Energion Direct

Category: Uncategorized

  • The Dangers of Being Healthy and Drug Free

    by Harvey Brown

     
    LBJIt’s been quite a little saga for me the last few years. If you were to ask me, “How are you?”, I would have said, “I’m doing great.” Maybe it’s my natural optimism. Or a built in denial mechanism. But most of the time I really do think I’m doing fine.
    I was a happy little kid who looked at the glass and saw it at least half full—and always chock-full of possibilities, some of which were, shall we say, creative. That creativity and inventiveness bugged my teachers to no end. From time to time my creativity landed me in the principal’s office. One of those trips almost kept me from graduating high school, even though I was in the top 5% of my class. But that story will have to wait for another time. You’ve already gotten the picture: I am a risk taker, creative thinker, and card carrying extrovert who is, on occasion, impulsive.
    Whenever we are together, the family Brown loves to regale ourselves—and anyone else who will listen—with stories of various falls, pratfalls, stumbles (physical and social), and other events which bring laughter to Marilyn, me, and our four adult children. The humor is often at my expense. And the extrovert in me relishes the attention even if there be personal cost involved. It’s just part of our family story and the way our family works.
    Having had a career in the military, physical fitness has been a regular part of my lifestyle for nearly forty years. Even during these (g)olden years, I have continued age-appropriate conditioning and exercise. However, I no longer take summer mountain bike rides in the Bavarian Alps, hurling myself down double-black diamond ski slopes from glacier line to valley below.[ene_ptp] When I reflect on the last few years, I’ve had some age-appropriate and lifestyle induced physical problems that limited my level of activity and conditioning. But don’t worry. For those of you old enough to remember, I don’t plan to pull an LBJ on you. (If you have no idea about this reference, I am thinking of when President Lyndon B. Johnson showed the press his scar from gall bladder surgery in 1965.)
    I’ll spare you my gory details. But when I attempt an unbiased assessment of how it’s been, I must admit I have struggled physically over the last three or four years. Reviewing my DayTimer, most entries begin with “Dr.” None of these were directly related to my Army career, although I did survive a military parachute malfunction. A couple of inches shorter than when commissioned in 1979, I have a lot to be grateful for.
    Most of these physical problems could have happened to any other baby boomer named Harvey. I had a knee “blow-up” late one spring. No golf that year. I also became very close to my urologist. I learned things I never wanted to know. For example, you can actually see the inside of your urinary tract. Some surgeons like to insert an entire television studio through a tiny opening so they can see what’s going on in there. And if you can open your wincing eyes long enough, you can see the monitor too.
    Once recovered from surgery, the next year I resumed conditioning and strength training to prepare for golf season and my national and international ministry travel. Only that had to stop because of two hernias I developed. Not run-of-the-mill hernias, but the “better-not-bend-over-and-tie-your-shoe” kind of hernias.
    Living in the Smoky Mountains, I am close to a well reputed University medical center. So my family practice provider referred me to “the man.” Young, dynamic, state-of-the-art arthroscopic surgeon, my hernia repair was scheduled as outpatient surgery. Twenty-eight days later, a few miracles, multiple units of blood, and several pounds lighter, I was back home. This was one of those “golly, that’s never happened before” moments for the surgical team. And another one of those learning events about things I never wanted to know. When my blood pressure dropped to 60 over 30, I told Marilyn that I loved her and was going to see the Lord. She became upset.
    “If you die, I’ll kill you!”
    That got me thinking abut how messy this whole thing had become. I really believed I was gone. Things were not working well up to that point. So I was rather looking forward to checking out of the hospital and joining the throng around the Throne. But after Marilyn threatened me I decided to become an ally in the fight to save me. And I discovered Father’s grace in all of this.
    Trust me. You do NOT want to be case-of-the-month at a University medical center. But a lot of physicians, interns, residents, and nurses came by my room as a result. So I was able to see lots of folk I would have never met. I told them of a Saviour who had—and was—saving me.
    Obviously I lived. About four months later the surgeon cleared me to begin a recovery regimen of strength and conditioning. I envisioned travel back to Africa. Playing golf (not in Africa). And being strong and “normal” again.
    So here I am, being a good boy, taking recovery cautiously, and following Mayo Clinic protocols for core strengthening. Then the strangest thing happened. Back pain. Lower back pain. Not run-of-the-mill back pain, but the “better-not-bend-over-and-tie-your-shoe” kind of back pain. A whole year-plus of back pain. The herniated disc in my lumbar spine had colluded with age and weakness to take me out of the game. Discouragement piled on like a bunch of sixth grade boys at recess jumping on whoever was brave enough to pick up the football.
    If you had told this frequent flyer that he would not step onto an aircraft for over two years, he would have thought you demented. But the longer I was grounded, the greater my sense of hopelessness grew. I had more to do. A Gospel to proclaim. Poor pastors in west Africa I could train. Grand-kids I wanted to get down and play on the floor with.
    Physical therapy didn’t work. Prescriptions couldn’t salve the pain. Skilled and caring physicians tried again and again to bring healing.
    Late last fall I began a series of tests that confirmed I was a candidate for a relatively new surgical approach. So I braced myself for a series of procedures, each one month apart.
    While I was preparing for this, I decided to wean myself off all prescriptions. I felt like I needed to really know what my pain levels were in order to gauge the effectiveness of what I would go through. Under supervision of my family physician I surprised the specialist when I announced that I was drug free. Most people escalate dosage as the efficacy of the pharmaceuticals wanes. But I was serious about being better. Really better.
    The day after the first procedure I was making coffee. We are true coffee snobs. We triple grind our German arabica beans. Sometimes the fine dust from our coffee grinder might cause me to sneeze, which is not a good thing. Since the herniated disc, sneezing caused pain that would literally drop me to my knees (well, at least one of them) six out of ten times.
    As I felt the sneeze start to build, I grabbed hold of the counter top with both hands and pulled myself against it. The violent explosion of my coffee sneeze echoed through the house.
    But there was no pain. It seemed too good to be true.
    The next day was a repeat of the previous, except I did my family-famous double sneeze. Same fear when I felt it coming, same gripping of the counter, same violent explosion x 2. And no pain.
    I called to Marilyn, and we stood holding one another in the kitchen as I wept and thanked the Lord Jesus for what had just happened.
    Two more procedures and four months of therapy later my doctor released me. I was declared well. Nurses hugged me as I left. Gurney drivers shook my hand.
    Back to the golf course, I started easy. A small bucket of balls and my wedge. Sore as all get out the next day, but only from unused muscles. The back was fine. Repeat the next day. Same results. Woo hoo!
    Marilyn and our children kept cautioning me not to overdo things. No problem. I’ve waited a long time to be where I am. Let’s start connecting with those declined invitations to minister. I should be strong enough for the west coast in a couple of months, Africa in five.
    So after church last Sunday I went into our storage unit to retrieve one of my travel cases that had lain dormant on the top of the stack in the back of the storage. On the very top. In the very back. You need to understand that I am well now. Therapy has made me stronger. I’m not full speed, but I am getting closer.
    After unlocking the unit, I raised the rolling door and looked up toward the back-right-top corner of the pile. So what’s going through my head? “Yep. There it is. In its box. Just like it was stored by my son. Hard to get to? Sure. Imposssible?  I don’t even know how to spell that word. I’m inventive, courageous, a soldier (once a soldier, always a soldier). I’ll just climb up there in my Sunday clothes and get that sucker.”
    Perhaps a little impulsive. Maybe bad judgment. Really bad judgment.
    I started climbing until I was standing, balanced on the top of a bed headboard that was leaning against the pile. “Just because I’m sixty-six years old doesn’t mean I have to live in a rocker on the porch. If I just stretch my next step over to the bag of camping equipment….”
    As I shifted my weight to take the next step, the headboard on which I was precariously perched gave way. I fell backwards, taking part of the pile with me. I landed against a maple-topped rolling kitchen island that was supporting an old cathode ray TV. My ribs (lower back right) crushed into the edge of the kitchen island as I pin-balled my way through stored items. The pain was excruciating. It felt somewhat like being struck in the back by a crazed construction worker wielding a 2×4, wildly clubbing anything in his path—which at this moment happened to be my back. Gravity again proved to be my master.
    From the car Marilyn heard me groaning and calling her name. She ran into the storage unit and eventually moved the stuff that had fallen on me. It took what seemed like an eternity to extricate myself from the wreckage of my personal earthquake. I couldn’t take a regular breath because of the pain. I could hardly crawl into the car. A mirror at home reflected a contusion across the bottom of my rib cage on the back right.
    “Can hardly take a breath. Probably broken, but nothing can be done about that,” I thought. “No need to go to the ER this evening. I know what emergency rooms are like on the weekend.” Having been injured before (remember the family stories), I knew to ice, take Tylenol, and call my doctor in the morning. Marilyn and I took communion together and prayed, and we texted a group of friends inviting them to commune with us in the Spirit and pray for me.
    My appraisal and self-diagnosis was confirmed by the x-ray. Broken ninth rib, right side, rear. Prescription medicine to help me bear the pain. A strong son who helps lift me from the bed in the morning. The pain is too intense to roll over or to sit myself up. A prognosis of three months of regular pain, six months to heal, and occasional twinges of sharp pain during the last three months of convalescence.
    There goes the ministry trip to the Pacific Northwest. There goes Africa. There goes golf again this year. All so unnecessary. All casualties of the dangers of being healthy and drug free.
    Right now you may be saying, “Hold on just a minute, Harvey. It was your impulsiveness, your stupid decision that brought this on. It wasn’t being healthy and drug free that caused this catastrophe.”
    Alright. I’ll agree with you. But…
    There is precedence for people in recovery making ill-timed or unwise decisions—sometimes even catastrophic ones—when they are coming out of a dark or painful place. We all know folk who have been hurt through a difficult relationship jumping into a new, and possibly equally destructive relationship. It’s called “rebound.”
    Our local church has a year-long residential addiction recovery outreach modeled (to a great degree) on Teen Challenge. There are both men’s and women’s programs. The two are separate in all they do. “Students” even sit on opposite sides of the sanctuary during worship. But sure as the world, before you can say two Lord’s Prayers or three Hail Marys there will be a wedding of two recent graduates. And I’ve watched a number of these exuberant unions suffer because of impulsive loneliness and a deep longing to be needed and accepted. The couple may be “healthy and drug free,” but the dangers for repeat performances of brokenness and poor coping can be every bit as real as before. Enthusiasm from a sense of wholeness can fog vision in much the same way as impairment did before.
    Back to President Johnson (LBJ). Elected Vice-President of the United States in 1960, he was sworn in as President on Air Force One after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. This lanky Texan was a shrewd politician who well understood his role and the significance of the Office of President. Elected in his own right in 1964, he enacted sweeping legislation known as “The Great Society.” But it was during his Presidency that the Vietnam war escalated to the levels of the conflict we all associate with the word “Vietnam.”
    In the fall of 1965, President Johnson had surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital. The famous photo seen in the graphic that accompanies this article had as its original caption: “10/20/1965-Bethesda, MD: President Johnson, in good spirits after a walk around the hospital grounds and buoyed by thought of leaving hospital, pulls up the tails of his sports shirt to show his surgical bandage and to illustrate just where it was that the surgeons ‘messed around’ in his abdomen.”
    His exuberance in the moment of renewed health led to a revealing and very unpresidential act. Johnson enjoyed his Texas persona, but editorial cartoonist David Levine “…created a powerful image of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966 by alluding to this almost trivial incident: Johnson exposing the scar on his belly from a recent gall bladder operation. But Mr. Levine turned the scar into a defining physical characteristic of the man. He also turned it into his defining political characteristic because the scar was an outline of a map of Vietnam. The caricature was accurate to the point of prophecy: it showed the wound that was to bring down the president.” (Note: This cartoon is in this article’s graphic.)
    Another example of the dangers of being healthy and drug free. Exuberance overriding judgment, resulting in a different kind of wound, enthusiastically self-inflicted.
    I’m also thinking of a famous biblical character—another leader—who had become healthy and drug free. In his exuberance about recovery, he made decisions which brought catastrophic consequences to his nation and his descendants. His name was Hezekiah. He reigned as King of Judah for twenty-nine years. You can read his story in three places in the Old Testament (2 Kings 18-20; 2 Chronicles 29-32; and Isaiah 36–39).
    Hezekiah was a good man. He was a God-follower who took seriously his role and responsibilities as King of Judah. These characteristics made him the polar opposite of his father and kingly predecessor, Ahaz.
    Among the many notable successes of Hezekiah’s reign were a cleansing and restoration of the Temple, the consecration and reestablishment of the Priesthood and Levitical worship responsibilities, and the destruction of various symbols and remnants of idolatrous pagan practices. He directed one of the most significant engineering projects in ancient Jerusalem, the digging of a six hundred yard underground aqueduct to channel water from the Gihon Spring into the Pool of Siloam in the city, thus making a water supply available for Jerusalem even if it were under siege. He hung out with Isaiah, the man considered by many to be the greatest Old Testament prophet.
    But fourteen years into his reign, Hezekiah became sick—not only sick, but deathly ill. Although details of the disease are somewhat obscure, we can gather from the text that he was in really bad shape…so much so that the Lord God instructed Isaiah to go to Hezekiah and tell him to write his obituary and get his house in order because he was about to die. (Okay, I made up the part about the obituary, but I’m a preacher telling this story and I know you didn’t stop to study the details of the Scripture references above.)
    Being seriously ill is bad enough. But having God tell you you’re about to die soon really sucks the goody out of your day. Hezekiah rolled over on his side, faced the wall, and began to cry fearful, bitter tears. He also prayed.
    There’s nothing quite like a genuine crisis to activate your prayer life. And for Hezekiah, this was a crisis of the highest magnitude. “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.”
    Isaiah was reaching for the palace door knob when the Lord spoke again, telling him to turn around and deliver another message to Hezekiah.  “This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city.”
    This was Hezekiah’s last second three-pointer, his bottom-of-the-ninth home run. What looked like ultimate defeat was suddenly in overtime. Fifteen more years. Along with the prognosis of health came a bizarre but effective prescription drug: Fig poultice. Just what the Doctor ordered. The ailing king knew the outcomes would be good.
    No Tweets, texts, timeline posts, or Instagram. No MailChimp email blasts. No Apple tablets, just clay. All communication was face time. Yet news spread rapidly of Hezekiah’s miraculous recovery and the amazing movement of the Sun’s shadow. Sympathy cards were tossed in favor of “Congratulations.”
    It’s at this point that Hezekiah faced the dangers of being healthy and drug free. Sickness and poultice were gone. So was good judgment, thrown out the window because the presence of the Lord—that wonderful still, small voice which can lead, guide, rebuke, and comfort—was lifted. “But Hezekiah did not respond appropriately to the kindness shown him, and he became proud. When ambassadors arrived from Babylon to ask about the remarkable events that had taken place in the land, God withdrew from Hezekiah in order to test him and to see what was really in his heart.” (2 Chron. 3:25a,32 TNIV)
    What was revealed was neither humble, wise, nor godly. The envoys from the King of Babylon were well-wishers bringing personal greetings from His Majesty to His Majesty, along with appropriate kingly gifts. Here things started really getting sticky for Hezekiah.
    It was less than two years previous that Hezekiah was stripping all the gold and anything else of value from the Temple and Royal Palace to pay off the King of Assyria. Demanding “tribute” from a King was simply international extortion. If the weaker paid the stronger’s demands, the tribute bought a reprieve from attack as well as relief from possible annihilation. Because of the Assyrian extortion, Judah and Hezekiah were essentially bankrupt.
    To make things worse, King Sennacherib and the Assyrians double-crossed Hezekiah and marched against the city. Twice. Jerusalem was under siege, under manned, under armed, and under the bus. It would be only a matter of time until the city fell and Hezekiah probably killed. It was during this time that he struggled with his fatal/not fatal illness.
    I have a Pentecostal minister friend who specializes in deliverance ministry. He told me one day, “You know, brother, I’ve learned over the years that you just can’t cast out stupid.” If it were possible, I believe Isaiah would have tried a deliverance session with Hezekiah over this unbelievably stupid decision rooted in pride and insecurity. “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18 ESV)
    One factor in Hezekiah’s failure may have been related to the origin of his treasures. He had already surrendered Judah’s national wealth as tribute money to Sennacherib. The treasure he displayed to the Babylonians was newly acquired plunder remaining after the death angel spent a busy night among the sieging Assyrians. The treasure was abandoned in place after 185,000 had been killed. Sennacherib and the other survivors literally “decamped, departed, returned” (2 Kings 19:36).
    Kingly success was gauged by pomp, splendor and wealth. With Babylonian envoys on the scene for a state visit, an exuberant and healthy Hezekiah not only had opportunity, but now the means to impress the Babylonians. Since they were giving him special attention, he would give them something to remember—a guided tour of all the treasures of the nation (which he probably took personal credit for).
    Overall, God tolerated this failure of Hezekiah. Scripture testifies of him: “Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before or after his time. He remained faithful to the Lord in everything, and he carefully obeyed all the commands the Lord had given Moses.” (2 Kings18:5-6 NLT)
    If nothing else, this whole incident demonstrates that we are dangerous—to ourselves and others—when left to our own devices and the deeds of the flesh. Hezekiah, minus the heart/thought/action temperance of the presence of the Lord through the Holy Spirit, demonstrated the dangers of being healthy and drug free—and self-led. There is no substitute for the leadership and wisely restraining and empowering presence of God the Holy Spirit.
    I’m so grateful that God’s mercy and grace are not dispensed only to those who make good decisions. If that were so, I would be lost and without hope. As it is, I am only broken. But I am full of hope. For this same God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead lives in my mortal flesh. His blood covers my sin. His grace redeems me—even from the danger I am to myself when healthy and drug free. And I’m encouraged that his healing, mercy, and grace are extended not only to folk just like me, but all those who call on His name.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2795′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • Of Process (not Theology) and Results

    by Henry E. Neufeld

     
    FactsOver the last few weeks U. S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump has complained a great deal how the rules of the Republican Party are unfair and he is thereby being denied delegates that are rightfully his. Despite the evidence that the rules may actually be helping him, many voters are convinced that Donald Trump is being cheated. They vote for him. He doesn’t get delegates. The system is somehow rotten.
    At the same time United Methodists prepare to gather for their general conference. The United Methodist Church has a relatively complex polity with delegates selected by churches to annual conferences and then by annual conferences to general conference. Sometimes the people in local churches feel that they are not represented, even though this process started at the local church, where members have many opportunities to participate and influence policy. Our church, they will say, has become quite distant from us, the church members.
    These two situations have at least one thing in common: People who participate in a process believe the process is in some way unfair because the results of the process are not what they desire..[ene_ptp] One solution we might consider is explaining the process to the people. If we try to do that, we’ll likely find that people have very little patience for an explanation of the process. If it gets complex, people begin to think it’s a conspiracy against them. Unless, of course, it is producing the results they want to see
    I recall once trying to explain to a group of people what they would need to do to change the direction of their local United Methodist Church. I’m not expert on the United Methodist Discipline, but I do know the basic outlines. Changing the policy of a church involves changing the people on committees, and much of that occurs over the course of at least three years. One needs to attend Charge Conference to be involved in electing the nominating committee. One needs to attend all the committee meetings. Yet even if one does this, the church will not turn on a dime. It’s more like steering a large ship than a car, and some would say it’s more like trying to steer a train. The tracks get in the way. The folks I was talking to basically gave up. If a year wouldn’t do it, they weren’t willing to make a move.
    The process of changing the process is even harder, because one needs to convince more people over more territory and over more time. To the shock of many, something that seems obvious in your local church may not seem nearly so obvious to someone in a church across the world—or even across the county! So more people have to be convinced of something that is more complex and will have uncertain results.
    Let’s consider another political issue: Filibusters in the United States Senate. Filibusters were, at one time, carried out most often by one senator who started to speak and refused to yield the floor. As long as he could stand there and talk without leaving for any reason, he could hold up everything. These days action is often blocked for anything that cannot muster 60 votes out of the hundred member body.
    This is a process issue. Is it a good idea to require 60 votes minimum to bring legislative actions to a conclusion? And here we have an example of how results tend to overcome process. When Democrats have been in the majority in the Senate, they have commonly opposed filibusters, and the Republicans tend to support them. When the situation is reversed, so are the positions on filibusters.
    Many people are simply impatient with a process, particularly a complex one that they don’t understand, and consider the results only. A good process is one that produces a good result, whatever I may think that is. Trump voters don’t like the Republican delegate rules and Cruz voters do for the simple reason that Senator Cruz’s campaign operation is getting a better result out of the rules.
    For a similar reason many people have little patience with the process of a trial. They decide based one whatever news they may have heard whether a person is guilty or innocent. A person commonly perceived as guilty “got off” if the jury finds them not guilty. They were railroaded if the jury finds them guilty against the assumptions of the crowd.
    But just like all the process for electing delegates to the Republican Convention or the United Methodist General Conference, or the process for considering legislation in the United States Senate, the process for carrying out a trial was created for the purpose of allowing real people to conduct business and give many participants an opportunity to have their say. Even the much-maligned filibuster is a way for a minority to prevent the majority from absolute power. All of those processes are important.
    I don’t mean that all of them are perfect, or even very good. They may even be unfair. They may be excessively complex. But general they have become that way as people adapt the process to the people it needs to serve. This can result in some very odd procedures that may seem completely without reason or merit. A process that has been adapted over and over, such as the combination of rules that result in courtroom procedure, may seem grotesquely complex. And indeed it may well need reform. But we do well both to remember that it grew up in response to needs, and that it would be a good idea to understand it before we tear it down.
    Now I’m not defending the particular processes I’ve discussed. They may all need reform. In fact, for every process I’ve mentioned, I can think of things that, in my opinion, would improve the process considerably. But having a set of rules and a process is critical to making decisions that will stand up over time.
    It is possible to like a process and dislike the result of the process. Or, the reverse, one can like the result, but dislike the process. Similarly, in our individual thinking we have a process of logic. We might not spend a great deal of time thinking about it, but we’re going to come to a conclusion somehow. If we do so with little thought, we may be headed for problems, even if we like our current conclusion.
    I encounter this in discussing biblical interpretation. “Just tell me what it means,” someone will say. I don’t think it’s very important for someone else to know what I think a passage means. What is important is to learn how to think about what it means. But often people have little patience for thinking about how a conclusion is reached.
    I often hear sermons in which the preacher invokes biblical languages. It’s particularly annoying to me when I hear someone make a good point and then try to back it up with a faulty understanding of the source language and even how language works. Some preachers have put me on the spot, realizing I read Greek and Hebrew. They try to get me to give the “Amen” to their comment. I try to dodge! In one church, after I successfully avoided commenting on the pastor’s sermon, he caught me during the Sunday School hour while I was giving a missions presentation and asked me outright. He made a good point, but when he invoked the language—discussed the process—he was in error. He didn’t leave me any option but to say so!
    That could be important. If the process is faulty, we can’t rely on coming to reasonable conclusions if we use the same process. We may need to align our compass, change our course, mend the sails, maybe even replace the rudder.
    You may be impatient about process. You may feel that the complexity is a conspiracy against you. But this is a case in which following your feelings could definitely do you harm.
    Take the time, have the patience, to consider how things have come to be, not just what has come to be.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2364′]

    Clicj on any picture for more information or to order

  • Thoughts on the First Testament

    by Steve Kindle

    IlliteracyOne of my “Pastoral Theology” professors remarked, “You can never underestimate the biblical illiteracy of a congregation.” This has proven true in all of the congregations I have served from Fundamentalist to Progressive. (Yes, I was once a Fundamentalist.) It is a continuing problem.
    I just completed nearly a year leading a survey course of the Old Testament for the congregation I attend. We went from Genesis to Malachi, spending about one session on each book. The point was to familiarize the students with the overall content and meaning of each book, not to examine them in depth. In the Fall, we will do the same with the New Testament. The following represents some of the thoughts I took away from this.
    In graduate school, I was exposed to the many attempts to organize the Old Testament around a unifying theme. For Walther Eichrodt the Sinai covenant was the lens through which to interpret the canon. For Gerhard von Rad it was what he called Heilsgeschichte, or “Salvation History.” Bernard Ramm saw in the Old Testament a “type/antitype” that connects it with the New Testament, and John Goldingay looks at the thread of grace that runs through the Testament. Walter Brueggemann, on the other hand, eschews any effort to organize the Testament by means of a unifying theme. For him, there is none, and in fact, the pluralism of the Testament is its greatest asset, allowing interpreters the freedom to imagine new possibilities in the text.
    I think it is realistic to say that the search for a unifying theme is over. For Evangelicals unity of theme was based on the presumption of “one author,” that is, God. Therefore, it must have a single theme. However, the presence of different points of view, in fact, views that clash and jar against one another, make the notion of one author untenable. All one needs to confirm this is to look at how the Deuteronomic theology of “faithfulness to the covenant yields prosperity,” is undermined by Ecclesiastes and Job (among others). This lends credibility to the notion that the Old Testament is a compilation of attempts by Israel to make sense of their history, attempts that differ from one another in many respects.
    The humanity of the contributors comes through in many places, especially when terrible things are attributed to God, such as the several genocides recorded as God’s command. The flip side of this are the texts which overturn Mosaic excesses. One such is his ban that Moabites are not allowed to worship with Israel “to the tenth generation,” meaning never. Along comes Ruth, a Moabite who is the great great grandmother of King David, who then gives Jesus the distinction of carrying Moabite blood. Another is Moses’ command that eunuchs would also be excluded from Israelite worship. Isaiah overturns this beautifully by prophesying that eunuchs will eventually be given something better than progeny, something that will never be “cut off,” a new name. Interestingly, the first non-Jewish convert to Christianity in the Book of Act was the Ethiopian eunuch!
    If you are committed to the notion that everything in the Testament must conform to everything else, these not so subtle disagreements will escape you. Brueggemann’s pluralistic understanding of the texts opens up worlds of new possibilities of understanding if we have ears to hear.
    One other insight is worth noting here. Some things taken literally actually hide a deeper and likely better meaning. When the discussion of Adam and Eve is taken literally, people want to know things like where was the Garden located, where did Cain get his wife, where did all those people come from to populate the first city, and how come we can’t find the angel guarding the Tree of Life. The Bible doesn’t seem interested in answering these questions, so we shouldn’t get too exercised about them, either. That’s because taking this story literally obscures the natural meaning of a story—to tell truths beyond the details. In this case, if you substitute “humanity” for Adam and Eve, you will read about yourself, not about two primordial characters.
    I think the best thing about the time spent in this survey is getting acquainted with the flow of Israelite history. Once you get past 2 Kings, the rest of the Testament is hard to situate in a time-frame. Where do you locate Isaiah, for example, or Ruth? The Minor Prophets are jumbled among the pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods. It became clear that preaching from the Lectionary suffers because many people can’t put the text into a context, and sermons can’t take the time to do it, either. When we started, class members didn’t know the difference between primordial time and the Exile. They do now, and if anyone in addition to them is benefited, it will be the preacher.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

    For more information or to order, click on any picture

  • The Concept of Authority

    by Edward W. H. Vick

     
    Authority 2(a) The term ‘authority’ refers to a relationship. It is a relational term. The term, like ‘revelation,’ points to a two-term relationship. Someone or something has authority over or for someone else. Someone reveals himself to someone else. Someone acknowledges the authority of another.  Someone understands what is revealed.
    The word ‘authority.’ The institution or the person that has authority has power over another. It has the capacity to influence that other, and it sometimes in fact has done so and does so. The authority may be charismatic or official. Authority may be the effect of the charm or persuasiveness of a person. It may be due to the social pressure of wide acceptance of power as legitimate. It is difficult not to be influenced by a widely recognized authority. We may accept it simply because there is no alternative. We are persuaded by the orator. We bow to pressures we cannot escape. Pressures and sanctions, or simply the threat of pressures and sanctions, can persuade us to act in one way rather than in another. The forces at work around us lead us to the acceptable behaviour. In this sense the term ‘authority’ refers to the effective influence which a person, a book, a custom, a belief, an institution has over people.[ene_ptp] (b) The term ‘authority’ is also used of the experts, the persons who know what they are talking about and who, because of this, deserve our respect when speaking. A person who does something competently may also be regarded as an authority when it is a matter of discussing how to do what he can do..
    To have authority is to have influence. Someone influences because he is a friend and we are trying to please him; or perhaps because he is an expert and we acknowledge the right he has to be respected. ‘Authority,’ ‘competence,’ and ‘recognition’ are thus all very closely related concepts.6
    They are closely related when we attempt to analyse the Bible’s authority. Here it is clear that the effective authority of the Bible is identical with the influence it exerts. It is also clear that an appropriate response on the part of the reader is necessary. One can acknowledge authority when one has experienced the influence of the writing in a particular way.
    (c) Authority is acknowledged power. When people recognize that a person, an institution, a class has the right to exercise power, authority is in evidence. ‘Power’ means the capacity to influence another, to get one’s purpose fulfilled, one’s ideas accepted and acted upon, to get one’s will done. Power can be exercised without being recognized as right and proper. Such power may lead someone to perform exactly the same act as the exercise of legitimate power might produce. If someone flourishes a revolver in my face, that will certainly provide me with an incentive to co-operate with the person flourishing it. But there are also legitimate ways of relieving me of—say—my money. I may recognize the structured power of bureaucratic authority and permit the taxman to claim some of my money. On this definition, ‘authority’ means both the exercise of power and the recognition of it as legitimate. Indeed, recognition is the defining element. This is the important element in our present considerations. Authority means recognition. Authority ‘is exercised only over those who voluntarily accept it’ (Juvenal).7
    (d). How and why do we come to acknowledge an authority? Does such an acknowledgment commit us to an automatic and uncritical acceptance of our authority’s pronouncements and demands whatever they are? What reasons can we give for our initial acceptance? Can a critical acceptance of authority lead to an uncritical following of its demands?
    (1) One reason for recognition of an authority is belief in the rightness of established customs and traditions. We are taught that we should adopt beliefs and behaviour patterns, and we never question them. They teach us, they train us, before we are able to reason. Later we may find reasons for believing what they have trained us to believe, and doing what they have taught us to do. They socialize us into a tradition of values, beliefs and behaviour, and having accepted that tradition we may never question its validity. We have our authorities handed to us. It is precisely because we have received them in this way, without engaging in a serious process of rational justification, that we feel greatly threatened when we are confronted with alternatives. Do we entrench or do we explore? Shall we give consideration to the criticisms or shall we dismiss them without further ado?
    (2) Max Weber8 recognizes another form of authority which he calls charismatic authority. An exceptional leader, endowed with outstanding persuasive qualities, gets a following. Such qualities as he manifests are seen as if supernatural, or superhuman. They set the leader apart from ordinary mortals, and make belief, loyalty, devotion and obedience easy and natural.
    (3) But we do not need to be impressed by such outstanding personalities to accept our beliefs on authority. Most of what we believe comes from other people’s testimony. We have not ourselves been in a position to test all the claims we accept. Nor ever shall. We are usually not inclined to test them. We simply accept them. Such acceptance works and we live together constructively. It was Bishop Butler who said that ‘probability is the guide to life’. We must act on the evidence we have. We can’t prove everything. In fact, we cannot prove much. We have to take things on trust. Our trust is shown to be reasonable in that when we act on probabilities things go right and not wrong. Many things we simply accept. We couldn’t get along if we didn’t.
    (4) But human beings, even the most exceptional of human beings, and even human beings under the influence of the divine, are fallible, limited and. suggestible. Suppose there were a human being who was infallible and at the same time was limited. Such a logical possibility is very relevant to the subject under discussion. We can think of an infallibility which extends to some matters and not to others, just as we think of an authority in some areas and not in others. I mean, it is conceivable that someone be infallible about some things but not about others. We can distinguish between total and partial infallibility. ‘He’s never wrong when he’s talking about such-and-such’ could be inferred from ‘He’s never been known to be wrong when he has talked about such-and-such.’ If we kept within the limits we could accept his authority.
    But if we began asking him questions beyond the limits within which he was infallible, that person would be of little help, indeed might even be misleading, if not irrelevant. That would certainly be the case if he were not infallible and we took him to be so, and it was important for us that he be right.
    (5) Authorities sometimes conflict. Which, if any of them, are we going to accept? When authorities conflict you have to decide between them. You can start with a high-sounding claim, ‘The Bible says so and so.’ And so it does. But one authority says that the Bible means this, and another says the Bible means that, and yet another says the Bible means the other when the Bible says so and so. When the authority, in this case the Bible, gives rise to such divergence in interpretation the individual will have to choose between the secondary authorities. I’ll choose my secondary authority, and repose my confidence there. But that only slides the issue along the corridor where I’ll meet it again. For why should I repose such confidence in that secondary authority rather than in another one? I have not settled, only shelved, the question of authority. This problem is acute when there is a conflict between interpretations, when for example contradictory doctrinal conclusions are constructed and presented as the biblical teaching. Of course, a passage may be set in different contexts and speak to different situations without providing the problem of conflict.
    (6) Religious believers sometimes combine authoritarianism with scepticism.9 They will sometimes say, ‘The authority is so sacred that we must not question it.’ Neither must we try to establish it, give reasons for it. It does not permit, nor require, proof nor even support.’ Such authoritarianism has its particular psychological appeal and that is the main reason why it persists. The intellectually timid or indolent are sometimes quite happy to let others do their thinking for them and believe what they are told to believe. They ask ‘What do we believe?’ and then demand, ‘Please tell me.’ rather than seeking the truth for themselves. They enjoy conforming and the freedom from responsibility such conformity brings. Such a person ‘may be more comfortable, for the search after wisdom often brings sorrow and disillusionment.
    ‘. . . Better to raise one’s eyes to the sky and seek humbly for the truth, even though the search result in failure and unhappiness, than to give our beliefs into the keeping of another.’10
    The sinister counterpart to such conformity is a belief in the virtue of conformity, That may lead to the opposition and persecution of those who quest for truth by those who are certain that they have found it. The will to dominate requires the will to conform. One psychological type supplements the other.
    The appeal to the sacredness of the text of Scripture is one example of this type of conformity, of this type of submission. One must not question a sacred text. But questions arise. Once admit the sacredness of the text and one is then free from the responsibility of answering questions that inevitably arise in relation to that text. It may then happen that the purported sacredness of the text gets projected on to the interpreter so that the interpretation is itself put beyond question.
    It is the initial step which must be questioned, the initial acceptance of the authority, in this case the text of Scripture, as untouchable, as beyond question. What if any is the rational ground for taking this decisive step in the first place? Or is it irrational? At what point does one refuse to give reasons for one’s belief?
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

    1726

  • Jesus’ Life Offers a Model of Contentment

    by Drew Smith

     
    ContentmentWe live in a restless and discontented age. Each day we are confronted with problems and circumstances that test our peace and contentment. We worry about financial problems, health problems, and family problems. We are anxious about raising our children, succeeding at work, and maintaining a certain standard of living.
    Moreover, the pace of our daily lives, the demands of nanosecond technology, and the drive to outdo others are only a few of the factors that contribute to our anxiety and restlessness. We never have enough time or enough money to do and buy all we think we need. We are a discontented and stressed out generation.
     Why are we discontented? Why are we restless?[ene_ptp] Perhaps the most challenging obstacle to finding satisfaction in life is that we are constantly in want. We live in what someone has called the “prison of want”. We always want what is bigger, nicer, faster, and newer. We want a new job, a new car, a new house, a new gadget, and new clothes because we believe that such things will provide lasting contentment.
    We want because we live lives of comparison. We see what others have and we want something better. We see what others become and we want to become something better.  We are in a constant pace to keep up with and even out do our neighbors.
    We also want because the illusion of comfort convinces us that we will be happier with more stuff, with a new job, with a new car, and many other things we desire. We want possessions and prestige because we have the false impression that these will take away the pains and disappointments we experience in life. Yet, unhealthy wanting only leads to lust, jealousy, anger, resentment, failure, and sadly, a life that never finds contentment.
    So what is the secret of contentment?  How can we live lives free of anxiety and filled with satisfaction?  How can we overcome the desire to want?
    We find the answer in the model of living that Jesus gives to us. Never wanting or desiring that which was not given by God, Jesus, though continually living in the shadow of death, found contentment in his relationship with God and others. Three primary characteristics of Jesus’ life demonstrate this very idea.
    First Jesus found contentment through living in God’s presence. He was in constant communion with God, being led by God’s Spirit to do the will of God. Through living in the presence of God, Jesus found satisfaction and peace. The famous Psalm 23 captures the essence of what Jesus knew to be true; living in God’s presence and looking to God for the needs and blessings of life leads to a life of peace and contentment.
    Second, Jesus found contentment by living in God’s present. We are always looking past today to tomorrow, and we rush through life without appreciating the present that God has given to us. Jesus’ life, however, reflected his command, “Do not worry about tomorrow.” He embraced the present time that God had given him as an opportunity to embrace the will of God for him. In this he found peace.
    The psalmist of Psalm 118 reminds us that each day is “the day that the Lord has made” and we should “rejoice and be glad in it.” Instead of rushing through our lives of stress and strain, hoping that each day will be better than the previous one, we ought to live in the present that God has given us, finding God’s grace for today even if our circumstances are painful.
    Lastly, Jesus found contentment in relationships with others. Though spending much time alone in communion with God, Jesus was not insular. Indeed, we might say that his time alone with God resulted in his intentional act of creating relationships with others. In those relationships, though sometimes disappointing, Jesus found friendship, community, and contentment.
    To find peace and contentment, we must cherish our fellowship with others, whether they are family, friends, or even strangers. We must reject our relationships with things, and embrace the people God leads in our lives. The greatest gift we have is not the things, the possessions, the prestige, or the popularity we find in life. The greatest gifts we have in life are the relationships God has given us. Instead of replacing these relationships with busyness, superficiality, and isolation, we should ensure that we give priority to building loving relationships with the people God has placed in our lives.
    We will never find contentment in the things of this world that rust and decay. Nor will we experience peace through the things of this world that bring fleeting pleasure. True contentment is experienced through living in the presence of God, the present God has given us, and with the people God has led into our lives, even as we live in a world that is so discontented.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2613′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • ADULT EDUCATION—A BIG NEED IN OUR CHURCHES

    by Rev. Dr. Bob LaRochelle

     
    EnergionWhat is Adult Education like in your congregation? How is the level of participation? Are the topics you study engaging, and does their complexity challenge you to think deeply? Do you find yourself surprised or even shocked by what you are learning?
    I have worked in various capacities in local congregations for a long time now, and in different church traditions as well—both Protestant and Roman Catholic. To be[ene_ptp] perfectly honest, I have found that one of the greatest and most often overlooked needs is worthwhile adult based religious education. Oftentimes, what is called Adult Education in local churches focuses in on Adult Bible Study. I am not suggesting that this is unimportant. As a matter of fact, most of the teaching that I do is teaching from and about the Bible.
    My conviction, however, is that local congregations have a great responsibility to offer adults the opportunity to explore, discuss and grapple with a wide variety of real life ethical concerns and profound theological questions. Sadly, in establishing strong programs for children in local churches, we have often conveyed the wrong impression that religious learning stops at a young age.
    The reality is that adults need a religious education that takes them deeper than the often surface, literal understandings about Bible texts they have received, or the remote catechism style answers that have shaped their doctrinal education. The good news is that there are great materials out there that explore real life issues and expose people to different perspectives.
    To be honest, I have been looking at developing some classes in my congregation based on some of the materials this publisher, Energion, offers. In reviewing the variety of titles in Energion’s collection, I am struck by how various, operative, and conflicting opinions on current church issues are available through this one company. It’s pretty incredible—progressive theological and conservative evangelical voices, as well as everything in between, all under one roof!
    So, my simple suggestion is that if you are at all involved in participating in or shaping programs in your local church, that you look to explore the development of relevant topics in which a healthy pluralism of voices can be read, studied and discussed.  While these materials certainly need not come from one publisher, I would suggest that this page you are on is a great starting point.

  • Identity and Inheritance: The View of Things from the Heavenly Horizon

    by Allan R. Bevere

     
    MountainSeveral years ago, I was in Cuba on a teaching mission. One afternoon, during some free time, our hosts took us to a mountain on the Isle of Youth. There was a path up the side of the mountain, and those of us who were able and willing, were invited to climb the mountain. It was a tough climb; some who were not in the best physical condition were unable to continue for long. But for the four of us who made it, when we stood on the top of that mountain and looked down at the landscape below, we were treated to a view of the world that one can get only from the horizon.
    Paul and Timothy write, “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory (3:1-4).[ene_ptp] The earthly things of the world look quite different when viewed from the vantage point of heaven. Our writers to the Colossians are not advocating a withdrawal from the world, but an involvement in the world from a divine vista. Focus does determine reality; perspective interprets what we see. The other-worldly does not nullify the things of the world; it reinterprets them through the eyes of God.
    We must not miss the verb tense in verse one: “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ.” Notice that Paul does not say, “Since, then, you will be raised with Christ.” Resurrection is not something that will happen only when Christ returns; we participate in the resurrected life of Christ right now. In this world we are to live the heavenly life in the present. We are to bring to pass the words of The Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
    The heavenly life in the midst of earthly existence looks quite different; it looks redeemed. This is why Paul and Timothy tell us to take off the vices that characterize the ways of the world and to clothe ourselves with the virtues of the Christ-like life.
    Living as God’s chosen people means walking the road of discipleship in a manner that will attract others to the gospel, so that those who are “earthly” will desire to live in a “heavenly” way, setting their minds on the things of God and thereby seeing over the horizon to view the world in the way Christ does—from the summit of the cross.

  • Transformative Suffering

    by Joel Watts

    KeatsI’ve been thinking a lot lately about suffering. From time to time, in classes I teach the question is raised, “Why does God allow suffering?” To that end, I’ve turned to writing a short work that I want to use in those times. This is part of it.
    Theosis (becoming a sharer in God’s nature, 2 Peter 1.4) is the goal of the Christian life, but suffering is the process by which we are transformed from our present state into the ideal. We cannot think of suffering as evil, even from a naturalistic standpoint. The Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years by the constant friction of the Colorado River (or rather, a flowing waterway only recently named the Colorado). This friction caused erosion, working with wind and other natural forces, to create one of the most spectacular views in the world. This suffering is not viewed through the minute changes wrought by nature, but by the result and thus is not mourned. Rather, we can now examine it as something praise worthy, with many finding proof of God’s majesty in the mere sight.
    It is rather more difficult to suggest that suffering endured by humans, and sometimes caused by humans, can ever produce [ene_ptp]something as magnificent as the Grand Canyon. It sounds almost clichéd to say that the agony that is sometimes human existence is “all apart of God’s plan,” and yet, we cannot hide from the fact that God is ultimately sovereign. What I would refrain from doing, however, is suggesting specific instances of suffering — war, rape, murder, loss and gain — are part of God’s plan. Rather than attempting to discern patterns in God’s plan, or hoping that “everything will work out all right” for us before we die, we must assume that the will of God is concerned with a wider audience than us.
    Suffering does have a reason, more so than just the cause afforded by Christian theologians. Suffering is to transform us, to recreate us through love into something else. The great 19th century English poet, John Keats, would unknowingly agree with certain Christian theologians in calling this process “soul-making.”
    The common cognomen of this world among the misguided and superstitious is ‘a vale of tears’ from which we are to be redeemed by a certain arbitrary interposition of God and taken to Heaven — What a little circumscribed, straightened notion! Call the world, if you please! ‘The vale of Soul-making.’ Then you will find out the use of the world. (I am speaking now in the highest terms for human nature admitting it to be immortal which I will here take for granted for the purpose of showing a thought which has struck me concerning it.) I say “Soul making.” Soul as distinguished from an Intelligence — There may be intelligences or sparks of the divinity in millions — but they are not Souls till they acquire identities, till each one is personally itself. Intelligences are atoms of perception–they know and they see and they are pure, in short they are God — how then are Souls to be made? How then are these sparks which are God to have identity given them–so as ever to possess a bliss peculiar to each ones individual existence? How, but by the medium of a world like this?
    This point I sincerely wish to consider, because I think it a grander system of salvation than the Chistian religion — or rather it is a system of Spirit-creation — This is effected by three grand materials acting the one upon the other for a series of years — These Materials are the Intelligence — the human heart (as distinguished from intelligence or Mind) and the World or Elemental space suited for the proper action of Mind and Heart on each other for the purpose of forming the Soul or Intelligence destined to possess the sense of Identity. I can scarcely express what I but dimly perceive — and yet I think I perceive it–that you may judge the more clearly I will put it in the most homely form possible — I will call the world a School instituted for the purpose of teaching little children to read — I will call the Child able to read, the Soul made from that school and its hornbook. Do you not see how necessary a World of Pains and troubles is to school an Intelligence and make it a soul? A Place where the heart must feel and suffer in a thousand diverse ways! Not merely is the Heart a Hornbook, it is the Mind’s Bible, it is the Mind’s experience, it is the teat from which the Mind or intelligence sucks its identity–As various as the Lives of Men are–so various become their Souls, and thus does God make individual beings, Souls, Identical Souls of the sparks of his own essence…” – John Keats, April 21, 1810
    St. Irenaeus would write,

    For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good upon us, and made men like to Himself, that is in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through His love and His power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.[1]

    The concept is the same. Life is made for the creature in order to learn to be like God. This “soul-making” theosis is highlighted and promoted by John Hick (1922–2012) in his work, Evil and the God of Love (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Hick’s work has demonstrable flaws, as highlighted by Stephen T. Davis’s 2001 3-point rebuttal (Encountering Evil, A New Edition: Live Options in Theodicy, Westminster-John Knox). My proposal will attempt to avoid, for now, the proposal by Hick, and subsequent rebuttals, because I stand apart from him in several key areas. First, I do not believe universalism is a necessary component of Irenaean theosis. Universalism is simply another side of determinism. Second, I do not accept that humans are going to evolve into a “God-consciousness” but simply, that we are to be transformed through the process of suffering into holiness and thus be perfected and able to speak to God face-to-face. Further, I do not believe in free will, although I hold to free choice as the more humane experience.[2] Finally, theosis is not merely an individual enterprise, but one afforded to the whole species corporately. It is part of the human condition, aiding our human flourishing.
    My premise is simple: that suffering is the process by which God transforms us, individually and corporately, into a holy creation able to share in the divine nature. Suffering is not limited to grand exhibitions of evil, but is the all-encompassing actions of those things forcing us to be human. It is friction. It is erosion. It is entropy. It is building only to be destroyed. It is love and loss, good and evil — and all experiences in-between. Suffering by its definition are those events in our lives and in the life of the species that is used to move us from existence as the human animal to the beyond-existence as holy creatures adorned with the presence of God.
     
    [1] Irenaeus, Ad. Her. 1.4.38.44.
    [2] Free choice allows for the ability of the human to choose within a set number of options.

  • My God Is Too Human . . . and Yours Is Too

    by Herold Weiss

     
    TwainParents can be quite surprised when they find out that a child of theirs did some horrendous thing. They had constant personal, objective interactions with their child, but one day out of the blue, as they see it, they discover that they did not know at all who this child of theirs is. On the other hand, it often happens that a child who had an intimate relationship with his father throughout his adolescence and youth and thought at the time that his father was a dumb old foggy totally out of touch with reality when he becomes a young adult and mentally reconstructs the history of his relationship with his father realizes that his father has actually been all along a very wise human being who desires the best for him.
    In my last column, I said that my understanding of God and that of the author of Psalm 137 were totally different. By that I did not mean to say that mine was better than that of the Psalmist. I was just stating that our understandings were different. His God may have had some qualities that I would very much admire, but I do not know about them. Mine may be actually quite different from that of most of my contemporaries, besides being different from that of many biblical authors. Now, if parents can be totally surprised when they find out who their son really is, and young men can radically revise their understanding of their father, even though they have daily physical contact with him, how much more everyone will be quite surprised when we all find out who God really is, given that human beings can have contact with God only in their imagination.[ene_ptp] This is a most important lesson we must learn, and learning it means having achieved some spiritual maturity. I give credit to the Book of Job for teaching me this lesson. Because it was written precisely to teach this lesson, I consider it to be the best theological book of the Old Testament. The way in which the author frames the story of Job tells us that he has come a long way thinking about and coming to some conclusions concerning the question of God.
    On the surface it would appear that the concern of the book is with the problem of the suffering of the innocent or, stated differently, whether God is just. The problem of the suffering of the innocent became crucial once human beings ceased identifying themselves within their tribe and sought individual identity. It no longer made sense to understand one’s suffering as due to the sin of an ancestor (21:19). The author of the Book of Job also makes clear that he has rejected the apocalyptic solution to the problem of the unjust suffering of the righteous. The introduction presents Satan as a respectable member of the council of the sons of God, and not as a rebellious fallen angel who has been ejected from heaven and has become the “god of this world” who is free to cause evil. In this story, God has not lost control over Satan. Besides, the text denies that there is a resurrection (10: 20-21; 14: 12, 19-20; 16: 22; 17: 13-16). The introduction also makes clear that actually Job is a just, blameless and upright man (1: 1, 22; 2: 10, cf. 12:4). If the reader had not been told this repeatedly, one would be inclined to think that Job is a hypocrite when he proclaims his innocence (9:15; 10: 7), and challenges God to bring out any evidence against him (6: 24; 13:20-23). Given what is said about Job in the introduction, the reader knows that Job’s protestations are justified.
    Anyone who has read the Book of Job knows that Job is sinless but impatient. The proverbial patience of Job is not found in the book. It comes from the ancient legend of Job, referred to in Ezekiel 14: 14, 20. According to the Book of Job, a rich patriarch suffered great losses both of wealth and of loved ones. His wife then advised him to curse God and die, but he answered her saying that that those who receive great blessings from God should also happily receive hardships from God (2: 9 -10). On account of Job’s faithfulness, God rewarded him by making him many times richer than he had been previously (42: 12 – 13). The author of the Book of Job added the account of the council of the sons of God in heaven, the dialogue of Job with his visitors, the dialogue of Job with God, and the amazing fact that his daughters inherited from his great wealth. It is also apparent that some digressive poems were likewise added in antiquity.
    The plot of the story is quite simple. Job is obviously under tremendous suffering. The three visitors who come to accompany him insist that his situation is obvious: retributive justice works and God is punishing Job for his sins. Their advice is “despise not the chastening of the Almighty” (5:17). According to them, the solution to Job’s predicament is for him to confess his sins, ask forgiveness and repent. God will assuredly reward him with health and well-being. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar say this in a number of ways, only affirming what had become the orthodox understanding of God’s justice best expressed in Deuteronomy. A late visitor, Elihu, also affirms it, but admits that “God is clothed with terrible majesty—the Almighty—we cannot find him; he is great in power and justice” (37: 23-24).  Job’s analysis of the situation is quite different. He is innocent of any sin. He has nothing to repent from and for which to ask forgiveness. This means that God is unjust.
    The author of the book has done an excellent job in setting up the situation. We may explore the options available to him in this way: 1) in a world without God, anything is possible and no reasons are to be sought for the suffering of the righteous; 2) in a polytheistic universe, everyone must keep in good graces with the goddess Fortuna; 3) in a monotheistic universe, there are two possibilities: God is either all-powerful and unjust (or not loving), or God is not all-powerful and just (or loving). All the protagonists in the Book of Job agree that God is all-powerful. The four visitors insist that God is all-powerful and just.  According to Job, however, God is all-powerful and unjust. As an aside, it may be noted that most Christians today would opt for the first alternative: God is just and loving but has limitations.
    According to Job, God is unjust on several counts. In the first place God is unjust by causing an innocent person to suffer. In the second place, God is unjust because he refuses to attend to Job’s pleas for release from his sufferings. His pleas are totally ignored by God (9: 32; 13: 3, 18; 23: 17). In the third place, God is unjust because God is a bully who is taking advantage of a weaker being, using him for target practice with arrows, and laughing while having fun with him (6: 14; 9:23; 10: 16; 16: 2). In the fourth place, God is unjust because not only God is causing Job to suffer but has also ruined his reputation and diminished him in the sight of his fellows, including his wife (2: 9; 10:15). In the fifth place, God is unjust by refusing to allow a referee, a third party, to adjudicate between God and Job; there cannot be justice when grievances are to be presented to the abuser (9: 15, 33; 19: 6-7; 24: 1; 31: 35). As the story unfolds, Job insists that he will not cease accusing God with injustice until he is vindicated. His visitors insist that he is a sinner. He insists that he is innocent, and that he must be vindicated before his death (6: 4; 13: 18; 27: 5-6). At his burial, his nearest of kin (the Goel, his redeemer according to Hebrew custom) will stand at the grave site and everyone present will only have something good to say about him (19: 25), but that those will be empty words which he will not be able to hear. Job does not consider a posthumous vindication valid.
    Finally, God appears in a whirlwind that demolishes Job’s self-assurance. Instead of bringing comfort and consolation to Job in his suffering, or explaining the reason for his lamentable situation, God totally bypasses all of Job’s complaints and accuses the three visitors of not having “spoken of me [God] what is right” (42: 7). (Job had throughout accused them of offering worthless lies [13: 4, 12; 21: 34]). For Job, who had been eager to confront God with his accusations of injustice, God has some pointed questions: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” (40: 2). “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (40: 8). Most significantly, Job is confronted with a long series of questions about the way in which God had gone about creating the world and still keeps all creatures active (38: 4 – 39; 40: 10 – 41: 24). God’s questions have a clear agenda. They demonstrate Job’s absolute ignorance and impotence in reference to the natural world, one which in this telling includes Leviathan, the “creature without fear, . . . the king of all the sons of pride” (31: 33-34). Given that Job is absolutely out of his depths in the realm of nature, what makes him think that he knows all there is to know about the realm of justice so that he can declare God unjust?
    God’s rebuke of Eliphaz and his two friends is, “You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42: 8). This can be understood in two ways: It could be a reference to the words Job has just spoken, “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore, I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42: 5-6) By these words Job establishes that there are two ways to know about God, by the hearing of the ear and by the seeing of the eye, that is, to know God from the tradition and to know God personally. The distinction makes clear that the first option is inadequate and the second is effective. Facing the Creator God Job realizes the inadequacy of the understanding of God that had enabled him to accuse God of being unjust.
    What God says, however, contrasts what Eliphaz and his friends have said and what Job has said; therefore, most probably it should be taken to refer to what Job has said in his argument with his visitors. As I have analyzed their debate, Job has been giving a very detailed list of God’s activities that reveals a sophisticated understanding of justice. It is on the basis of it that Job charges God with being unjust. It must not be overlooked, however, that Job insists that he wishes to bring God before a court of justice. He is confident that at the court he will be vindicated. This means that in the final analysis Job has faith that the court will be just. On the basis of this fact, it would seem that God is saying that the three visitors who only spouted traditional orthodoxy did not speak right of God, but that Job, who gave an insightful analysis of God’s injustice according to his views of justice, spoke well because of his residual trust in the justice system that would vindicate him.
    What is the author of the Book of Job doing by means of this very well constructed drama? We must not forget that according to the story Job’s traumatic experience has been brought about by God’s desire to win a bet made with Satan, something he added to the traditional legend of Job. When we are confronted with a God who wagers against Satan it is obvious that we are being told that this God is a human creation. Thus, the author is making the point that to expose the futility of our human conceptions of God he could do no better than to create a betting God. It is because of their deep awareness of their impotence that humans like to bet. It is their way of affirming that they are alive by taking chances in search of power.
    Certainly one who could construct the dialogue of Job and his visitors did not think that any one should take his story as true. His whole exercise is a human attempt to explicate God’s justice by manipulating a humanly created God. In other words, the author of the Book of Job aims to tell his readers that any god that humans can use to explain God’s ways in nature and in history is a god of human creation. It is not remotely related to the God who actually created the world and keeps it operative. All our gods are too human. They are human attempts to make sense of our experiences, and as such they fail altogether to reveal the God who actually is the Creator and giver of Life. The God who is God cannot be manipulated to construct explanations of human experience. The author of the Book of Job belongs to the Wisdom School that places experience over traditions, the seeing of the eye over the hearing of the ear. His genius is to have taken an ancient legend and with a very ironic and agile mind turn it into a theological masterpiece in which he rejects the Hebraic orthodoxy that God’s retributive justice is at work now, the apocalyptic view that God’s retributive justice will be at work at the resurrection of the dead, and any other sophisticated explanation of God’s justice or injustice. Those constructs are only human conceptions of retribution, not at all God’s way of acting.
    His insight that human pictures of God are easily manipulated human creations is demonstrated by his explanation that Job’s sufferings are actually caused by God’s need to win a bet. This is obviously a most ridiculous way of manipulating God. To explain God’s just ways by means of a story about God wagering on Job is a contradiction that introduces chance into God’s universe. This obviously sets up an ironic, upside down universe. The Book of Job is a tour de force on an ancient legend to tell everyone that their God is too human. As any oriental storyteller will tell you, the good storyteller is the one who takes a well-known story and expands it to teach a new lesson. He knows, however, that his audience will not accept a different ending. So, the ending of this version of the legend of the patriarch Job tells the very humanly conceived way in which Job is rewarded for trusting in God. All is well that ends well, thus making the story fit human visions of what ought to be.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2675′]

  • On Knowing and Doing

    by David Moffett-Moore

     
    WalkHere I sit, looking out of the window, busy city streets below and in the distance, the beautiful rolling landscape of Ireland, home of the friendliest people in the world.  The reason I am here is because I had a stroke while leading a group of fellow pilgrims. Ireland is a beautiful country, the people are all friendly, and the health care is state of the art, but I don’t recommend adding a stroke to your itinerary.
    In Life as Pilgrimage, I included chapters on being present in the moment, approaching the day and not borrowing life’s burdens. In Wind and Whirlwind, I listed methods for stress management and self-care. In The Spirit’s Fruit, I shared my struggle with anger management and techniques that have helped. I know what I should have been doing, but knowing is not the same as doing!
    I knew I had high blood pressure, but I didn’t want to be dependent on chemical solutions. I could exercise, I could diet. I could,  but I didn’t. Now I can still exercise, still diet, still do the things I know to do, and now I will also take my medicine!

    I’ve heard that knowledge is what we learn from our own experiences and wisdom is what we learn from the experiences of others. May you have the wisdom to learn from my experience to do as well as to know!

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2755′] Click on any picture for more information or to order

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.