The intro to Ruth in The Books of the Bible notes that Genesis to Judges traces the formation of the nation of Israel, and Samuel–Kings details the development of the monarchy. In between is Ruth, which begins "In the days when the judges ruled" and ends with the genealogy of King David. Ruth is a bridge book that tells the story of how Israel's beloved (most of the time, anyway) king could be a fourth-generation Moabite.
Remember in the preceding narrative that the Moabites made life difficult for their second cousins the Israelites as the latter fled from centuries of slavery. The curse for this inconsiderate treatment was that no Moabite would enter YHWH's assembly even to the tenth generation. Part of me says this meant NEVER, but some people took it literally. So if you had Moabite blood, you had to prove that it was at least ten generations ago before you could worship in the temple.
How could David get way with entering YHWH's presence, let alone become the leader of YHWH's people, after only four generations? His great-grandmother Ruth redeemed the Moabites. Sure, the story points out that it's Elimelek's family name that's redeemed, and by extension Ruth herself, but note what happens. In the bigger picture, a Moabite could now point to King David and say, "He gets into the assembly. Why not me?" And it was Ruth's kindness and commitment to follow Naomi and YHWH that brings about this change.
Two women in a desperate situation somehow change the course of foreign relations because the foreigner behaved like a true Israelite. This is where trickle-up foreign relations works. Ruth removed the curse of her entire people by doing exactly what her ancestors failed to do the first time.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The evolution of Homo spiritus
A while back, I posted some thoughts on evolution as it relates to the Holy Spirit and sexual ethics. An understanding of evolution (provisional though mine is) helps to make sense of the kind of beings we as humans are.
I’ve been reading in two books lately, The Return of the Chaos Monsters and The Lost World of Genesis One, how the creation poem seems to narrate how the world became functional, not how it was materially constructed. It also indicates how God built the cosmos as his temple, and the seven days show more of an inauguration of his temple than anything. The seventh day was when God sat enthroned and everything was functioning as it should, which meant that he could rest.
This understanding allows for immense possibility in the material construction of God’s temple, his creation, and in the constitution of his priesthood, humans. If God did allow “lower” species of primates to precede humanity genetically, it seems that he took, say, an ape and breathed his spirit into it. This created a species I call Homo spiritus or, for theological purposes in Greek, anthropos pneumatikos.
God created a species that was a step beyond Homo sapiens, and when this species rebelled, they lost something, devolving so to speak. They devolved into Homo sapiens, losing their human capacity to appropriately house the Spirit of God. Homo spiritus had all the features of Homo sapiens, but without the chaos we see today.
Homo sapiens retains a vestige of the image of God and is still capable of ruling God’s creation with him. However, the average Homo sapiens lacks the Spirit of God dwelling within in an unmediated way. So our ruling turns more toward chaos than order. In fact, according to The Return of the Chaos Monsters, our disorderly ruling invites chaos back into the creation. See what Genesis 6 says: “YHWH saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This sort of disorderly living fights against the good, functional orderliness of God’s creation.
We are wicked priests who by our own actions destroy the creation we are supposed to mediate to God. (Think of Hophni and Phinehas, the priest Eli’s sons, who slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. This was the ultimate abuse of authority, taking advantage of those who they should be representing before God and to whom they should be representing God.)
What does it mean to be a “spiritual person”? It’s one who has the presence of God dwelling in them, and they make decisions consistent with God’s intentions for his creation. We are, after all, co-rulers with God, and those who do the best job of this will wish for and, as God’s Spirit lives in them, bring worship to God as priests in his temple.
The “natural person” (anthropos psuchikos) is Homo sapiens. Nothing “wrong” with being one, but it simply means that one is not fully evolved. In the “natural” order of things, if a person finds out they are more highly evolved than someone else, they will embark on all manner of horrible actions. Think of all the calculation of races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a thinly veiled attempt to turn other humans into lower species so the dominant groups could enslave them. But Homo spiritus by definition would not do this. Humility and self-sacrifice are features of this species. The apostle Paul shared a pretty good list of characteristics with the churches in Galatia: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Sure, at this point in history, a Homo spiritus will likely revert to Homo sapiens in self-justification and condemnation. But hopefully, they will repent and take the evolutionary step back to Homo spiritus.
I’ve been reading in two books lately, The Return of the Chaos Monsters and The Lost World of Genesis One, how the creation poem seems to narrate how the world became functional, not how it was materially constructed. It also indicates how God built the cosmos as his temple, and the seven days show more of an inauguration of his temple than anything. The seventh day was when God sat enthroned and everything was functioning as it should, which meant that he could rest.
This understanding allows for immense possibility in the material construction of God’s temple, his creation, and in the constitution of his priesthood, humans. If God did allow “lower” species of primates to precede humanity genetically, it seems that he took, say, an ape and breathed his spirit into it. This created a species I call Homo spiritus or, for theological purposes in Greek, anthropos pneumatikos.
God created a species that was a step beyond Homo sapiens, and when this species rebelled, they lost something, devolving so to speak. They devolved into Homo sapiens, losing their human capacity to appropriately house the Spirit of God. Homo spiritus had all the features of Homo sapiens, but without the chaos we see today.
Homo sapiens retains a vestige of the image of God and is still capable of ruling God’s creation with him. However, the average Homo sapiens lacks the Spirit of God dwelling within in an unmediated way. So our ruling turns more toward chaos than order. In fact, according to The Return of the Chaos Monsters, our disorderly ruling invites chaos back into the creation. See what Genesis 6 says: “YHWH saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This sort of disorderly living fights against the good, functional orderliness of God’s creation.
We are wicked priests who by our own actions destroy the creation we are supposed to mediate to God. (Think of Hophni and Phinehas, the priest Eli’s sons, who slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. This was the ultimate abuse of authority, taking advantage of those who they should be representing before God and to whom they should be representing God.)
What does it mean to be a “spiritual person”? It’s one who has the presence of God dwelling in them, and they make decisions consistent with God’s intentions for his creation. We are, after all, co-rulers with God, and those who do the best job of this will wish for and, as God’s Spirit lives in them, bring worship to God as priests in his temple.
The “natural person” (anthropos psuchikos) is Homo sapiens. Nothing “wrong” with being one, but it simply means that one is not fully evolved. In the “natural” order of things, if a person finds out they are more highly evolved than someone else, they will embark on all manner of horrible actions. Think of all the calculation of races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a thinly veiled attempt to turn other humans into lower species so the dominant groups could enslave them. But Homo spiritus by definition would not do this. Humility and self-sacrifice are features of this species. The apostle Paul shared a pretty good list of characteristics with the churches in Galatia: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Sure, at this point in history, a Homo spiritus will likely revert to Homo sapiens in self-justification and condemnation. But hopefully, they will repent and take the evolutionary step back to Homo spiritus.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Photo Card
Little Birdie Baby Announcements
Personalize your announcements with Shutterfly.
View the entire collection of cards.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Parenting angst commissioned by God
I read through Judges today and felt a pang for Manoah, father of Samson. When his wife informed him that a man told her she would become pregnant and not to partake of anything grapey, he thought as any man would, "Who's this guy talking to my wife? Is this legit, or is he just trying to cuckold me?"
Actually, the text tells us that Manoah prayed, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.” I hear a little bit of Gideon lurking just beneath the surface: "Can I really be sure . . .?" But I love that this is Manoah's prayer. My biggest issue with becoming a parent (now times two) is that I may not tell the story of God well. I could really use some help in communicating a big-read, nonversejack, here's-the-big-story-that-makes-little-to-no-sense-in-America story. But I digress.
Manoah obviously takes his job seriously. He wants to be sure how to bring up a Nazirite, and perhaps more simply, any child, in such a rotten society. And if we think parenting is about us or making sure our kids turn out well, this event from later in the story will shatter that expectation:
Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.” His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from YHWH, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)
First, how does a parent argue with "She's the right one for me"? If they do, the reply will be "You don't know me! You don't own me!" And there will be instant alienation, if that hadn't happened already.
And does God really answer the prayers of some parents who are desperate to raise good kids with a rebellious teen? Like specifically answer with that? I'm starting to think that's possible, more often than we think. The God of Israel that we claim to love and serve isn't capricious like other gods, but he sure has his own ideas.
Actually, the text tells us that Manoah prayed, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.” I hear a little bit of Gideon lurking just beneath the surface: "Can I really be sure . . .?" But I love that this is Manoah's prayer. My biggest issue with becoming a parent (now times two) is that I may not tell the story of God well. I could really use some help in communicating a big-read, nonversejack, here's-the-big-story-that-makes-little-to-no-sense-in-America story. But I digress.
Manoah obviously takes his job seriously. He wants to be sure how to bring up a Nazirite, and perhaps more simply, any child, in such a rotten society. And if we think parenting is about us or making sure our kids turn out well, this event from later in the story will shatter that expectation:
Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.” His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from YHWH, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)
First, how does a parent argue with "She's the right one for me"? If they do, the reply will be "You don't know me! You don't own me!" And there will be instant alienation, if that hadn't happened already.
And does God really answer the prayers of some parents who are desperate to raise good kids with a rebellious teen? Like specifically answer with that? I'm starting to think that's possible, more often than we think. The God of Israel that we claim to love and serve isn't capricious like other gods, but he sure has his own ideas.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Apostle Paul bore the curse
I'm reading through Deuteronomy, and I ran across a little series of items that rang a bell. If the Hebrews did not obey YHWH's commands and decrees:
"All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey YHWH your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve YHWH your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies YHWH sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you" (all Scripture NIV).
"In hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty" sounds an awful lot like a portion of Paul's litany of woe in his second letter to the Corinthians: "I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." Before reading Deuteronomy, I assumed that Paul was reluctantly (or not) showing some marginally okay spiritual pride in order to shore his position against the "super-apostles." But after seeing this association, I think Paul actually puts himself in line right behind Jesus.
Jesus was the true Israelite who bore curses and shame on the cross, despite showing YHWH's extravagant graciousness to the poor and outcast in direct accordance with the Law. And Jesus was raised from death, showing that even all the curses of the Law could not overpower a righteous man. (Read a handful of psalms, and this theme will emerge.)
Paul wrote to the Galatians, "From now on, let no one [specifically those "super-apostle" types] cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." He also was bearing the curse of the Law along with Jesus. In line behind the true Israelite, Paul also was a righteous man who unjustly suffered. He was living the new creation brought about by Jesus. Note at the end of Galatians just before his comment about the marks of Jesus: "Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."
In 2 Corinthians, Paul is confronting the same type of people who want to compel others to follow the Law, even though they can't themselves. In his teaching, Paul says he is following Jesus, who filled all possibilities in keeping the Law. He also claims to the Philippians to have kept the Law better than any of the Pharisees: "If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless."
Why then suffer the curses? Israel couldn't follow the Law, and even suffering the curses didn't compel them to return to YHWH. So Israelites who truly obeyed the covenant (that is, were righteous) had to continue doing so yet bear the shame of the curses on behalf of the unrighteous. Deuteronomy itself says, "Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there YHWH your God will gather you and bring you back. . . . YHWH your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. YHWH your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey YHWH and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then YHWH your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land." The bringing back to ridiculous prosperity signifies the restoration of creation. Physical circumcision no longer marks one as an Israelite; it's the newly created, circumcised heart. And yet the plan of God in this passage shifted so that it is the obedient ones who suffer the curses of the Law on behalf of those who can't obey. This was the only way to empty sin, death, and the curse of its power.
Suffering the curses of Deuteronomy is exactly the idea of persecution in Paul's letters. The enemies of God's people pour out their worst on the righteous (as opposed to chastising God's unrighteous people in Deuteronomy). God's people are formed more in his image, our hearts are circumcised, and we bear the shame of the decay of all creation. Then the enemies are invited to join God's people and suffer (precisely Paul's life story) until all suffering is abolished and all things are new.
"All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey YHWH your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve YHWH your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies YHWH sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you" (all Scripture NIV).
"In hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty" sounds an awful lot like a portion of Paul's litany of woe in his second letter to the Corinthians: "I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." Before reading Deuteronomy, I assumed that Paul was reluctantly (or not) showing some marginally okay spiritual pride in order to shore his position against the "super-apostles." But after seeing this association, I think Paul actually puts himself in line right behind Jesus.
Jesus was the true Israelite who bore curses and shame on the cross, despite showing YHWH's extravagant graciousness to the poor and outcast in direct accordance with the Law. And Jesus was raised from death, showing that even all the curses of the Law could not overpower a righteous man. (Read a handful of psalms, and this theme will emerge.)
Paul wrote to the Galatians, "From now on, let no one [specifically those "super-apostle" types] cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." He also was bearing the curse of the Law along with Jesus. In line behind the true Israelite, Paul also was a righteous man who unjustly suffered. He was living the new creation brought about by Jesus. Note at the end of Galatians just before his comment about the marks of Jesus: "Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."
In 2 Corinthians, Paul is confronting the same type of people who want to compel others to follow the Law, even though they can't themselves. In his teaching, Paul says he is following Jesus, who filled all possibilities in keeping the Law. He also claims to the Philippians to have kept the Law better than any of the Pharisees: "If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless."
Why then suffer the curses? Israel couldn't follow the Law, and even suffering the curses didn't compel them to return to YHWH. So Israelites who truly obeyed the covenant (that is, were righteous) had to continue doing so yet bear the shame of the curses on behalf of the unrighteous. Deuteronomy itself says, "Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there YHWH your God will gather you and bring you back. . . . YHWH your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. YHWH your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey YHWH and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then YHWH your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land." The bringing back to ridiculous prosperity signifies the restoration of creation. Physical circumcision no longer marks one as an Israelite; it's the newly created, circumcised heart. And yet the plan of God in this passage shifted so that it is the obedient ones who suffer the curses of the Law on behalf of those who can't obey. This was the only way to empty sin, death, and the curse of its power.
Suffering the curses of Deuteronomy is exactly the idea of persecution in Paul's letters. The enemies of God's people pour out their worst on the righteous (as opposed to chastising God's unrighteous people in Deuteronomy). God's people are formed more in his image, our hearts are circumcised, and we bear the shame of the decay of all creation. Then the enemies are invited to join God's people and suffer (precisely Paul's life story) until all suffering is abolished and all things are new.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Calories don't count on Fridays
For my prior macabre post, I looked at this Wikipedia article on Día de los Muertos.
The following description of the feast that people set out for their deceased loved ones totally reminded me of what people jokingly say about sweets, such as "Oh, it's only half a cookie, so the calories don't count" or "Calories don't count on Fridays."
"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrendas food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."
I say we designate days of the week or hours of the day for ghosts to consume the spiritual essence of cookies, brownies, cake, chocolate, candy, etc. I'm totally into that.
The following description of the feast that people set out for their deceased loved ones totally reminded me of what people jokingly say about sweets, such as "Oh, it's only half a cookie, so the calories don't count" or "Calories don't count on Fridays."
"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrendas food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."
I say we designate days of the week or hours of the day for ghosts to consume the spiritual essence of cookies, brownies, cake, chocolate, candy, etc. I'm totally into that.
The macabre and resurrection
I happened upon the origin of the word macabre the other day, and I'm amazed by how it apparently came about.
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)