons at my door. It’s never the gays. When I walk through downtown Seattle I’m accosted by Scientologists, not lesbians.

It’s the fundies, many of them, who want to lock up gay people, not the other way around. For the record: I don’t want to lock up anybody. (Well, not anybody who doesn’t want to be locked up—and even then only for a weekend, tops.) I’m happy to live in a world where Pat Robertson is free to think I’m going to hell, and free to preach as much. I reluctantly battle Robertson because he believes the federal government should deprive me, a tax-paying fellow citizen, of my civil rights and responsibilities, even jail me, because of who I am.

Look, I’m all for free speech, I’m all for persuasion. If Pat Robertson can talk me out of being gay then, by God, I’ll give it up tomorrow. If a “Choose Life” billboard convinces a woman not to have an abortion, that’s great. The problem with Pat is that he wants to compel me to give up being gay, or, failing that, he seeks to deprive me of my civil rights because I’m gay. The problem with the anti-choice movement is that they want the law to impose their beliefs about abortion.

Why, I often wonder, can’t the religious right extend gay and lesbian Americans the same courtesy they extend to, say, adulterers? Or shrimp lovers? Yes, the gays are going to hell—it says so right there in the bible somewhere. It says we should be put to death along with the adulterers and shrimp eaters. But the adulterers and shrimp eaters don’t come in for the same degree of persecution. No attempts to strip them of their civil rights or write them out of the U.S. Constitution. And what about the Jews? They’re going to hell, along with Tom Cruise and his Scientologist pals and Lutherans (if you ask the Catholics) and the Catholics (if you ask the Lutherans). So many hell-bound sinners—and everyone else gets a pass. Fundamentalist Christians seem content merely knowing that everyone else will suffer horribly when we’re all left behind after they’ve been—what is it again? Ruptured or something? They may attempt to persuade others to join them, prior to the rupture, but there’s no attempt to actively persecute. Anyone else. Just us.

Is it too much to ask for gays and lesbians to be extended the same courtesy fundamentalist Christians seem so capable of extending to others? It’s called tolerance—the theme for the day. I’ll tolerate Pat Robertson if he’ll tolerate me. We don’t have to like each other, but we do have to share a continent—at least until the rupture.

1 Kings, Part I: The dynasty begins

2005-08-09T09:52:00.000-05:00

As promised, I'm plunging into the Kings. The NRSV introduction divides 1 and 2 Kings into three sections, with the first one (1 Kings 1-11) covering the end of David's reign and the reign of his son Solomon.

1 Kings begins with a succession story, explaining how the throne passed from David to Solomon. David is old and apparently very ill. His servants bring in a beautiful virgin, Abishag (I’ll resist the urge to pun on her name), to attend to him. His oldest son, Adonijah, jumps the gun and begins making preparations and declaring that he will become king. Joab and Abiathar support him, but Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, and others do not.

Nathan plots to secure the throne for Solomon. He tells Bathsheba what Adonijah has been up to and instructs her to remind David that he had sworn to her Solomon would succeed him as king. She does so, and Nathan backs up her story to David. The king then orders Zadok and Nathan to anoint Solomon king over Israel. After doing so, they blow the trumpet and all the people proclaim, “Long live King Solomon!” Adonijah hears their rejoicing and learns what has occurred. He fears Solomon, but Solomon merely tells him to go home, after saying, “If he proves to be a worthy man, not one of his hairs shall fall to the ground; but if wickedness is found in him, he shall die.”

Before his death, David offers Solomon some advice. He encourages him to keep the law of Moses so that God will fulfill his promise to David that his dynasty will be eternal. He also speaks to him about Joab, who he seems to have turned against. His unhappiness with Joab stems from Joab's murders Abner and Amasa, “retaliating in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war.” [Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, had killed Joab’s brother during wartime; after Joab killed Abner in revenge, David condemned the slaying and made an oath against Joab and his house. According to the notes, Joab killed Amasa because of his delay in quelling a rebellion.] Shimei, who cursed David for killing Saul’s relatives, is singled out, as well, even though David had earlier sworn he wouldn’t kill him. Essentially, it seems David is telling Solomon to murder both Joab and Shimei.

David dies, and Solomon assumes his place. Adonijah visits Bathsheba and asks for her assistance in obtaining Solomon’s permission to take Abishag as his wife. Bathsheba makes the request, but Solomon doesn’t react well: “And why do you ask Abishag for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom as well!” Enraged, he declares that Adonijah should be killed. Solomon tells the priest Abiathar, who supported Adonijah, that he, too, deserves death. Instead, he just banishes him from serving as a priest. The news of Solomon’s actions reach Joab, who figures Solomon is purging Adonijah’s supporters and therefore seeks sanctuary at the altar. Alas, Solomon sends Benaiah to strike him down. Shimei, however, is spared death—Solomon places him under house arrest. Unfortunately, Shimei leaves his premises to search for some lost slaves, and Benaiah strikes him down. Having eliminated these perceived threats, Solomon turns to marriage, taking as his wife the Egyptian Pharaoh’s daughter.

Eventually, Solomon goes to make a sacrifice in Gibeon, where God appears to him in a dream. God asks Solomon what He should give him, and Solomon requests “an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil.” God likes this response and commends him for not asking for a long life, riches, or the death of his enemies. He gives Solomon a wise mind, and also what Solomon didn’t request, “both riches and honor all your life … If you will walk in my ways … I will lengthen your life.” In other words, choose life. Solomon’s wisdom is tested in the well-known story of the baby who is claimed by two women. The story goes the way I remember it—he advises cutting the baby in half, and the woman who was the true mother urges him to just give the baby to the other woman, because she can’t bear to see him killed.

Things go well for Judah and Israel during Solomon’s rule. A prolific king, he composes 3,000 proverbs (surely I won’t have to read them all, right?) and 1,005 songs (ditto). His wisdom “surpassed the wisdom of all the people,” and people came from all over to hear him. Busy as he is, he turns his attention to building a great temple for God. 1 Kings devotes several chapters to its construction, but I'll spare you the details. For the next entry, I'll skip to its "grand opening."

A brief respite

2005-08-06T15:13:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow I run in a half-marathon. I've been training now for 18 weeks, so I've decided to take a little time off to recover. I'm starting by heading up to a resort in Wisconsin tomorrow afternoon, where I've already made appointments for a massage and hydrotherapy bath. After, I'll adjourn to the patio of my room and finally dive into the new John Irving book.

Look for my first entry on Kings by mid-week.

Rick Santorum's morals

2005-08-04T09:09:00.000-05:00

NPR ran an interview with Rick Santorum on Morning Edition today. On the subject of intelligent design, to my surprise, he distinguished himself from Bush a bit, saying that it should not be taught as part of a science curriculum. He spoke instead of teaching about "holes" in the theory of evolution. He really caught my attention, though, with his observation that "if we're the result of chance ... that puts a different moral demand on us--in fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us--than if in fact we are a creation of a being that has moral demands." So people who don't believe in a creator think they can live their lives free from moral demands? That's absurd. Religious faith isn't the only source of morals--atheists have morals, too. Do people really need a creator to know that murder is wrong and that they should help the less fortunate?

I really wonder about allegedly religious people who make such statements. It's as if they're saying they only live morally out of fear of crossing some creator; it converts a moral lifestyle into an insurance policy against divine retribution. If not for the threat of such spiritual payback, they'd be morally corrupt hedonists. In other words, they don't necessarily feel an internal, personal imperative to live morally, or particularly want to, they just think it's a good long-term investment.

I've written previously on my belief that moral behavior is more meaningful when it's the result of genuine reflection and perhaps internal debate, rather than mere thoughtless abdication. Now I wonder if the latter even qualifies as moral behavior. If I don't think adultery is that big of a deal, but I refrain out of a fear of God, my fidelity doesn't really demonstrate a moral on my part. On the other hand, if I remain faithful to my [non-existent] husband because--independent of my belief in God--I feel you should treat other people with respect or I take my marriage vows seriously, I think that would constitute moral behavior.

I think I'm starting to ramble, so I'll cut this off. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with Santorum that only the existence of a creator imposes moral demands on us.

P.S. Santorum also complained that he is ridiculed for making statements like "Parents should spend more time with their children." It's easy to spout such platitudes, but what is Sen. Santorum doing to make that possible? He condemns mothers for working outside of the household, but what is he doing to increase affordable housing, access to health care and education, and the minimum wage? If Sen. Santorum were truly concerned about families, he'd be working on these issues, which represent actual threats to American families, rather than kowtowing to the Religious Right, wasting his energies on distractions like gay marriage, and voting in line with Big Business 94 percent of the time. Morals, indeed.

Pigs must be flying

2005-08-02T08:46:00.000-05:00

I agree with Charles Krauthammer. Just one more reason to never say never.

The Bible in the classroom (redux)

2005-08-02T07:43:00.000-05:00

About three months ago, I wrote about my reaction to a Chicago Tribune editorial that endorsed the teaching of the Bible in public schools. My entry generated some debate, both on this site and on The Grace Pages (see the May 16 entry). My primary concern was that proselytizing would creep in (if not charge in), despite good intentions, and I later cited an abstinence-only program that demonstrated the legitimacy of my concern.

Now comes word of a new elective Bible study class at a public high school in West Texas that again raises alarm. A New York Times article explains that the course was comes under the auspices of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has pursued a 12-year campaign to persuade school boards to institute its curriculum (its Web site states "The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years"). According to the article, "[t]he council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state. But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda ... In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be 'an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles.'" Among other things, opponents says the course gives credence to the idea "that 'documented research through NASA' backs the biblical account of the sun standing still."

The Times article noted a 2003 study of the course in The Journal of Law and Education. It reported the course "suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities" and "fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required." The journal found that even the supplementary materials were heavily slanted toward sectarian organizations: 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations.

As I wrote earlier, I recognize that the Bible plays an important role in history and literature, but I'm skeptical that Bible instruction could consistently be conducted in a strictly non-religious manner. As someone said in the Times article, "The distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible - it has to be taught academically, not devotionally." And I keep coming across evidence that those who push most strongly to have the Bible in the classroom can't resist the temptation to teach it devotionally. That's a problem.

2 Samuel, Part IV: David is worthy, David is worthy

2005-08-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

I’ve finally reached the end of the books of Samuel. The NRSV introduction describes the final section of 2 Samuel as “a miscellany,” including poetry incorrectly attributed to David, lists of his officers and fighters, and some narrative materials.

For example, Chapter 21 begins with a story describing how David dealt with a three-year famine. When David asks God about the famine (one wonders what took him so long), God informs him “there is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.” Apparently, “Saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.” I’m not sure why it was acceptable to constantly battle the Philistines and others but not the Gibeonites. Regardless, David ends up turning over seven of Saul’s sons and grandsons, excluding Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, and the Gibeonites impale them. “After that, God heeded supplications for the land.” The chapter goes on to detail some of the feats of David’s men over the Philistines.

Chapter 22 consists of a poem that David allegedly spoke after God delivered him from enemies; the notes assert that “features of the language show it was composed centuries after his lifetime.” Details, details. The poem comprises three sections. In the first, the writer praises God for saving him from his enemies: “For the waves of death encompassed me, the torrents of perdition assailed me … In my distress I called upon the Lord … He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me; for they were too mighty for me … he delivered me, because he delighted in me.” So this section acknowledges that we’re dependent on God’s mercy to protect us (and possibly that we need to ask for help from Him). Powerful words delivering a sensible message.

The second section (22:21-28) lost me a little, opening with: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.” Obviously, I don’t doubt that God rewards those who follow His way, but something about the words rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it’s hard for me not to insert “self-“ when I hear the word righteousness. I guess I just think that these words are susceptible to twisting and bending. I wish the passage made clear that it’s not enough to keep your own hands clean—that you need to reach out to others with tolerance, compassion, etc. Perhaps it’s implied.

Verse 26 also struck a chord: “With the loyal you show yourself loyal; with the blameless you show yourself blameless.” Clearly, I’m too political-oriented because the first phrase immediately made me think of the Bush administration and how such a principle can be taken too far in general. The second phrase made me think of the children killed in the Old Testament for the sins of their fathers. But I won’t digress down that path again.

The third section describes the writer as conquering warrior. He notes that God “is a shield for all who take refuge in him” and extols the ways in which God has girded him for strength, dealt with his enemies, and made him the head of nations.

This final section of 2 Samuel definitely meanders. Chapter 24 explains “[a]gain the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against then, saying, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.’” Now, this makes it appear that David is acting at God’s behest when he directs Joab to take a census. But then God sends a three-day pestilence because David had apparently sinned in taking the census. Seventy thousand people die, prompting David to say to God, “I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house.” I haven’t been overly impressed with David up to this point, but I respect his position here. He finally seems worthy to me (a great relief to him, no doubt).

2 Samuel concludes with David building an altar to God on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Araunah offers David the building and animals for offerings at no fee, but David insists on paying for them (also admirable). Once the altar is constructed and offerings made, God ends the plague.

Next: 1 Kings

2 Samuel, Part III (cont'd): Another day, another threat extinguished

2005-07-28T09:08:00.000-05:00

We left off with David fleeing Jerusalem in the face of Absalom’s rebellion. He leaves behind the priests Zadok and Abiathar, who will relay messages to David from Hushai. The latter is acting as a kind of double agent in Absalom’s camp.

As David comes to Bahurim, he is confronted by Shimei, “a man of the family of the house of Saul.” Shimei curses David and throws stones at him and his servants. Shimei taunts David, saying, “The Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, disaster has overtaken you; for you are a man of blood.” Abishai offers to kill Shimei for David, but David spares him: “Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my distress, and the Lord will repay me with good for this cursing of me today.” I’m not sure what it is that makes David believe the Lord “has bidden” to Shimei to act in such a way, unless he believes the Lord is behind every man’s act. But if that were the case, shouldn’t David spare every man, no matter his act? Regardless, I’m sure the point to be taken here is David’s restraint in dealing with Saul’s relatives.

Back in Jerusalem, David’s former counselor Ahithophel advises Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines, who were left behind to watch the house. Absalom does so in the sight of all Israel, thereby making a claim to the throne. Ahithophel further counsels Absalom to let him take 12,000 men and set out in pursuit of David, while David is tired and discouraged. Hushai, however, counters this advice and tries to buy David some time. He tells Absalom to gather all Israel together before going into battle against David himself. Hushai informs the two priests of the goings-on. Their sons Jonathan and Ahimaaz, after hiding in a well from Absalom’s servants, reach David and warn him to cross the Jordan.

Eventually, David’s servants do battle with Absalom’s followers, defeating them in the forest of Ephraim, while the king stayed behind. Despite David’s order to “deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom,” Joab kills Absalom after his hair catches him in a tree—as the notes put it, “the cause of his pride now becoming the cause of his ruin.” I think that’s a little simplistic—I’d say there was more to his ruin than his hair.

David goes into mourning when he hears of Absalom’s death. His grief disheartens his troops, who steal into the city “as soldiers steal in who are ashamed when they flee in battle.” Joab scolds David for making his soldiers feel such shame. At Joab’s direction, David makes amends with the soldiers. He then reconciles with the people of Judah, who had followed Absalom, and returns to Jerusalem. As David returns, Shimei comes out and begs for forgiveness. Abishai suggests David put Shimei to death for having “cursed the Lord’s anointed,” but David gives Shimei, a Benjaminite, a pardon (the notes suggest the pardon will later be rescinded and Shimei will be killed).

Sheba, another Benjaminite, turns against David, though. He persuades the people of Israel to withdraw from David and instead follow Sheba, while the people of Judah continue to follow David. David becomes worried about Sheba, so Joab’s men and all the warriors pursue him. Sheba and his followers assemble in Abel, where Joab finds them. His forces begin battering a wall to break into the city when a wise woman calls out to them. She tells Joab: “I am one of those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel; you seek to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel.” Her words give Joab pause, but he must get Sheba: “Give him up alone, and I will withdraw from the city.” The woman goes to her people, “and they cut off the head of Sheba … and threw it out to Joab.” He and his troops withdraw and return to Jerusalem, another threat conquered.

Reading Ratzinger

2005-07-26T18:24:00.000-05:00

I finally finished an article in the July 25 issue of the New Yorker (not available online, unfortunately) that examines Pope Benedict's theological writings over the years. The author, Anthony Grafton, teaches European history at Princeton. He compares "the young scholar, with his passion for learning from the dissidents" with "the imperious prelate whose mission now requires him not only to judge the city and the world from inside the walls of the Curia but also to confront and try to save them." So you know where this is going, right?

Loyal readers (anyone?) will remember some of my fears about the new pope, as expressed here and here. I can't say this article has done much to assauge those fears. While the younger Ratzinger apparently "saw that the core of Christianity was strengthened by the looseness of its external borders" and was perhaps more open to the idea that the church could learn from outside sources, by 1970 he was denouncing intellectuals who confused social reform with Christianity, as well as those who thought all religions equal (God forbid [so to speak]). He told more than 800 priests that only faith--not reason--never errs, adding:

"Surprisingly, this secure vision is often to be found far better established in simple believers than where Reflection is advertised with a capital R. The intellect does not always grant vision, but provides the conditions for intellectual games, and artfully conjures syntheses into existence where there is really nothing but contradiction. This is not rejection of intellect and reflection, but a reference to their limits and to their dangerous corruptibility."

Sure sounds like a rejection to me--rejection and a preference for simple folk who cling to blind faith and orthodoxy. I just can't understand his continuing fear of the exercise of reason, in light of the fact that God gave us that ability. If the church represents God and Jesus, what's to worry about? I suspect that it's not reason as applied to God that is so worrisome, as much as the application of reason to the existence, power, and appropriate role of the church hierarchy. Perhaps Benedict and his ilk seek to preclude the realization that, hey, those guys are only human, too (as if we need more proof of priests' fallibility at this point).

Grafton also claims that, in his book "The Ratzinger Report," the now-pope wrote that by the mid-'80s, the church had learned everything of worth that modernity could teach it. According to Grafton (I searched The Ratzinger Report text on Amazon and couldn't find this quote), Ratzinger wrote:

"The problem in the sixties was to take on the best values that 200 years of 'liberal' culture had produced. For there are values that, though they appeared outside the Church, yet, suitably purified and corrected, have their place in its world-view. And that has taken place."

Very confounding. So there was something to be learned, but a line in the sand has been drawn? Nothing post-'60s offers any values worth the church's consideration or integration with its world view? Hardly the approach that an organization that wishes to remain relevant for the long run should take.

On a similar note, the article concludes by citing the recent news that Benedict had endorsed a German author's attack on the Harry Potter books in 2003. Grafton mentions the pope's fears about the books (namely, that the "subtle seductions"of Harry Potter deeply distort Christianity in the souls of the young) to make the point that Benedict may find it difficult to "take on modernity in all its sprawling strangeness." Snarky, no? When I first heard about Benedict's concerns, my reaction was more simple incredulity at the Vatican's lack of marketing savvy. I had the same reaction to the church's belated response to "The DaVinci Code" (as communicated by a cardinal who served as Ratzinger's deputy), after the book had already sold 25 million copies and counting. How does an organization that takes the time to voice such concerns, while real issues like AIDS, genocide, and war remain unsettled, expect to be taken seriously? I think the church makes a mockery of itself by weighing in on such peripheral matters and only serves to reinforce the perception that it is out of touch.
***
On a completely different note, the same issue of the New Yorker contained a Shouts and Murmurs column titled "My Dog is Tom Cruise" that had me laughing out loud on a crowded train platform Friday afternoon. Enjoy!

I wish I'd written this

2005-07-26T16:50:00.000-05:00

Just came across a great posting on Living Psalm 13. Needless to say, I agree with the author's broad perspective on revelations from God--the Bible isn't the soul (heh, heh--couldn't resist) source of such revelations. I'm also intrigued by the suggestion that the Holy Spirit has, and continues to, provide revelations to us post-Jesus. As Jacob, the author, puts it:

"Most Christians are quite willing to admit that not all the laws given to ancient Israel are still applicable or sufficient. In fact, most of us would be appalled by the barbarism of a society like the one crafted by God himself (as some of us believe) all those years ago. And I'm not talking about the pagan, lawless society that Israel so quickly and repeatedly became - I mean a hypothetical Jewish society based entirely on the laws given to Moses. These laws simply wouldn't work in modern western society. They were beneficial for the time and place, but we've moved past that now.

I can see you all nodding in agreement. But now let me suggest that maybe we've also moved beyond the New Testament's teachings in some areas too. You don't like that? Why? It can't be that the laws given by Jesus are more authoritative - not if the Jewish laws were put in place by the Father. By all accounts, the transcendent God who created the Jewish laws is just as Holy and omniscient as the Son of Man who preaches in the Gospels. So why do we view the Father's laws as transient and the Son's as permanent? Because the Son was the final revelation of God? That makes sense. If there have only been two revelations of God (and his laws) to humanity, it makes sense that our religious and moral lives be defined and contained by the second. But what about that other person of God? You know... the Holy Spirit? (Can you see where I'm going with this?)

Ok, I admit I'm the first to downplay and discount the Holy Spirit and his supposed work in my life. I'm one of those who trusts my own experience and common sense over the Bible, and doing so in this case means that I have very little interest in the Spirit. But supposing I took every word of the Bible to be true, (though of course not your interpretation of every word) I think it still makes hella sense for the Bible not to be the be-all and end-all of Divine revelation. If the revelation of the Law from the Father is trumped by the later revelation of grace from the Son, shouldn't it follow that the present revelation from the Spirit through our consciences trumps the stuff in the Bible? Why should we feel bound to live entirely according to Biblical teachings, especially when the Bible gives little indication of being intended as a divine rule book? Why should we feel obligated to give chapter-and-verse support for every moral conviction we espouse? (Isn't this dishonest - pretending to be building all our morals on the foundation scripture when in reality we're forcing scripture to fit our inherent ethical convictions?) If you really believe that you are indwelt and empowered by God himself, why is your inner voice subservient to the written records of past revelations? Sure, there should be some kind of consistency, but we shouldn't be afraid to own up to the kind of divinely influenced yet culture-specific morality that was pioneered explicitly by God with the "New Covenant".

You want a precedent for the Spirit inspiring shifts in Christian moral thinking? How about the Epistles? Even within a generation of Jesus' death, even when Christians had access through the Apostles to all his teachings (not just the ones found in the canonical gospels), this revelation was insufficient to address all moral and spiritual questions. (No slight to Jesus, it's just that he didn't personally give orders for every possible scenario. How could he? Why would he?) The Apostles, guided by the spirit, took it upon themselves to both interpret the teachings of Christ and add to them, where necessary. They did this for their culture and their issues, so why should we hesitate to do it for ours?I'm not suggesting that we throw out the Bible, any more than the early Church threw out the law of Moses. But let's see it for what it is: books written by men (guided by God) to address the issues of their day, just as we (guided by God) address ours. Let's see it as a reference point, as guidelines, but not as a holy rule-book that transcends all cultures and covers every issue, nor as the final word on any matter.

I'm not suggesting we throw caution to the wind and chase after every hedonistic or idealistic whim, but lets stop seeing God as a stodgy old man who grumps about anything that's changed in the past 2000 years. I love the Bible. The Bible is good. But it shouldn't be the final word."

Wonderful, thought-provoking stuff. Thanks, Jacob

Random thought

2005-07-25T16:43:00.000-05:00

If the Bible is to be interpreted literally, why isn't it called Divine Dictation, rather than Divine Inspiration?

2 Samuel, Part III: A prodigal son

2005-07-25T15:32:00.000-05:00

Chapter 13 opens by telling us about the love of David’s son Amnon for his half sister Tamar. And how better to express that love than to rape her? That’s what he does, with the guidance of his friend Jonadab, after Tamar refuses his advances. Naturally, after he rapes her, he is seized with a loathing for her that exceeded even his lust for her, so he directs his servant to put her out. Tamar ends a desolate woman—according to the notes, that means she is childless and without hope of marriage. David is angered when he hears about all this, “but he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn.” Amnon’s half brother Absalom, on the other hand, silently seethes over the rape of his sister.

Two years later, Absalom avenges his sister by killing Amnon at a feast he threw. David’s other sons also attended the feast, and they flee after the murder. While they are en route home, David hears that Absalom has killed all of his sons. Jonadab clears up the confusion, explaining that only Amnon is dead and why. David mourns the loss of Amnon, and Absalom flees for three years, until Joab, through a bit of subterfuge, persuades David to let him return to Jerusalem. Absalom is allowed to return, but he must stay out of the king’s presence.

Absalom spends two years in Jerusalem, staying out his father’s presence. To read it in 2 Samuel, it was David’s loss because “in all Israel there was no one to be praised so much for his beauty as Absalom.” [I think this is offered to explain how easily the Israelites later come under his spell—just as it happens often today in the U.S., unattractive leaders need not apply. Anyway, Absalom sends for Joab because he wants him to talk to David about their situation. After Joab twice refuses to come see him Absalom decides to get his attention by setting his field on fire. Absalom may be attractive, but it’s beginning to look like he’s not a very nice person. I kind of admired his anger over the violation of his sister, but I’m getting a bad feeling.

Joab does eventually persuade David to see Absalom, and they make amends. Shortly thereafter, Absalom goes about stealing “the hearts of the people” and undermining David. He insinuates himself for four years before going to Hebron under false pretenses and seizing the throne there. He gathers people into his conspiracy, with his ultimate goal being David’s throne, and even draws in Ahithophel, David’s counselor. The news reaches David, forcing him to flee Jerusalem, leaving behind in his household only 10 concubines.

Next: Absalom’s pursuit of David

2 Samuel, Part II (cont'd): Adultery? Murder? No problem!

2005-07-22T08:50:00.000-05:00

Chapter 11 opens with David sending Joab and “all Israel” out to battle, while he remains in Jerusalem. One afternoon, waking from a nap, David spies a beautiful woman bathing—Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (as a child, I thought her name had something to do with the fact that she was bathing when David first saw her, like a nickname of sorts). David sends for her and beds her. As if on an episode of All My Children, she ends up pregnant.

David, as conniving as any soap opera character, has Uriah sent home from battle, in hopes that he will sleep with Bathsheba, thereby covering up David’s paternity. Ironically, Uriah’s loyalty to David and his fellow warriors presents a hurdle—he refuses to go to his house and enjoy himself, instead heeding the ritual regulations of a battle camp that prohibited sexual relations with women (which makes me wonder if sexual relations with men were okay). Frustrated, David schemes to have Uriah killed. He directs Joab to send Uriah to the front line and then draw back, “so that he may be struck down and die.” His plan succeeds, and Joab sends a messenger to update David on the news. David instructs the message to tell Joab not to worry let the matter trouble him but to press on, but you’d think Joab would have a hard time trusting David after this, particularly when David eventually takes Bathsheba as a wife.

Not surprisingly, David’s actions displease God, who sends the prophet Nathan to tell David a parable. The parable, about a rich man improperly taking the lone lamb of a poor man, makes clear that David has wrongly abused his power. This conclusion seems to go over his head, though, because he expresses anger with the rich man, saying he deserves to die. Nathan says, “You are the man!” He repeats God’s words, telling David that “the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken [Bathsheba] to be your wife.” God warns he will raise up trouble against David from within his own house and give his wives to his neighbor. Nathan concludes by telling David that, because of his utter scorn for God, his child with Bathsheba will die.

Sure enough, the nameless child becomes very ill. David fasts and prays and pleads with God to spare him, but the child dies. David then cleans himself up and eats, which surprises his servants because fasting and such behavior typically follow a death, rather than precede it. David says: “Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?” Instead, he sleeps with Bathsheba to “console” her (no comment), and she subsequently gives birth to Solomon, whom God loved.

OK—here’s a couple issues, in reverse order. First, we have another of those cases of a child paying the price for his parents’ transgressions that so trouble me. I can’t help but think that biblical stories like this helped lead to scorn and mistreatment of illegitimate children over the years, which always seemed so unfair to me. It doesn’t help that God then loves Solomon, a “legitimate” child. Are David and Bathsheba any less tainted, just because they’re now married? They’re still sinful, right?

Finally, I think a review of some my past entries would find several incidents of people who received far harsher punishment from God, including death, for seemingly less offensive behavior. Uzzah, for instance, was killed because he had the nerve to steady the ark of the covenant with his hand when it was threatened with tipping over. David, on the other hand, commits adultery and then essentially murders her husband, breaking two commandments, and he not only isn’t killed but also is allowed to keep his ill-gotten wife and together produce a child favored by God. Of course, Uzzah was a merely a foot soldier, while David is God’s anointed king. It seems like even back then, different rules applied to those in the Administration.

2 Samuel, Part II: A potpourri

2005-07-20T10:21:00.000-05:00

The next part of 2 Samuel depicts some events that occur during David’s reign as king, most famously his relationship with Bathsheba.

First, however, it details David’s success in the Philistine wars. God says to David, “Go up; for I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand.” So David kicks some ass but only because of God’s aid. After several victories, David sets out to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. The ark is transported on a cart, and “David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the Lord with all their might” (which leads me to question why some religions forbid dancing—is it because it’s a gateway to sex, like my mom used to say about “French kissing”?). At one point, the unfortunate Uzzah, who apparently was helping move the ark, makes the mistake of touching it; he “reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it.” It seems that he was merely trying to steady it, but he wasn’t ritually prepared to touch such a holy thing. God’s anger is kindled, and He strikes Uzzah down. David reacts with anger and fear, and ends up leaving the ark in the house of Obed-edom.

David changes his mind when he hears God has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him. He brings the ark up to Jerusalem, dancing along the way in an ephod, which makes a scant piece of attire. His wife Michal is disgusted by his behavior and accuses him of vulgar behavior, but David regards his actions as pious self-humiliation in the service of the Lord. The passage concludes by noting that Michal never bore children. The notes assert that this was to show that the blood of the house of Saul (Michal’s father) never mixed with the blood of the house of David.

David enjoys a period of peace and calm for a while. Perhaps out of boredom, he indicates to the prophet Nathan that he intends to build a temple for God, noting that while David lives in a house of cinder, the ark remains in a tent. At first, Nathan encourages him, but then he is visited by the word of God. God basically says He’s okay with the tent for now, and has been for some time. A temple will come, but it won’t be build by David: “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” Now, I assumed this proclamation referred to Jesus, and that the “house” was actually the church or Christianity. The notes, however, say the verse refers to Solomon, as well as the Davidic dynasty in general, which I guess includes Jesus. Still, it really strikes me as an obvious reference to Jesus.

“Some time afterward, David attacked the Philistines and subdued them. Chapter 8 goes on to summarize David’s military achievements. It points out that “the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went.” Talk about an unfair advantage—reading that verse, I found myself analogizing God to steroids.

David is portrayed as more than just a warrior, though. He shows kindness to the surviving heir of Saul, Jonathan’s crippled son, bringing him to live among his court. According to the notes, his status as a cripple is important because it means he’s unlikely to successfully revive his family claim to the throne. But let’s not cheapen the gesture, okay? Especially as the next chapter returns us to the battlefield.

When the king of the Ammonites dies, David sends envoys to console his son. Although his gesture is sincere, the Ammonites view it with suspicion. The son has the envoys seized, humiliated, and sent away. The Ammonites subsequently realize that “they had become odious to David,” and hire some Arameans and others as soldiers. Needless to say, they’re defeated. You have to wonder why these other countries or nations continued to take on Israel. Why don’t they get a clue that they’re totally overmatched? Is it because every once in a while, when God’s anger is kindled because of some transgression by Israel or its leaders, he lets the other side win, or at least escape? Honestly, I think I’m missing the purpose of all the battles, particularly the ones initiated by Israel.

Next: David, Bathsheba, and the relatively light consequences

Summer daze

2005-07-18T15:30:00.000-05:00

Just got back into town after a few days relaxing in Lake Monroe, Indiana. Tons to do, but will try to get back on schedule blogging by Wednesday.

Am I the only one ...

2005-07-14T14:41:00.000-05:00

... who finds it harder to squeeze in blogging in the summer months? Between traveling, baseball games, training, golf, and--oh, yeah--work, how can a gal keep up? I'll tell you one thing--my fiction reading has dropped off significantly for now.

2 Samuel, Part I: David assumes his rightful place, at long last

2005-07-14T14:34:00.000-05:00

1 Samuel ended with the death of Saul and his son Jonathan. David grieves when he hears the news from an Amalekite who comes into his camp. The Amalekite takes credit for killing Saul, under the mistaken assumption that David will reward him. Instead, David orders him killed, respecting to Saul’s end his position as the Lord’s anointed. He follows the execution of the Amalekite by intoning a lament over Saul and Jonathan.

David is soon anointed king of Judah, perhaps as payback for the time he shared his Amalekite booty with the people there. After his anointing, he sends a message to people of Jabesh-gilead, who had buried Saul. He’s essentially reaching out to form an alliance with one of Saul’s main constituencies. But not everyone is pleased about David’s ascent.

Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, installs Saul’s son Ishbaal as king in Transjordan. Judah continued to follow David, leading to a standoff of sorts by the pool of Gibeon. Each side sends forward 12 young men. They all grapple, with the end result that all 24 are killed and all hell breaks loose. Abner takes off, pursued by Asahel. Asahel is relentless in his pursuit, but Abner stabs him to death. Asahel’s two brothers, Joab and Abishai, continue the pursuit of Abner. When they reach the wilderness of Gibeon, Abner manages to convince Joab to drop their pursuit.

Nonetheless, a long war between the houses of Saul and David ensues. Both Abner and David make themselves stronger in their respective houses. Abner, however, apparently can’t resist dipping his pen in the company ink, as they say, because Ishbaal accuses him of sleeping with one of Saul’s harem. Abner reacts angrily and offers his support to David. David accepts his support on the condition that Abner return Saul’s daughter Michal, David’s first wife, through whom David had a claim on the throne of Israel. Abner does so and then sends word to the elders of Israel that he has transferred his allegiance to David and they should do the same. David throws him a feast, and then Abner goes off to encourage the elders to make a covenant with the new king.

Joab hears of the feast and can’t believe his ears. He warns David that Abner is only a spy. Joab then sends messengers after Abner and ultimately kills him to avenge his brother. David condemns the slaying and makes an oath against Joab and his house. He tells his servants that Joab and his other brother “are too violent for me.” I don’t know—David has seen pretty darn violent, too.

Consider, for example, two Benjaminites who murder Ishbaal in order to curry David’s favor. You could say it backfired in a big way. David reminds them that he killed the Amalekite who brought news of Saul’s death and orders them killed, too, referring to Ishbaal as “a righteous man.” His servants “killed them; they cut off their hands and feet, and hung their bodies beside the pool at Hebron.” And this guy is offended by the violence of one avenging the wrongful death of his brother? Puh-leez. But I guess it’s not uncommon for the righteous to pick and choose the types of violence they condone and condemn. Nonetheless, I suppose the greater point of all of this is that David didn’t hold grudges or delight in the fall of his former foes--he was above all that and we should be, too. Easier said than done.

After this diversion, David is anointed again, this time as king of all Israel. Eventually, his army seizes Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusites. This passage (5:6-8) contains some references to “the blind and the lame,” but I find them confusing. It seems like the Jebusites, prior to their defeat, taunt David and his men by saying even blind and lame Jebusites could defend the city against them. After he takes the stronghold, David makes reference to “the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.” Why does he hate them? That’s unclear, but the consequence isn’t: “Therefore it is said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’” I guess literalists would take that to mean the blind and disabled should be prohibited from entering houses of worship. Interesting. And absurd.

So ends the first part of 2 Samuel, and the third section of the combined two books of Samuel.

Sins, bad things, and the next world

2005-07-11T09:06:00.000-05:00

Two parts of Bayou MaMa’s comment to my post about God’s plan particularly caught my attention. First, I really liked the part about people being God’s earthen vessel (“Your friend needs to feel God's love for her through you...you're God's earthen vessel...your arms are His arms of compassion. He does care.”). That’s a wonderful, sensible thought. But I don’t know that I can accept the premise of her next paragraph (“Bad things happen here because our world is tainted with sin. Sin brought into the world sickness, disease, and death. This earth is not our eternal home...if it were, our bodies would be made to last here”), although it certainly seems consistent with what I’m reading in the OT.

Perhaps I’m finding it particularly unsettling because of something I came across online yesterday. In a previous post, I’d briefly mentioned some protesters carrying signs that read “God hates fags.” Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan’s posting “On the Far Right” pointed me to a Web site (or should I say a hate site?) called God Hates Fags (sorry—I just can’t bring myself to link to it, but you can find it easily enough). The site features an entry from last week stating “Thank God for the bombing of London’s subway today,” referring to England as the “island of the Sodomite damned.” The site belongs to a church from Kansas that, by its own description, “engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, etc.” They’ve recently been protesting at the funerals of soldiers who have fallen in Iraq. They blame their deaths on American tolerance of homosexuality, finding these tragedies “explainable only in Scripture light of a sovereign God executing vengeance upon an evil, disobedient, sodomite nation - as with ancient Egypt, Moab, and other empires of old whom God punished with perversity, causing everything they did to go wrong.” And they clearly delight in such deaths, as well as those in London.

Now, I am by no means comparing Bayou MaMa to such hateful, warped people. Her comment about God’s compassion makes it clear that she’s not cut from the same cloth. But I still have trouble buying that “Sin brought into the world sickness, disease, and death.” I don’t want to believe in such a vindictive, vengeful, punishing God, one that would seem all too human. Why would anyone worship or follow such a being? And how can you reconcile that theory with a belief in God's compassion? It strikes me as very contradictory.

Finally, her comment that “[t]his earth is not our eternal home...if it were, our bodies would be made to last here” reminded me of something else I read on Andrew Sullivan’s blog yesterday. In his Quote of the Day for Saturday, Sullivan cited Edward O. Wilson’s book Consilience: “The most dangerous of devotions, in my opinion, is the one endemic to Christianity: I was not born to be of this world. With a second life waiting, suffering can be endured- especially in other people. The natural environment can be used up. Enemies of the faith can be savaged and suicidal martyrdom praised." Again, I cite this not in reference to Bayou MaMa but to people like those Kansas protesters. It’s a thought-provoking observation, I think, equally applicable to a wide range of people—from those who ignore global warming and other environmental issues (despite God’s call for stewardship) to those who look away from poverty and starvation to suicide bombers. Why bother trying to fix things in this world if you're just biding your time until the next?

God's plan?

2005-07-08T10:04:00.000-05:00

I'm heading out the door in a few minutes to go to Michigan for a weekend with the "girls," a tradition dating back to 1992. I'm supposed to pick up one of the younger gals in the crew, a 30-year-old who's pregnant with twins, from her place downtown. I got out for my run really early this morning and was looking forward to calling her when I returned home to say I was ahead of schedule, but instead I found a message from her husband. She's in the hospital and will likely lose both babies. She was just over here last week and seemed so healthy and happy, and they're such good people. I know we're to think things like this (and yesterday's bombings) are all part of God's plan, but do we have to like that plan?

1 Samuel, Part III (cont'd): David stays on the run

2005-07-08T08:51:00.000-05:00

I left off with David hiding from Saul in the Wilderness of Ziph. A group of Ziphites decides to kiss up to Saul by telling him David’s whereabouts. Saul and his troops manage to trap David and are closing in on him when they’re called away to deal with a Philistine raid.

David moves on, but Saul learns of his new hideout and sets out to find him. At one point, Saul goes into a cave to urinate. Unbeknownst to him, David and his men are sitting in the cave. Although his men encourage him to kill Saul, David instead stealthily cuts off a corner of Saul’s cloak. David follows Saul out of the cave and shows Saul the piece of cloth as evidence that he spared Saul’s life. Saul is moved to abandon his pursuit of David (for now, anyway).

Chapter 25 opens with the death of Samuel. After the death, David again sets out for the wilderness. He encounters a wealthy man, Nabal, and his wife, Abigail. Nabal rejects David’s request of assistance for him and his men, so David plans to seek revenge. Abigail intervenes and provides the requested provisions, and David recognizes that her intervention has prevented him for incurring bloodguilt by avenging himself against Nabal. Abigail returns to Nabal and tells him what she has done, but he reacts poorly. In fact, he dies about 10 days later. David steps in, woos Abigail, and marries her, as well as another woman. Apparently Saul gave Michal, David’s first wife and Saul’s daughter, to another man.

Chapter 26 offers a bit of a déjà vu scenario, with the Ziphites again ratting out David’s location to Saul. David hears that Saul and his men are nearby, and finds Saul asleep next to his spear. As he did earlier, David resists the urgings of his men to kill Saul, pointing out that Saul is “the Lord’s anointed” (of course, so is David). This time, David instead steals off with Saul’s spear and water jar. He later calls out to the commander of Saul’s army, taunting him by asking, “where is the king’s spear, or the water jar that was at his head?” Saul recognizes David’s voice and promises not to harm him again because David spared his life.

Saul and David go their separate ways, but David can’t shake his skepticism about their reconciliation. He decides to flee Israel and enters the service of a Philistine king. The king grants David the town of Ziklag in return for his service at arms. David spends his days going out on raids against Israel’s enemies, while the king is under the mistaken impression he is raiding Israel itself. The king even makes David his “bodyguard for life.”

In the meantime, the Philistines are gathering for battle against Israel. Saul grows nervous and seeks out God, but God doesn’t respond. Saul ends up consulting with a medium, who summons up Samuel. Samuel isn’t happy about it, though. He chastises Saul: “The Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David.” Why, you may ask? Because Saul left some Amalekites alive when he conquered them, and God is holding a grudge about it. Samuel goes on to warn “the Lord will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines.” Not to be glib, but this seems like overkill. Assuming arguendo that such punishment is appropriate for Saul’s sin of sparing life (granted, he disregarded God’s instruction), why should all of Israel suffer for his sin? In general, I see a real lack of true justice in the OT so far.

Anyway, David and his men leave Ziklag to join the Philistine forces, but they’re sent back by distrustful Philistine lords. They return to find the Amalekites have raided the town, burning it down and taking captives, including David’s two wives. Upon consultation, God directs David to pursue the Amalekites. En route, David’s men find an Egyptian servant of the Amalekites, who leads them to their prey. Their attack is a success and results in the recapture of all that was missing, aka David’s spoil. Now, some of David’s men had been left behind because of exhaustion. Those who had plunged on ahead argue that the stragglers shouldn’t receive any of the spoil, but David disagrees. He goes so far as to establish a statute proclaiming “the share of one who goes down into the battle shall be the same as the share of the one who stays by the baggage.” Very magnanimous, but a bit of recruiting impediment, I’d think. David also shows the foresight to send some of the spoil to the elders of Judah, perhaps paving the way for him to later assume the kingship there.

1 Samuel concludes with the death of Saul and his sons in battle against the Philistines, presumably clearing the way for David’s promotion at last to king. I can't help wondering why God didn't take Saul's life much earlier. Was David not yet ready to assume the throne? Was God intentionally dragging out Saul's punishment? Am I missing something?

As a sidenote, I’m wondering why 2 Samuel is so named, when Samuel has already died and likely isn’t a prominent player in the book. Details, details.

1 Samuel, Part III (cont'd): David on the run

2005-07-06T08:43:00.000-05:00

Once Saul completely turns on David, he speaks with his servants and his son Jonathan about killing him. But Jonathan intervenes on David’s behalf, convincing his father not to kill him. Jonathan calls David and brings him before Saul, and “he was in his presence as before.” Eventually, though, Saul resumes his plans to kills David. This time, David's wife (and Saul’s daughter) intervenes to save him. David flees and settles with Samuel at Naioth.

Saul sends messengers to Naioth to seize David, but they fall into a prophetic frenzy. Saul sends two more groups of messengers, both of which also fall into frenzies, before going himself. Lo and behold, he, too, falls into a frenzy. David again flees and seeks Jonathan’s help. Jonathan is skeptical that Saul has broken his vow to allow David to live, so he conducts “an elaborate investigation” (per the NRSV notes) and finds it is true. He reacts by making a covenant with the house of David, saying “May the Lord seek out the enemies of David,” presumably including his father Saul.

Jonathan then hatches a plan to save David. He directs David to hide in a field, rather than joining a feast for the new moon. Saul notices David’s absence but doesn’t think much of it (why would he expect David to come to a feast after he has already tried to kill him, anyway?). He does notice on the second day, however, when David again fails to appear. He asks Jonathan what’s going on, and Jonathan lies to his father, telling him David requested permission to visit his family in Bethlehem. Saul reacts with anger toward Jonathan and reminds him that David stands between Jonathan and the king’s throne. He orders Jonathan to bring David to him, “for he shall surely die.” The next morning, Jonathan goes out to the field and sends David on his way—David “got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.”

David travels to Nob, where he encounters the priest Ahimelech and requests provisions. Ahimelech is suspicious but gives David holy bread and a sword after David lies to him, telling Ahimelech he is on a mission for the king (the sword, in fact, is Goliath’s old weapon). At David’s next stop, Gath, he runs into some Philistines who recognize him, so he acts crazy to protect himself. From there, David escapes to a cave, where he becomes a leader of a band of outlaws: “Everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him; and he became captain over them.” With his band, he moves to Judah, as directed by the prophet Gad.

Saul learns that David has been located in Judah. He also discovers that Ahimelech lent David aid. Despite the priest’s explanation that he believed David was loyal to Saul, Saul becomes enraged and orders the massacre of the priests of Nob. Abiathar, one of Ahimelech’s sons, manages to escape, though. He reaches David and informs him of what has happened. David admits that it was his deception of Ahimelech that endangered the priests and takes in the son.

Abiathar found David in the city of Keilah, where God had sent him to fight the Philistines. Abiathar arrived with an ephod in his hand. As Saul approaches Keilah with the intent of killing David, David uses the ephod to obtain guidance from oracles. He learns that the people of Keilah (the very same people he just liberated!) will turn him over to Saul, so he and his men leave. They hole up in the wilderness. “Saul sought him every day, but the Lord did not give him into his land.” One wonders who was running the country while its king was on his misplaced, single-minded mission. I could make an analogy here, but it’s too obvious.

Next: Saul continues his hunt for David

1 Samuel, Part III: David makes an impression

2005-07-04T12:54:00.000-05:00

After the battle against the Amalekites, where Saul failed to utterly destroy them, God regrets having made him king. God sends Samuel out to anoint a new king—David, the youngest son of Jesse the Bethlehemite. When Saul meets Jesse’s family, he first assumes the oldest son is to be anointed, but God tells him, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature … for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Yet I seem to remember much emphasis being put on Saul’s height and handsomeness when he was first introduced. And, in fact, David is described here as ruddy and handsome with beautiful eyes.

David eventually is summoned to Saul’s court to perform as a musician. Saul is being tormented by “an evil spirit from the Lord.”[as a sidenote, I don’t really like the idea of God sending an evil spirit to torment someone—it doesn’t seem very compassionate or, well, God-like] Saul’s servants suggest he bring in a musician to sooth him when the evil spirit is upon him. That’s how David comes to know Saul, who initially loves him greatly.

Chapter 17 tells the familiar tale of David and Goliath. Goliath, a member of the Philistine army, is unusually tall and encased in armor that leaves only his forehead vulnerable. Goliath taunts the Israelites, challenging them to send out a man to fight him. If the Israelite prevails, the Philistines will become the Israelites’ servants; if not, Israel must submit to servitude. Now, this chapter seems to include two stories of how David comes on the scene—either as a warrior with the Israelite army or as a shepherd boy running errands. Either way, David sees the great fear of the Israelites and hears of Saul’s offer of his daughter in marriage to the man who kills Goliath. It’s unclear if the marriage is David’s motive because he also appears disgusted that “this uncircumcised Philistine … should defy the armies of the living God.”

When David’s words reach Saul, he sends for David. Saul thinks David, just a boy, is unfit to take on Goliath. David argues that he has already done battle with lions and bears as a shepherd and “this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them.” He declares that God will save him. Convinced, apparently, Saul offers David his own armor, but David opts for his own staff and sling. As most of us know, he ends up killing Goliath by hitting him on his forehead with a stone, causing the rest of the Philistines to flee.

Jonathan, Saul’s son, subsequently makes a covenant with David, giving him his robe, armor, and sword and bow. David then goes out and, because the Lord was with him, enjoys success in battle wherever Saul sends him. Saul reacts negatively, though, particularly when he hears women singing: “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” Catchy, ay? Stereotypically, Saul becomes pretty jealous of David and begins to take steps to rid himself of David. He sends him to battle, but that plan backfires, as David’s military success makes him even more popular.

Taking another tack, Saul offers David each of his daughters in marriage as part of an elaborate plan to get him killed by the Philistines. Saul instructs his servants to tell David “the king desires no marriage present except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.” Oh, is that all? Contrary to Saul’s assumption, David survives this mission. Saul gives him his daughter Michal as his wife, but he has become even more afraid of his new son-in-law. “So Saul was David’s enemy from that time forward.”

Next: Saul turns on David

Holiday break

2005-07-01T17:18:00.000-05:00

I'm taking a few days off from the Bible. Stay tuned for the rise of David!

P.S. Overheard at today's Cubs game: "I'm Republican, but I think it's so wrong that abortion is a litmus test for the Supreme Court. I mean, I'm Catholic, but I don't think the government should be getting into issues like that." Bless his heart.

1 Samuel, Part II (cont'd): Saul screws up (again)

2005-06-29T18:16:00.000-05:00

Saul spends most of his life fighting the Philistines, but eventually God calls on him to defeat the Amalekites “for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” It seems odd for God to be a grudge-holder, but I suppose this is similar to when Moses appealed to God’s ego (for lack of a better word): If God doesn’t avenge their opposition as He swore He would at the time, He will look weak. Still, does God really worry about such things? Doubtful.

So Saul defeats the Amalekites, seizing their king in the process but utterly destroying all of the people. Saul and the people also spared the best of the livestock and other valuables. But God is angry that Saul violated His command to destroy all of the Amalekites and all of their possessions, and He rejects him as king. Samuel, aware of God’s wrath, finds Saul the next morning in the midst of setting up a monument for himself (you'd think such an act would be condemned but no more mention is made of it). Saul defends himself to Samuel by claiming the livestock was spared to be used for sacrifices to God; Samuel just chastises him for disobeying God, telling him that obedience is superior to sacrifice. I think that’s a good lesson, and one that brings to mind the little debate I got into on Set Free about whether you need to go to weekly services to worship God. I mentioned that I think a significant portion of people who regularly attend services aren’t paying attention. I’m guessing they think being there is enough, and it doesn’t matter what they do the rest of the week—in a sense, they think the important thing is that they sacrifice their one hour a week. Never mind how they act in their daily lives.

Anyhoo, while upbraiding Saul, Samuel also says “stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry.” [After last night’s presidential address on Iraq, it’s hard not to think the administration could learn this lesson.] Saul gets the point and confesses that he succumbed “because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.” A leader who listens to his people—imagine that. He must not know that leaders don’t pay attention to polls. He comes to his senses, though, and asks Samuel to return with him to worship God. Samuel refuses to go, but Saul appeals to him by tearing his robe, a rather strange gesture of supplication, according to the NRSV notes. Samuel says: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal.” Wow—there’s a smackdown for you. Could this be why some people affix so much importance to being resolute?

It gets a little confusing here, though, because the text next has Saul again asking Samuel to go with him to worship God. This time, Samuel agrees, and Saul worships God. Which was it? Either way, Samuel orders Saul to bring him the Amalekite king and proceeds to “hew” him in pieces before God in Gilgal.

Next: The rise of David

Intolerance: It's a good thing

2005-06-28T09:29:00.000-05:00

"Christianity is the most intolerant religion in the world." So says Rev. Ed Ainsworth, an abstinence-only advocate in Texas. And make no mistake--he thinks intolerance is a good thing.

Last night I watched the PBS program "P.O.V.: The Education of Shelby Knox." At the time of filiming, Knox was a public high school student in Lubbock, Texas, a city with some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the nation. Shelby is a devout Christian who has taken an abstinence pledge through Ainsworth's program "True Love Waits." Nonetheless, she sees the need for a comprehensive sex ed program and became a vocal advocate for such a program in her school district.

At one point, she goes to discuss her situation with Ainsworth, and he makes the amazing declaration above. He goes on to say: "You ask me why sometimes I look at you a little funny. It's because I hear you speak, and I hear tolerance." And, in this Christian minister's eyes, that's a bad thing. So, her minister is warning her against tolerance! I'm not surprised by his sentiment, but I am (perhaps naively) shocked by the overtness of his support for intolerance. A minister--an authority figure-- preaching intolerance. It just boggles my mind. And scares me. Of course, this is a guy, mind you, who trots out the old "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line for some kids in the gay and lesbian student alliance. You can imagine his reaction when Shelby becomes involved with them. "Just look in the Bible, " he tells Shelby, who replies that she wishes the Bible was more clear. As she says, she just can't believe that God would send all those good people she's met through the alliance to hell.

Toward the end of the program, as Shelby is shown marching in a peaceful gay rights demonstration (where counter-demonstrators carry signs saying "God Hates Fags" and "AIDS is God's curse"--how very Old Testament), she says: "I think some people, they never get their head out of the Bible to look at the real world ... It's understandable because maybe it's safe, but I think that God wants you to question and maybe do more than just be a blind follower because he can't use blind followers, but he can use people like me." Amen to that.

1 Samuel, Part II (cont'd): Rash acts

2005-06-27T11:43:00.000-05:00

I left off with Samuel turning over the reins to Saul, the first king of Israel. Chapter 13 opens with the Philistines mustering to fight Israel again, so Saul gathers some troops at Gilgal. Samuel tells him to wait there seven days, but, when seven days pass without Samuel’s arrival, the “people began to slip away from Saul.” Saul panics, apparently, because he goes ahead and offers a sacrifice without Samuel. This, he will come to regret.

Samuel arrives and chastises Saul: “… You have not kept the commandment of the Lord … The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever, but now your kingdom will not continue.” Nonetheless, even after such dire news, Saul must prepare to fight the Philistines. This is an especially daunting task because the Philistines control the metalworking—at battle, only Saul and his son Jonathan carry swords or spears for the Israelites.

Jonathan and his armor-carrier sneak away from Saul to the Philistines’ garrison. Jonathan tells his companion that they will know God has given the Philistines into their hand if the guards call them up (as opposed to coming out to them). Sure enough, in a scene that reminds me of the cow-catapult scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the men in the garrison call out to Jonathan, saying, “Come up to us, and we will show you something.” A likely story. But Jonathan and friend manage to kill them and others, setting off a panic in the camp. About this time, Saul’s lookouts notice what’s going on, so Saul and the people rally into battle, taking advantage of the confusion. Israelites who had been with the Philistines or in hiding come out and join the good guys in battle. “So the Lord gave Israel the victory that day.”

A great victory, indeed, but then Saul makes a big mistake by taking a rash oath. He condemns anyone who eats before sundown. Jonathan, unfortunately, is unaware of the oath and eats some honey (I think honey is regarded as a source of strength—I remember Samson consuming some at one point). Troops confront him, and Jonathan points out how the honey has “brightened” his eyes—think, he says, “how much if today the troops had eaten freely of the spoil taken from their enemies?” True, but he doesn’t seem to be honoring his father by pointing this out.

The troops, in a very faint state after striking down the Philistines, end up eating the spoil “with the blood,” which was reserved for God. Saul scolds them for acting treacherously and commands them to roll out a large stone to be used for slaughter—this altar will allow the blood to run out, preempting further sin against God. Jonathan doesn’t escape his father’s wrath, though. After he calls out to God but doesn’t receive an answer, Saul gathers the leaders to find out how sin has arisen that has annoyed God. He says that even if Jonathan is the culprit, he shall die, but no one speaks up. Saul eventually determines Jonathan’s guilt by casting lots and condemns him to death, but the people, recognizing Jonathan’s great contributions, intervene and save him. “Then Saul withdrew from pursuing the Philistines; and the Philistines went to their own place.” How do they always manage to survive in some measure? Can’t they just be vanquished once and for all?

Next: The fall of Saul

Into the lion's den

2005-06-26T10:27:00.000-05:00

I've inadvertently become ensnared in a discussion over on Set Free growing from Songbird's posting about a controversy in the United Church of Christ. I happened to mention that "in general, I tend to think I get more from running by the lake on a Sunday morning than sitting in a church." Rev Ed responded:

"I hate to sound blunt, but if you get so little from being in church on Sunday morning perhaps you should realize that worship isn't to make you feel better. It's to glorify God. If you're looking to get something out of it, you're missing the whole purpose. And that's a horrible thing to miss."

I have to say I was a little taken aback. Someone--a minister, no less--who has never met me and knows nothing about me or my background felt justified in making (inaccurate) assumptions and casting judgment on me. As I replied:

"I'm not looking for worship to make me feel better--I feel pretty darn good as it is. What I meant was that I'm better able to be aware of, and grateful for, the glory of God while being active out in the beautiful world He created than while I'm sitting in church listening the same old service. "

In hindsight, it was probably foolish to try to make the case that worship can take place outside of a church in a forum that seems to be dominated by clergy and seminarians. It's difficult not to suspect some understandable bias against worship that cuts out the middleman. And, yet, I persisted in my efforts after Rev Ed implied I was a "church shopper" looking for a circumstance to make me more comfortable, rather than focusing on God. Again, who does this guy think he is, making such judgment about someone he doesn't know? He goes on to say, "Worship is about God. It is something He deserves. Nothing else replaces it." No argument there--but it seems that Rev Ed defines worship fairly narrowly. It's this kind of judgmental, "my way or the highway" attitude from some clergy that makes the Baha'i approach described below sound so appealing (except, of course, for the homosexual issue). I went back to Exodus and read 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy ... you shall not do any work." It doesn't define "keep it holy," nor does it say anything about visiting a church or temple on the Sabbath.

Another participant, Rev Mommy, wrote: "[A]s a Wesleyan, I believe there are 4 flavors of worship -- outward and inward, both public and private. Without an expression of each of the 4, worship cannot be really balanced or complete." This is one reason that organized religion rubs me the wrong way--I respect her belief on the proper performance of worship, but she doesn't seem to respect mine. How 'bout you remember the Sabbath and keep it holy your way, and I'll do it my way? And if one is superior to the other, well, I'll leave it up to God to decide.

Along those lines, Songbird (a UCC minister) writes that no single form of worship is better than others. As someone wrote in the thread above, I wish I could come worship with her and her people some Sunday. And not to make me feel better. Rev Ed's church, on the other hand--well, I think I'd pass.

Disorganized religion

2005-06-24T18:21:00.000-05:00

Browsing through some entries on Set Free (formerly Martha's Musings, I believe), I came across an interesting entry (dated June 21, 2005) about a controversy in the UCC church over how they define God. To quote:

"A conservative group within the denomination has proposed a resolution for the General Synod (our biannual national meeting) that would ask the delegates to vote to affirm the divinity of Christ or, as they also put it, say 'Jesus is Lord.' ... This resolution would require UCC pastors and seminarians to swear a sort of loyalty oath, affirming the “divinity and Lordship of Jesus.”" The entry inspired several posts about governance-type issues in various denominations, as well as thoughts on the UCC situation.

The more I hear about such problems and see the impact on ministers and the people in the pews (until they're forced out, literally or constructively), the more I think the Baha'i have it right. I wrote an article about one of their temples a couple years ago and interviewed several members. I learned that the Baha'i faith doesn't recognize clergy or sermonizing--it's between you and God. Their temples aren't used for church services but serve as places where people come to pray and connect with God on their own, perhaps while listening to Scripture readings or music.

Baha'u'llah, the founder of the faith, taught the elimination of all forms of prejudice, education for all people, harmony between science and religion and the elimination of extremes between poverty and wealth. He emphasized the unity of God, the unity of prophets and the unity of mankind. Instead of rejecting other faiths, Baha'is believe in "progressive revelation," i.e., that all major religions are successive stages in God's plan to educate humanity through divine messengers. In other words, God at different times has sent different messengers to unify mankind. One of my sources compared the progression through prophets such as Abraham, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus Christ and Muhammad to moving through school: "The first grade teacher knew what you needed to know in sixth grade, but you couldn't understand it yet." Similarly, each prophet was limited by the maturity of mankind during his time. It seems obvious that the latest social teachings couldn't have been made 1,000 years ago, after all--
stem cell research, anyone?

So Baha'is believe that "there is one God, that all humanity is one family, and that there is a fundamental unity underlying religion. They recognize that the coming of Bahá'u'lláh has opened the age for the establishment of world peace, when, as anticipated in the sacred scriptures of the past, all humanity will achieve its spiritual and social maturity, and live as one united family in a just, global society." That sounds pretty good to me. But then there's that rule against alcohol ... And backbiting ...

P.S. I don't in any way mean to disparage all clergy. I know plenty of clergy do good and valuable work.

1 Samuel, Part II: The premiere of Dynasty in Israel

2005-06-24T12:05:00.000-05:00

The second section of 1 Samuel covers the onset of kingship in Israel, as the Israelites demand a king. At the time, Samuel is an old man. His sons have become judges, too, but they are corrupt and thus unqualified to succeed their dad. The notes interpret this detail as a subtle warning against dynastic succession, ironically offered just before the description of the ascent of Israel’s first king. I think they might give the author too much credit, but, if they’re correct, that would certainly qualify as a suspicion of kingship and dynasties.

God isn’t a big fan of the king idea, either. He realizes the people aren’t rejecting Samuel—they’re rejecting God from being their king and/or selecting their leaders. So God instructs Samuel to warn the Israelites about the negative things they can expect from a king, such as the taking of their sons and daughters to serve him, the taking of their assets, etc. As Samuel tells them, “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you …” The people are undeterred, though, and continue to demand a king. For some reason, God acquiesces.

Saul is introduced in Chapter 9, with verses that focus on how tall and handsome he is—the relevance, I don’t know, although they do say height is connected to success (full disclosure: I'm 5'11".). We meet Saul as he searches for some strayed donkeys. Having no luck, Saul wants to turn back because he thinks his father will become worried about him. His servant resists, telling him “there is a man of God in this town” and that everything he predicts come true. He urges Saul to visit the man of God, Samuel, to get his thoughts on the journey they are on. In the meantime, God reveals to Samuel that Saul will appear and should be anointed ruler over the Israelites: “He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have seen the suffering of my people, because their outcry has come to me.” Apparently, He has gotten over His anger about their demand for a king. Yet, He will soon destroy their harvest to drive home how wrong it was for the Israelites to demand the king He is providing them to save them from the Philistines. My head is spinning a bit here.

Anyway, when Saul arrives, Samuel basically tells him not to worry about the damn donkeys—he’s going to be king—which only confuses Saul. Saul is treated well at dinner and in the quarters he’s assigned. The next morning, Samuel secretly anoints Saul. Samuel tells Saul that, among other things, he will soon come across a band of prophets “in a prophetic frenzy.” Saul will be seized by the spirit of the Lord and “be turned into a different person.” [I find myself wanting some elaboration here--how has he changed?]

All of Samuel’s predictions for Saul transpire, and Saul returns to his home after the prophetic frenzy but doesn’t mention his new kingship. His kingship is revealed to the people as the result of a lottery. Shortly after the lottery, Saul leads the Israelites in defeating an Ammonite army and liberating some oppressed tribes. The victory brings around Saul’s doubters, and the people make Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. Samuel then turns over responsibility for leading Israel to Saul, while promising to continue to perform certain duties.

This might be kind of a stretch, but I can't help seeing some parallels between Saul and George Bush. Samuel telling Saul to forget about the donkeys because he's going to be king reminds me of Karl Rove and his dismissals of liberals and Democrats, aka donkeys (or asses, depending on your POV). Saul undergoes a prophetic frenzy and becomes a different person before assuming his kingship; Bush claims that discussions with Billy Graham put him on the path to God. Saul's kingship is revealed to the people by a lottery; Bush's presidency comes from a Supreme Court decision. Saul wins over his doubters by leading the Israelites in war; public support of Bush soars after 9/11, as he becomes a wartime leader. Of course, as we read in the next chapters, Saul's impatience and stubbornness ultimately bring him down, and Bush has managed to escape his fate thus far.

Forgive my Friday afternoon digression; back to the Bible. In his final address, Samuel warns the people and their king to follow God; otherwise, “the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.” And he has another lingering point to make. His speech is made on the day of wheat harvest, and he calls upon God to send thunder and rain so that the people “shall know and see that the wickedness that you have done in the sight of the Lord is great in demanding a king for yourselves.” When God delivers as requested, the people beg Samuel to pray for them, “for we have added to all our sins the evil of demanding a king …” Samuel tells them not be afraid, but to serve God with all their hearts because he has done great things for them. Nonetheless, he concludes, “if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king.” Ominous, I’d say.

Next: Saul screws up

1 Samuel (Part I, cont'd): The ascent of Samuel

2005-06-22T08:30:00.000-05:00

I left off with Hannah turning Samuel over to the priest Eli. Eli has his own two sons, but they’re “scoundrels” with “no regard for the Lord or for the duties of the priests.” They even went so far as to treat offerings of the Lord with contempt. Samuel, on the other hand, acts well while ministering before God. Eventually, an elderly Eli learns of his sons’ transgressions. He says to them: “If one person sins against another, someone can intercede for the sinner with the Lord; but if someone sins against the Lord, who can make intercession?” That line confuses me a bit, as Moses and others interceded with God on behalf of the sinning Israelites on numerous occasions.

As Eli perhaps suspected, his entire family will suffer because of his sons’ misdeeds. A man of God informs Eli that a time is coming when God will cut off his strength and the strength of his ancestor’s family, so that no one in the family will live to old age. The fate of the two sons “shall be the sign to you—both of them shall die on the same day. I will raise up for myself a faithful priest.” Samuel, right? Nope. Samuel has bigger fish to fry—he evolves into a full-fledged prophet after God calls him.

Samuel, still a boy, had been ministering under Eli when God calls out to him three times. When Samuel realizes it’s God calling to him, and not Eli, he acknowledges Him. God tells Samuel he is “about to do something in Israel that will make both ears of anyone who hears of it tingle” (pretty colorful writing, I thought). God is referring to the impending fulfillment of his warning to Eli about what will happen to his family. Samuel hesitates to share his vision with Eli, for obvious reasons, but Eli insists on it, and then accepts his fate. As he grows up, “all of Israel … knew that Samuel was a trustworthy prophet of the Lord.”

That’s well and good, but, predictably, the Philistines rise up again to cause more trouble for the Israelites (there’s no indication that God is punishing the Israelites this time). The Israelites fare poorly initially, so they bring the ark of the covenant to the battle site to rally the troops. Bad idea—the Philistines prevail and capture the ark. When Eli hears of its capture, he collapses, breaks his neck, and dies, joining his sons, who were killed in the battle.

The Philistines come to regret stealing away with the covenant. It’s moved from city to city, no city wanting to keep possession of it because it seems to bring God’s wrath down wherever it stays. The Philistines consult with the priests and the diviners, who advise them to send the ark away but to return it with a guilt offering of five gold tumors (really, molds of tumors) and five gold mice (same deal). They ask: “Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?” Well, technically, God hardened the Egyptians' and Pharaoh's hearts, but I guess they couldn’t know this.

The ark is returned to Beth-shemesh, and its people mostly rejoice. A group of people didn’t rejoice, though, inciting God to kill 70 men. This upsets the people, so they send the ark to Kiriath-jearim, where it resides for 20 years. I’m not sure why, but “all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord.” Had God abandoned them because of the incident at Beth-shemesh? Had they again broken the covenant? It’s unclear to me, but the latter seems to be the case.

Samuel instructs the Israelites to cast aside false idols if they wish to return to God with all their hearts, and they do so, serving only God. Samuel gathers all the people at Mizpah, so he can judge them. But the Philistines learn of this and attack. The Israelites plead with Samuel to pray to God to save them. It works: “the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.”

Next: The rise of Saul as king (with an implicit warning against dynastic succession—are you listening, Jeb?)

Hope for moderate Christians

2005-06-20T18:33:00.000-05:00

Just a quick plug for an affirming, encouraging op-ed piece I just read in the New York Times. Written by, of all people, a former Republican senator from Missouri (and current Episcopalian minister), the piece is based on the "Love Commandment." It draws support for the values and principles of moderate Christians from this commandment, while connecting the increased political activity of the Christian Right in recent years with the collapse of effective bipartisanship. Worth a read.

2 Samuel (Part I): The hand of God

2005-06-20T08:36:00.000-05:00

The NRSV introductory notes to 1 Samuel divide the two books of Samuel into five narrative sections, “followed by a miscellany of assorted materials.” They emphasize that many of the stories in the first book and, to a lesser extent, the second are editorially influenced by a point of view that regards kingship with suspicion, “while looking to the prophet as the one who can provide a check on royal abuses of power and serve as an avenue through which the divine can be expressed.” I noticed this bias in the very first section.

The first section introduces Samuel, who will act as a transition between the time of judges to a time of monarchy. Samuel is born of Hannah, as her first child. Hannah and her husband had no children for some time, but her husband did have children with his second wife. The second wife would mock Hannah about her barren nature. One day when Hannah and her husband are visiting the temple where Eli is a priest, Hannah weeps and prays, pleading with God for a male son. Eli overhears and, once he realizes she isn’t drunk (no joke there—that was his first impression), he tells her God will grant her petition. Sure enough, she bears Samuel. After he’s weaned, she leaves him with Eli, “for the Lord.” She'll have five more children, but she doesn't know that yet, so this is an admirable sacrifice on her part.

At this point in the book, the reader finds the song of Hannah. The notes describe it as an ancient poem of thanksgiving “not likely to have anything to do with the story of Hannah and Samuel originally.” The poem focuses on divinely initiated changes of fortune, such as formerly barren Hannah giving birth. One of the first verses (2:3) says, “Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” [emphasis added]. The notes theorize that this means the Lord pays attention to human circumstances, weighs them, and, when necessary, sets them in balance. This caught my attention because of some thoughts I’d had on Saturday.

This is kind of lame, so I hesitated to share it, but then I read the poem. Saturday in Chicago was a beautiful day, and a perfect day to run or play golf, both of which I did. At the course, they let us play even though I had screwed up the tee time reservation (on the positive side, I already have a tee time for next Saturday now), and we had no one behind us, rushing us, or ahead of us, slowing us down. We were done so quickly, I had time to head across town to catch a movie. I even had time to swing by a burrito house and stop in a running store. As I pulled into a free parking spot right near the theater, I thought, “Wow, God, thanks. What a great day.” That was immediately followed by the dismissive thought, “Yeah, God is spending His time arranging your day like that, making sure you have a parking spot. He doesn’t have bigger issues to deal with.”

Obviously, you can never go wrong giving thanks, even for insignificant things, but are we really to believe that God directs the daily minutiae of everyone’s lives? That He’s controlling the traffic on Lake Shore Drive, as well as dealing with situations like Darfur (or not, depending on your perspective)? Isn't it contradictory of me to doubt the Bible's writers were divinely inspired (or, at least, that every word literally came from God's mouth to their ears) but to entertain the notion that God controls the minor things that can make or break my day? Well, maybe not, as my main objection to the theory of divine inspiration is the corollary that the Bible is thus to be interpreted literally.

But I also wonder if such random thoughts of thanks constitute irrefutable proof that I believe in God. They come to me with some regularity, unbidden, so does that reveal a certifiable belief on a subconscious level, despite my occasional conscious bouts of uncertainty? Or am I subconsciously covering my bases? If so, God can no doubt see through that, so am I actually hurting myself in His eyes? Am I the only one who struggles with such thoughts? If you think about it, I'm essentially questioning my own motives. Kind of odd, I'd say.

Such a digression. I'll get back to 1 Samuel, and its bias against kings, next time.

Ruth: Girl power!

2005-06-17T15:23:00.000-05:00

The book of Ruth tells a pleasingly brief story, and the introductory notes describe it as “one of the most beautiful pieces of literature in the Bible.” It focuses on a family, rather than the nation of Israel, and stresses loyalty and family continuity, which I suppose are in turn critical to the continuity of Israel. What’s interesting to me is that it’s primarily women who achieve these laudable goals. Throughout the OT, women—when given the chance—prove themselves quite capable of serving God, beyond acting as a vessel for children. It’d be nice to see this receive appropriate recognition these days, particularly in the Catholic Church.

Anyway, the story begins in the time of the judges. Naomi, an Ephrathite living in Moab (as a sidenote, I’m starting to wonder why the different tribal identities are so significant—wouldn’t it be better if they were just one big, happy tribe, without nationalistic divisions?), lost both her sons and her husband. She was left with Orpah and Ruth, her Moabite daughters-in-law. When she decides to return to Judah because she heard “the Lord had considered his people and given them food,” Orpah and Ruth want to join her. She urges them to return to their own families, but Ruth won’t be dissuaded from staying with her mother-in-law, going so far as to adopt a new people, faith, and ethnic identity.

Ruth also offers to go out to the fields and gather the grain left by harvesters for the poor (also known as “gleaning”). She ends up in a field owned by Boaz, a kinsman of Naomi’s late husband. When he learns her identity, he grants her special favors, such as food and drink, protection from the harvesters, and expanded gleaning privileges. He is clearly moved by all she has done for Naomi, telling her, “May the Lord reward you for your deeds.” When Naomi hears of Ruth’s work at Boaz’s, she informs her of their relationship and encourages her to continue working his field.

Naomi then goes into matchmaker mode to find Ruth a husband. She advises Ruth to visit Boaz as he works on the threshing floor at night: “When he lies down … go uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.” She does so, making clear her desire to marry him, but there’s a catch. Boaz, it turns out, isn’t Naomi’s closest kinsman; another is more closely related. Boaz must find out if that kinsman will marry Ruth. The closer kinsman declines, leaving the door open for Boaz to marry her, as well as purchase a parcel of land Naomi’s husband owned in Moab. So Ruth marries Boaz, allowing Naomi’s family to continue when Ruth gives birth to a son, Obed (the eventual grandfather of David).

I noted that the community blesses the marriage by saying: “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.” Rachel and Leah, however, have gotten little to no recognition in the OT beyond their own stories. Yet, here, they seem to receive praise for their important roles—their husbands aren’t even mentioned. Makes me wonder about the author. Unfortunately, the introduction makes no mention of the author, unlike most of the books so far.

Judges, Part IV (cont'd): What's love got to do with it?

2005-06-15T08:47:00.000-05:00

The book of Judges concludes with a civil war within the Israelites. The war’s roots can be traced to a gang rape that occurred in Gibeah. The victim was the concubine of “a certain Levite.” The two of them had come to be spending the night with an old man who lived in Gibeah. They were traveling from Judah and the Levite opted not to stay in Jebus, “a city of foreigners,” instead choosing to travel on to Gibeah, which was part of the tribe of Benjamin. Big mistake.

Similar to the story of Lot, the men of the city, described as “a perverse lot,” surround the old man’s house, ordering him to turn over the Levite “so that we may have intercourse with him.” Being a hospitable host, the old man instead offers them his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine: “Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” So ... homosexual rape, bad; heterosexual rape, okay? This does seem to condemn homosexual behavior, but it also appears to condone heterosexual rape. And, again, children (especially daughters) are treated as currency and given no protection. But they’re expected to honor their father?

The rape of the concubine (after the Levite “put her out to them”) does at least elicit some outrage on the part of the Israelites. The Levite stirs them up by cutting her body into 12 pieces and sending the body parts throughout all the tribes. Considering his, at best, acquiescing role in her fate, you’d think he wouldn’t want to draw attention to it. The Israelites (except the Benjaminites) gather together, and the Levite tells them the lords of Gibeah rose up against him and intended to kill him; he, of course, takes no responsibility. The Israelites decide to repay Gibeah for the disgrace they had done. They also swear that none of them will let their daughters marry a Benjaminite.

At this point, God comes on the scene, after a bit of an absence from the narrative. After making offerings and sacrifices, God defeats Benjamin before Israel. Some of the Benjaminites, however, escape and go into hiding. The Israelites eventually take pity on them and try to devise a way to provide them with wives to prevent the tribe from becoming extinct. Fortunately, no one from Jabesh-gilead had been at the assembly where the Israelites swore not give the Benjaminites their daughters as wives. And they found 400 virgins there! But, alas, the Benjaminites needed more than that. So the Israelites instruct them to lie in wait in vineyards outside of Shiloh for young women to come out to dance in a festival. “The Benjaminites did so; they took wives for each of them from the dancers whom they abducted.”

I recently heard an author interview on NPR about the history of marriage. Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage," noted that, for thousands of years, marriage wasn’t about love. I guess these marriages to ensure the survival of the tribe of Benjamin make a good example of that. She said that it’s only been in the past 30 years or so that love entered into it. Love seems like such an obvious prerequisite for marriage now that it makes it difficult to keep things in perspective when reading about these ancient times. It makes you grateful to live in these relatively enlightened times, though.

I’m definitely ready to read the book of Ruth, which I understand to feature some notable achievements by women.

Judges, Part IV: Idol worship without consequences?

2005-06-13T14:16:00.000-05:00

The final section of Judges covers the migration of the tribe of Dan and the onset of a civil war against Benjamin. Within this section, the author twice notes that “in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” Sounds ominous.

It begins by introducing Micah, who is returning 1,100 pieces of silver to his mother (the same amount of silver each Philistine lord gave Delilah for betraying Samson). She takes some of the silver to a silversmith to have it made into an idol. Micah builds a shrine in his home and installs his son as a priest. Eventually, though, Micah takes in a young Levite, and he becomes the priest. Micah says, “Now I know that the Lord will prosper me, because the Levite has become my priest.” It doesn’t exactly work out that way.

The tribe of Dan, wandering around and looking for a territory to settle in, sends some spies to check out various lands. While staying at Micah’s house, the spies ask the Levite who he is and what he is doing there. When he tells them he is Micah’s priest, they ask him to inquire of God whether their mission will succeed; the Levite assures them it will.

The spies move on to the land of Laish, populated by quiet and unsuspecting people living with wealth on good land. They report back to the Danites and spur them on to possess the land, telling them God had given it to their hands. First, though, they take over Micah’s place and take the idol and other pieces. They also persuade the priest to come with them. The Danites then conquer Laish and set up the idol for themselves.

It seems strange to me this story just ends there. Unlike previous stories in Judges, there’s nothing about the Danites falling into oppression or paying, essentially, for worshipping this idol. Are we to think God was ambivalent about such conduct this time? It would be understandable if this cyclical game had grown tiresome to Him, but I think it’s odd that this transgression has no consequence. It breaks with much of what I’ve read so far.

The book of Judges then segues to the civil war. I’ll cover that in my next entry.

Judges, Part III (cont'd): The rise and fall of Samson

2005-06-10T11:48:00.000-05:00

Samson is introduced as the son of Manoah and his unnamed and barren wife. Like Mary, she is visited by an angel, who informs her she will bear a son. The angel warns her to avoid wine, strong drink, and unclean food, rules typically followed by Nazirites, and also instructs her not to cut her son's hair, another practice of the Nazirites. “It is he who shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines, where they have again ended up after breaking with God," the angel says.

When Manoah hears of the angel’s visit, he begs God to send the angel again to tell them what to do concerning the boy to be born. The angel visits the woman while out in a field, and she brings her husband out to see the angel. He asks the angel, “[W]hat is to be the boy’s rule of life; what is he to do?” The angel tells him to just let his wife heed the previous instructions. Later, when Manoah realizes it was an angel that had appeared, and not just a man, he freaks out, telling his wife they will surely die for having seen God. His wife keeps her head about her, reasoning that, “If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things …” So she gives birth to Samson, and God blesses him.

When he grows up, Samson insists on marrying a Philistine woman. His choice wasn’t well-received, but “he was seeking a pretext to act against the Philistines.” Before the marriage, though, Samson has a run-in with a lion, which he tears apart with his bare hands. When he subsequently comes across the carcass, a swarm of bees has moved in, and Samson takes some of their honey for himself and his parents (according to the NRSV notes, “honey was regarded as having the potential to enlighten and to give courage”).

Samson’s first marriage doesn’t last for long. At a feast, he poses a riddle involving the lion and honey to some companions, giving them seven days to explain it. Having no luck after three days, they turn to his wife: “Coax your husband to explain the riddle to us, or we will burn you and your father’s house …” She attempts, initially without success, to pry the answer from him. He succumbs to her nagging on the seventh day, but becomes angry when he realizes she revealed the riddle to the companions. He kills some men, and his wife’s father gives her to Samson’s best man.

Some time later, Samson destroys some of the Philistines’ fields and groves. They assume his action is revenge, based on the giving away of his wife, so they burn the wife and her father. Nonetheless, Samson single-handedly conquers a Philistine military unit using a donkey’s jawbone as a weapon, and he goes on to judge Israel for 20 years.

But, of course, the most familiar story regarding Samson involves his relationship with Delilah. After he falls in love with her, Philistine lords approach her to convince her to find out “what makes his strength so great, and how we may overpower him.” If she does this, they each will give her 1,100 pieces of silver. Like his wife’s attempts with the riddle, Delilah meets with little success initially—Samson misleads her three times. Per the notes, “[w]hile Samson teases, Delilah pouts and pesters. Samson is trapped into squandering his great strength, unable to believe that she would betray him.” He tells her his secret and says that his hair has never been cut.

Delilah passes the information on to the lords. They bring her the money, and then she calls a man to cut Samson’s hair while he sleeps on her lap. He begins to weaken, and the Lord leaves him. The Philistines seize him and gouge out his eyes. They put him into forced labor at a prison, but foolishly allow his hair to grow back. When they bring him out to perform for them at a festival for their god, God gives Samson the strength to get revenge. He pulls down the house, killing the lords and everyone in it, as well as himself. “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life.” I’m sure there’s some significance in this, but it’s not immediately apparent to me.

Really, I’m a little unclear on the overall message to be gained from Samson’s story. Delilah’s actions don’t exactly help the cause of women, but I doubt a mistrust of women is the point. Aha—I just went back to Chapter 16 and noticed the verses about how Samson slept with a prostitute prior to meeting Delilah. I suppose it’s possible that this impure act, in contravention of his Nazirite vows, led to his downfall. The cutting of his hair also would violate those vows, but he didn’t actually do that himself. So, I guess I have a vague grasp of the point here, but I don’t really understand why this story has achieved the acclaim that it has. It doesn’t seem all that noteworthy, to be honest, especially in the context of the Israelites’ repeated transgressions.

Interesting juxtaposition

2005-06-10T10:26:00.000-05:00

Scanning the Tribune's headlines online this morning, I come across "Gay pride under pressure." As more corporations back acceptance in the workplace, the article says, religious conservatives are pressuring them to reverse the trend. The article was triggered because two conservative religious groups have targeted Kraft and Harris Bank for their contributions of $25,000 each to the 2006 Gay Games, which will be held in Chicago (I was happy to see an editorial in the Trib this week condemn the campaign as intolerance). According to the Trib, Randy Sharp, director of special projects at the American Family Association (I'm always suspicious of such ambiguous titles at these types of groups), called the games "unnatural acts" and said the AFA was "surprised to see Kraft support the lifestyle of homosexuality." Now, he said, "if I go buy Kraft mac and cheese, I'll know that part of my dollar is going to sponsor Olympic-type games for men that have sex together."

Shaking my head and switching over to TPM Cafe, I read Annie Lamott's first posting on that new site. She makes an observation that really rings true, particularly in light of the above story: "You KNOW that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people that you do." Food for thought.

I like the trailer

2005-06-08T18:28:00.000-05:00

I'm a long way off from the reading the New Testament (about 60 or so books, if my count is right), but this posting today by Andrew Sullivan certainly makes me look forward to it. He's writing in the context of the pope's most recent condemnation of gay marriage and birth control, which he says run contrary to potential procreation. Sullivan's intriguing response:

"Perhaps the most insistent teaching of the Catholic church today is a conception of family life. Apart from priests, nuns and homosexuals, the call to procreative marriage has been put at the very center of what it means to be a faithful Catholic. As you see in that passage above, the very Incarnation is deployed to defend marriage and procreation as a central human goal. And yet, when you read the Gospels, you find something very strange. Jesus barely mentions marriage. He never married. He demanded of all his disciples that they abandon their own families and wives, without even saying goodbye. He was openly contemptuous toward his own mother and father in adolescence and early adulthood. His fundamental response to adultery was forgiveness of the adulterer and suspicion of the morally superior. His contemporaries must have regarded him as illegitimate, since he was conceived out of wedlock. So this illegitimate, single man who broke up family after family, whose closest female friend was a childless former prostitute, who scandalously stayed alone in the home of two unmarried women, who offended every family value of the time ... has been turned into the chief architect of "family values!" I'm not saying that building families is something alien to Christianity. We are not all called to wander through the fields preaching salvation and telling people to abandon their spouses and children. I'm not saying that procreative marriage isn't a glorious thing. What I am saying is that the over-powering fixation on marriage, family life and procreation has overwhelmed the deeper and more unsettling priorities that Jesus obviously stood for and proclaimed. The gulf between the priorities of the Gospels and those of the hierarchy of the Church on this score is both wide and deep. To coin a phrase: How can they have gone so wrong?"

Wow--powerful stuff. As a single woman in her late 30s, with marriage looking unlikely (doesn't the pseudo-research say I'm more likely to be the victim of terrorist attack?) and procreation even more so, I have to say that the Catholic Church's priorities make me wonder where I would fit in. Fortunately, to the extent I ever think about finding a church, Catholic churches aren't even candidates. A shame, too--I've got two within blocks of my home. But I'd need someplace that values the non-procreative contributions I can make to the world.

Texas: "We don't need no stinkin' separation of church and state"

2005-06-08T11:44:00.000-05:00

I'm a little behind the curve in bringing this to attention, but the Texas governor on Sunday (so much for honoring of the Sabbath) signed legislation further restricting abortion in the gym of the Calvary Christian Academy, a tax-exempt evangelical institution (the initial plan called for it take place in the actual church, but that drew too much criticism). He also signed a totally unnecessary, and thus purely political, resolution to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, commenting about gays that "Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that's a better place for them to live." Nice.

Putting aside the substance of the legislation and resolution, when did it become acceptable for elected officials to conduct official business in forums intended only for one religion? The event understandably drew protesters, and a pastor dismissed them by saying, "There are those that would drive people of faith from the public square if they could." So now an evangelical school is the public square? Speaking in the public square is one thing; commandeering it is another.

A spokeswoman for the governor said, "It's not a separation of church and state issue -- it's not limited to people of one faith." Did I mention the governor's political campaign originally planned to tape the event to use it for commercials? To generate big crowds, the campaign sent an email to religious groups saying, "We want to completely fill this location with pro-family Christian friends who can celebrate with us." But, really, it's not limited to people of one faith. I'm sure a Muslim would have been very welcome.

Theocracy, here we come.

Judges, Part III: The cycle continues

2005-06-08T07:51:00.000-05:00

The third section of Judges (as randomly demarcated by me) touches on a couple of so-called “minor judges,” Tola and Jair. Between them, they judged Israel for 45 years, prior to the rise of Jephthah. Jephthah comes along after the Israelites yet again abandon God, spurring Him to turn them over to the hand of the Philistines and Ammonites for 18 years. They eventually come crying to God and put away the foreign gods they’d been worshipping, and “he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer.”

Jephthah is introduced as a mighty warrior and the son of a prostitute. When his half brothers (the sons of Gilead and his wife) grow up, they send Jephthah away. He hooks up with some outlaws and goes raiding. When the Ammonites make war against Israel, the elders of Gilead ask Jephthah to come and act as their commander. He tells them he will be their head if God gives the Ammonites over to him.

So Jephthah goes with the elders to fight, but he first attempts some diplomacy with the Ammonites, which I think is an interesting development--it seems like the Israelites generally just charge ahead. He sends messengers to their king to ask why the Ammonites are fighting the Israelites. The king responds that the Israelites, on coming from Egypt, took his land; he now seeks to restore it. Jephthah dispatches messengers to the king again, this time to deliver a message that recounts some of the history of the Israelites’ journey from Egypt. The message concludes: “It is not I who have sinned against you, but you are the one who does me wrong by making war on me. Let the Lord, who is judge, decide today for the Israelites or for the Ammonites.” But the king doesn’t heed the message.

Jephthah gears up for war with Ammonites by making a vow to God: “If you will give me the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious …, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.” Huh? He’s basically offering one of his family members as a sacrifice to ensure God’s help in conquering the Ammonites. This troubles me for a couple reasons. First, it seems like Jephthah should have faith that God will deliver him and the Israelites, without having to bargain with Him (as a sidenote, the argument can be made that it's wrong for humans to try to bargain with God--at the very least, it strikes me as presumptuous). Second, I don’t like how children are treated as some type of currency. I suppose it’s the ultimate sacrifice, yes, but God didn’t request it here, as He did of Abraham. Jephthah just volunteers it. It turns out to be his daughter who pays the price after Jephthah conquers the Ammonites. He’s upset about it, tearing his clothes and all, but what did he expect? He only had one child, so the odds were against her. God, of course, could have refused the sacrifice, especially since the daughter went off to the mountains for a couple months to "bewail" her virginity before her father slays her. I assume the lesson for readers should derive from her bravery and acceptance of the situation. But it continues to rub me the wrong way when children must die for the actions, or vows, of others.

Getting off my soapbox … Jephthah goes on to judge Israel for six years, followed by Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, who judge for a total of 25 years. As is their habit, the Israelites then “did what was evil,” resulting in them falling under the hand of the Philistines for 40 years. How many times do these people have to touch the hot stove before they learn their lesson? They appear immune to basic operant conditioning. The causal relationship (and the lesson for readers, presumably) is pretty clear: Do what is evil, become oppressed. You’d think such dire consequences might lead them to avoid evil behavior, but no. They do, however, seem to link their whining to their deliverance by a judge sent by God. It’s almost like God is an enabler in this scenario, saving them from the consequences of their bad behavior, never letting them hit rock bottom. And, again, this behavior on God’s part contrasts starkly with the intransigence He has shown in earlier books.

Enough of that tangent, though. Samson, whose story I’ll cover in the next entry, will deliver the Israelites from their latest subjugation.

Judges, Part II (cont'd): Gideon's son: A bad seed

2005-06-06T10:18:00.000-05:00

Freed from the Midianites, the Israelites ask Gideon to rule over them (that’s even more than the flowers we were told American liberators would receive in Iraq; I guess the neo-cons didn’t set their sights high enough). Gideon demurs, saying God will rule over them, but asks them each for an earring from their booty. He then uses the earrings to construct some type of idol, and “all Israel prostituted themselves to it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and his family.” I was initially confused because the next verses indicate the Israelites “had rest” for 40 years, but I’d expect the prostituting to an idol would incur God’s wrath. The reference to Gideon’s family may mean that it’s Abimelech, his son by a concubine, who is snared. I think. It’s also confusing because the following chapter begins with: “As soon as Gideon died, the Israelites relapsed and prostituted themselves with the Baals.” Is prostitution to the Baals worse than the earlier prostitution?

At any rate, Abimelech cheats and manipulates his way into becoming Israel’s commander and king of Shechem, a city-state. Along the way, he kills all of his brothers except Jotham; he survived by hiding. When Jotham hears of Abimelech’s ascent, he tells the lords of Shechem a parable about how the trees sought to anoint a king over themselves. The olive tree, fig tree, and vine, per the NRSV notes, “are all content to be themselves, for the benefit and enjoyment of humankind. Only the worthless bramble, good only for burning, aspires to power.” Get it, lords? Abimelech is the bramble.

Eventually, God sends an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords, “so that the violence done to the seventy sons of [Gideon] might be avenged." The lords start acting up, and then direct their confidence away from Abimelech and to Gaal. Gaal mocks Abimelech and questions why Shechem serves him. Gaal and the lords end up battling Abimelech and his troops, with the latter prevailing. Shortly after, Abimelech destroys the city, its people, and the lords, burning the lords as they hid in a tower. He tries the same tactic against a tower in another city, but it backfires this time. As he comes to burn the tower, a woman inside throws a millstone on his head and crushes his skull. Rather than succumb at the hand of a woman, Abimelech orders his assistant to kill him with his sword. “Thus God repaid Abimelech for the crime he committed against his father in killing his seventy brothers; and God also made all the wickedness of the people of Shechem fall back on their heads…”

Perhaps I’m misreading Judges to think God is more patient and forgiving. In this case, at least, the transgressors certainly received the ultimate punishment, just not as quickly and directly as on some previous occasions when Israelites went against God.

Coming attractions: Samson makes the scene

Judges, Part II: Gideon's bible

2005-06-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

After 40 years of rest, the Israelites again “did what was evil,” so God gave them over to the Midianites. Israel became greatly impoverished and came crawling back to God, who sent eventually sent them the reluctant Gideon.

When an angel appeared to Gideon, telling him God was with him, Gideon asked why the Israelites were in such a bad position, if God was indeed with the Israelites (note that the angel only said God was with Gideon; he didn’t say God was with the Israelites). “The Lord has cast us off,” he said. God responded by directing him to deliver Israel from Midian, assuring Gideon that He would be with him. Gideon requested some type of sign to prove he had found favor with God. After he got his sign, Gideon built an altar to God, and, at God’s urging, tore down his father’s altar to Baal.

The townspeople didn’t react well to that altar’s destruction, demanding Gideon’s father turn him over to die. His father, however, sided with his son over Baal. He reasoned with the people that Baal himself should seek vengeance against Gideon, as it was his altar destroyed. I guess the townspeople accepted this reasoning because the scene shifts to Gideon rallying warriors from several Israelite tribes. Yet, Gideon requires still more proof from God that He will deliver Israel by Gideon’s hand. He outlines a couple “tests” involving a fleece, and God comes through. I would think Gideon’s hesitance would anger God, but, again, He seems more patient in this book.

So, Gideon gathers his warriors against the Midianites. God, however, tells Gideon to pare down the troops—His thought was that, should large numbers of Israelites succeed in defeating the Midianites, they would credit the defeat to their own numbers and prowess, rather than recognizing God’s role. Gideon, and then God, sifts out the troops, significantly cutting the number who will go against the Midianites. That night, Gideon continues to demonstrate his reluctance. Rather than attacking the Midian camp, he and his servant sneak up on it. Gideon overhears a Midianite sentry recounting a dream about a cake of bread causing the collapse of a tent. The sentry’s comrade tells him the bread represents the sword of Gideon.

Reassured, Gideon returns to his camp and instructs his troops on how to proceed against the Midianites: “When I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me, then you also blow the trumpets around the whole camp, and shout, ‘For the Lord and for Gideon!’” It seems presumptuous to pair his name with God’s in that outcry, like he’s putting himself on the same level, but God doesn’t punish him for it. And then Gideon appears to contradict God’s battle plan, leading his men into a combative attack. As the narrative describes more of Gideon’s acts, the author makes little reference to God, as if Gideon is proceeding on his own volition. He conquers the Midianites, as God predicted, but then he pursues some personal vengeance against their kings for their acts against his family, in apparent contradiction of God’s earlier declaration that “vengeance is mine.” How will God react?

Next: The rise and fall of Gideon and his son

Radio daze

2005-06-02T13:21:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note to urge people to listen to the great public radio program This American Life this weekend. This week's program is described this way:

"At a time when House Majority Leader Tom Delay calls for enacting a 'Biblical worldview' in government, when Christians are asserting their ideals in the selection of judges, in public school science classes and elsewhere, This American Life spends an hour trying to remember why anyone liked the separation of church and state in the first place. Julia Sweeney, among others, gives a full-throated defense of godlessness. Julia's faith began to crack after reading Biblical passages like the one ... of Abraham about to cut the throat of his beloved son, Isaac."

As I explained in an earlier post, it was Sweeney's one-woman show in Hollywood, "Letting Go of God," that inspired me to read the Bible. I assume her part of TAL this week will excerpt that show. It's so rare that you find something both highly entertaining and thought-provoking (let alone something that actually compels you to take some action), and I really want to share that experience. And the rest of the program sounds intriguing, too. So, check the programming schedule of your local NPR stations and tune in if you can.

Judges, Part I: The start of a vicious cycle

2005-06-01T15:01:00.000-05:00

The book of Judges picks up after Joshua’s death and tells of continued battles with Canaanites; contrary to the implications of the prior book, some of them survived earlier conquests. Judges covers 12 “judges,” who are better described as leaders or rulers, as they don’t necessarily play judicial roles. According to the introductory notes, “in contrast to Joshua, cast as role model for kings, the judges are depicted with rough edges so as to highlight the instability of Israel without a king.” I found that promising—rough edges make for more interest reading, I think.

The book begins by recapping the performance of the generation that survived Joshua’s death (Ch. 2 notes that neither that generation nor the next knew God or the work He had done for Israel; they also hadn’t experienced war in Canaan—but weren’t the earlier generations repeatedly charged with teaching their children the laws?). The first chapter touches on several conquests, including various groups of Canaanites, Jerusalem, and Bethel. The Israelites, however, didn’t destroy all of the Canaanites, instead putting some of them into forced labor in their former lands. God didn’t care for this arrangement and chastised the Israelites for disregarding His command that they “not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land” but instead “tear down their altars.” To punish them, God ceased driving the Canaanites out before the Israelites. “They shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

Sure enough, the Israelites worshipped the Baals and abandoned God. Angry, God gave them over to be plundered, but then He “raised up judges, who delivered them out of the power of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen even to their judges; for they lusted after other gods …” This theme—the breaking of the covenant, the kindling of God’s anger, the evoking of God’s pity by the Israelites’ groaning, the rescue by a judge—recurs throughout the book. “But whenever the judge died, they would relapse and behave worse than their ancestors, following other gods.” Essentially, the Israelites again and again failed a test God had set up for them, as described in Ch. 2:22-23: “In order to test Israel, whether or not they would take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their ancestors did, the Lord had left those nations [of Canaan that survived Joshua], not driving them out at once, and had not handed them over to Joshua.”

The first judge, Othniel, delivered the Israelites from eight years of servitude to a foreign king, a condition brought on by worshipping other gods. When they cried out to God, Othniel went to war, and God gave the king to his hand. “The land had rest forty years.” But then Othniel died, and the Israelites went back to their old ways. So, God strengthened the king of Moab against Israel, and they were defeated. When they cried out after serving that king for 18 years, God sent Ehud, who killed the king with a sword. He then successfully led the Israelites against the Moabites, “and the land had rest 80 years.”

Eventually, the Israelites “again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, after Ehud died.” This time, God sold them into the hand of the king of Canaan, who oppressed them for 20 years. The Israelites went to Deborah, and she summoned Barak, a military leader. She tells him she will deliver Sisera, the king’s army general, into Barak’s hand, but he refuses to go out without her. She agrees to go, but cautions him that “the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Barak and his troops confront Sisera and his troops, and God throws the latter into a panic. Sisera flees on foot, while his army falls. He seeks refuge in the tent of Jael, the wife of an ally. She tricks him into drinking sleep-inducing milk and proceeds to hammer a peg into his head, killing him. As Deborah predicted, it is a woman who finishes off Sisera. She joins Rahab on the growing list of women playing significant roles. Hmmm ... I wonder how women could be rewarded by the church for their critical roles?

This first section of Judges concludes with the song of Deborah, in Ch. 5, as sung by Deborah and Barak on the day the Israelites destroyed the king of Canaan. The song, in general, praises God and recounts how He most recently saved the Israelites (i.e., through Deborah, Barak, and Jael). The song also provides a kind of performance review of the various tribes. Some had responded, some had not (and thus are censured), and some were ignored in the song. After this latest intervention by God, the land has rest for 40 years. The Israelites’ next slip-up will precipitate the rise of Gideon.

It’s somewhat strange that God shows so much patience and forgiveness with the Israelites in this book, as they repeatedly break their covenant and then seek Him out for help. I guess it's the OT version of the prodigal son, but are there no limits? Israel is like a recalcitrant alcoholic, making amends, appearing to learn its lesson, and then making the same old mistakes. Of course, alcoholism is an addiction, whereas the Israelites are just weak, selfish, and disobedient (and dumb). God almost comes off like an abused wife, welcoming them back again and again despite their history (although abused wives don’t generally punish their abusers at all, while God does exact some punishment on the fallen Israelites before taking pity). It certainly contradicts His earlier reactions to those who cross Him. Why is He so forgiving here? I’m glad He is, but you couldn’t blame Him if He wasn’t. Does Judges represent a transition to a more forgiving, less punishing God? And does Judges act as an illustration of why God ultimately had to resort to sending His own son? The Israelites couldn’t be counted on for long-term obedience when He sent mere judges—backsliding as soon as each one dies—so He concluded it would take His own son for them to get the point once and for all. I don’t know—just a thought.

Catholicism and debate

2005-05-31T07:50:00.000-05:00

A bit belatedly, E.J. Dionne takes on the Vatican's recent forced resignation of Jesuit priest Tom Reese from America magazine in today's Washington Post. Like many moderate and liberal commentators of late, he expresses concern that the Vatican under Benedict will tolerate no dissent. I think his points about the role of tradition in the Catholic church echo some of my earlier thoughts about the role of reflection in faith:

"The Catholics Reese's magazine spoke to, and often for, are loyal to their tradition but also understand, as the philosopher Michael Walzer has put it, that 'traditions are sites for arguments.' Traditions stay alive by nurturing a spirit that is at once loving and critical. If every question is kept open, there are no answers. But if too many questions are closed, the answers the tradition offers become steadily less compelling, less fresh and less persuasive.

"'Tradition is the living faith of the dead,' wrote the great religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan. 'Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.' Father Reese stands for a living faith serene enough to argue with itself. I worry that's why he was asked to leave his post."

[Emphasis added.]

I think Dionne is dead-on about the effect of closing the Vatican door to earnest questions. It seems Catholicism is far from serene (or secure) enough to permit internal debate. If it were a country, I suppose it'd be a dictatorship. A Catholic friend of mine recently told me he was okay with that: "It's not a democracy. If people don't like it, they can leave the church." I guess he's right--although people like Tom Reese, who has dedicated his life to the church, might disagree--but I wonder if it will cost the Catholic church in terms of numbers over future years. They say people often vote with their feet--will their feet carry more people into or out of the church?

It could well turn out that the church sees little change in its net numbers. The people alienated by the choking off of any degree of dissent might be replaced by others who find comfort in rigid doctrine that leaves no room for interpretation. It reminds me of one of the most distressing lines you heard from voters in the 2004 presidential election: "At least we know what he stands for." As the world becomes more uncertain and unpredictable, I fear increasing numbers of people will set aside reason to cling thoughtlessly to institutions and leaders perceived to be resolute, even if they disagree with, or don't understand, their positions. In such an atmosphere, abdication can seem easier. Scary stuff--abdication can lead to horrific results, and not just in George Lucas movies.

Joshua, Parts III and IV: Wrapping up some loose ends

2005-05-30T07:57:00.000-05:00

Having conquered most of the lands of Canaan, Joshua was instructed to divvy up the land for inheritance by the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh (the other half of Manasseh, the Reubenites, and the Gadites had already received their inheritances of lands east of the Jordan from Moses). Most of the third section of Joshua, then, describes the land each tribe receives, setting forth the borders in detail. In addition to the tribes, both Caleb and the daughters of Manasseh receive special inheritances, based on prior rulings by Moses. Once the territories were allotted, “the Israelites gave an inheritance among them to Joshua … By command of the Lord they gave him the town that he asked for, Timnathserah in the hill country of Ephraim.”

The third part of Joshua begins with the establishment of six cities of refuge, which were earlier discussed by Moses. The cities are to provide refuge for “anyone who kills a person without intent or by mistake.” The “slayer shall remain in that city until there is a trial before the congregation, until the death of the one who is high priest at the time: then the slayer may return home.” According to the NRSV notes, the death of the high priest was apparently a time for general amnesty. I can’t help wonder how safe the slayer will be from an “avenger of blood” when he returns home. I suppose the hope is that the avenger will be appeased by the trial verdict, but a general amnesty doesn’t seem very appeasing from the avenger’s perspective.

Ch. 21 describes the system of Levitical cities—because the Levites have no territorial inheritance of their own, the other Israelites gave them a number of towns and pasture lands from their inheritances. The chapter concludes: “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them … And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn … not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” So, in summary, the Lord delivered as promised, and the Israelites are sitting pretty thanks to His interventions on their behalf.

You’d think all would be well at this point, but, as the result of a classic sitcom-style misunderstanding, war almost erupts between the tribes. With everything wrapped up in Canaan, the eastern tribes return to their territory on the other side of the Jordan with Joshua’s blessing. They build a great altar by the Jordan, and, when the Israelites hear of it, they freak out. In a typical sitcom overreaction, “the whole assembly of the Israelites gathered at Shiloh, to make war against [the eastern tribes].”

First, though, the priest Phinehas and ten tribal chiefs travel to Gilead to meet with the eastern tribes. They accuse them of committing treachery against God by building “an altar today in rebellion against the Lord.” They say the Lord will be angered and take it out on the whole congregation. Lo and behold, it turns out the eastern tribes built the altar, not out of rebellion, but “to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the Lord … Far be it from us that we should rebel against the Lord.” Basically, they were worried that, because they were separated from the rest of Israel by the Jordan, future generations of the western tribes might disavow the eastern tribes' descendants as people of God. Phinehas and his crew are satisfied with the explanation. War averted.

“A long time afterward,” in anticipation of his death, Joshua summons all of Israel for a farewell address. He reminds them that God has kept His promises, and instructs them to be steadfast in observing the law of Moses and to hold fast to God. He warns them against intermarriage with the survivors of the nations they have conquered. If they transgress the covenant, Joshua says, God “will bring upon you all the bad things, until he has destroyed you from this good land.” Joshua then makes another covenant with the people, and the people agree to revere and serve God. Joshua subsequently dies, at age 110.

Next: Judges

Joshua, Part II: And the walls came tumblin' down

2005-05-27T14:46:00.000-05:00

The second section of Joshua covers the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan, thanks to God’s repeated intervention.

Jericho is the first to fall (although the prostitute Rahab and her family are spared, as promised). The Israelites arrive to find the city “shut up inside and out.” God instructs Joshua and the Israelites to march around the city once a day for six days; on the seventh, they should march around the city seven times, with priests blowing trumpets. “When they make a long blast …, as soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and all the people shall charge straight ahead.” And so it went.

Prior to the charge of the people into the city, though, Joshua warns them not to “take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel an object for destruction.” Rather, all of the silver, gold, etc. were designated for the “treasury of the Lord” (a phrase that brings to mind some odd imagery). After destroying the population of Jericho, the Israelites burned the city down, and Joshua pronounced a curse on anyone who would try to rebuild it.

But, Israelites being human, it turned out that one of them disregarded Joshua’s warning. Achan helped himself to some of the devoted things, triggering God’s anger. His transgression is uncovered after the Israelites are defeated at Ai, and Joshua beseeches God. God tells him that someone has stolen and acted deceitfully, and “I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you … And the one who is taken as having the devoted thins shall be burned with fire, together with all he has,” including, of course, his family. So Achan and his family are stoned to death and burned with fire, God’s anger is dissipated, and the Israelites conquer Ai on their second attempt. The conquest, however, is accomplished only because God provides explicit directions for setting up an ambush, driving home the point that the Israelites aren’t responsible for their conquests—they’re just God’s beneficiaries, like all of us.

Word spread about the Israelites' conquests, spurring the kings beyond the Jordan to form a coalition to fight them. The Gibeonites, though, opt to protect themselves with their own cunning. They trick the Israelites into believing that they had traveled a long journey from a far land (as opposed to their actual nearby location) and ask for a treaty. Without consulting God, “Joshua made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by treaty.” The Israelites soon discover that the Gibeonites are actually their own neighbors. They’re stuck with the treaty, but Joshua curses the Gibeonites: “Some of you shall always be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.”

Nonetheless, the Israelites subsequently protect Gibeon from the coalition. They inflict a “great slaughter” on the coalition forces. As they flee, the Lord throws down “huge stones from heaven … and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with sword.” So, again, their success is dependent on God’s intervention.

The second section goes on to describe several more of the Israelites’ victories in Canaan. The various conquests are summarized at Ch. 11:16-19, but the very next verse notes that “it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated.” This strikes me as overkill—would a little mercy be so terrible?—but I assume it suited the purposes or biases of the writers. As the notes observe, “This most extreme statement reflects the nationalistic perspective of the royal historian.” I think it provides an ancient but still valid warning of the dangers of extreme nationalism even today.

The section concludes with a summary of the kings and lands defeated by the Israelites, under both Moses and Joshua.

The New Testament at war

2005-05-27T11:52:00.000-05:00

Here's one that's got the dander up on both the right and the left, and rightly so. Apparently, the Marine Corps Web site posted a photo best described by the Corps' own caption: "The 'New Testament' a tank with 4th Tank Co., 1st Tank battalion attached to 3/25 prepares to lead the way during a recent mission." That's right--a tank with the words "New Testament" emblazoned on its main gun. You know something is a bad idea when it draws the withering attention of both Michael Moore and the Evangelical Outpost. Note that the the caption is available only on a cached version of the USMC Web page--the photo and caption have been removed from the site.

And, on a related issue, check out this lovely example of a Baptist church in North Carolina truly doing its part to spread the word. The word, of course, is intolerance. Or maybe bigotry? You make the call. What's makes this doubly disturbing is that some people think such expressions are patriotic. How is it patriotic to increase the ire of terrorists, as well as just run-of-the-mill Islamists, when thousands of our troops are stationed in the Middle East, presenting fundamentalists with welcome targets? This type of display furthers the cause of neither Christianity nor America. As Thomas Friedman wrote today about Gitmo, it serves only to inflame sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and provide recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill.

I am honestly trying to be more open-minded about organized religion, but things like this make me cringe.