G'day Lindsay and the Group
Sorry, this has developed into another essay, or at least a string of little essays. You raise some really good points. And it's still a little rough, and repetitive at times. But I think it's as good as I can do just now.
At 03:32 PM 15/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:
At 09:51 AM 14/01/04 +1100, Andrew Alder wrote:
Andrew, I'm curious about your use of the phrase "in this day and age". Do you believe that the Bible was telling certain people in a certain time and/or place that they should, indeed *must*, stone their child? I can't believe in that sort of God, but on the other hand I can't believe that I have a higher morality than God, so to me the only conclusion is to discount the authority of some parts of the Bible.
But I'm interested to know how you resolve that problem.
Leviticus doesn't come up in the lectionary very often, so maybe substitute the account of Abraham making a sacrifice of Isaac. In a similar way, I can't believe in a God that would *ever* ask a person to put their child to death (and changing the request at the last minute doesn't alter that).
Good question. See my other post that crossed this for an OT passage I find even more challenging. (And BTW I think the passage to which Allan referred is actually Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I don't think Leviticus has any exactly corresponding regulation, although it has many with similar themes.)
I don't find the story of Isaac so very troubling. I think that, as Allan points out, we need to see it in the perspective of the original writers. More important still, I think we need to see it in the perspective of the original *hearers*. This again comes back to the theory of speech acts. And most important of all, from the perspective of the *participants*. I think that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob existed. My understanding of the passage is affected by this.
I also believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob existed. I believe their narratives were handed down by oral tradition, and that material may have been added or lost. In addition, when the first written records were made, the author certainly would have applied some editorial input. And later revisionists had their own separate agenda.
Hmmm? On the one hand, there's certainly reason to think that the text would have been changed, and evidence it has changed to some extent. But on the other hand there's also reason to think that it hasn't changed much at all. We westerners tend to equate oral traditions with the game of Chinese Whispers (no cultural slur intended, that's the normal term for them and I don't know another). This is simplistic and not very accurate.
Remember that these are sacred texts we're dealing with. The idea that they are inspired, and that preserving them in even the tiniest detail is important, was not invented by EMU, or even by the various Ecumenical Councils that (almost) decided which books went into our current Christian Bible. The copiers and other custodians of the Torah, and before them the oral custodians, believed this too, and similarly for other books although the dates at which particular books were first accepted as sacred are lost and may not have been all that definite anyway.
Chinese whispers are deliberately set up to get a laugh out of the variations produced. To get a better parallel, we could perhaps set up a similar whisper-chain, but this time allow unlimited discussion between every two adjacent steps until the text was agreed, and let it be known that for every single word that was changed in the final version, a randomly selected person from the whole group would be painfully executed at the end of the test.
Under these conditions we might find accuracy improved, but not by very much. Because even this doesn't do the oral tradition justice. What I've just described is a very negative stress. What the keepers of the law had was (and is) the very positive stress of being chosen by God to have custody of his message. They were (and still are) highly motivated in a way no party game can simulate. Even serious studies have great problems investigating this scenario.
And even if we still find the accuracy inadequate, we also have the question of what God is doing all this time. My belief is that he still takes an interest in keeping the Bible accurate, and I find this conviction shared by the many translators I have had the priviledge of meeting over the years.
You might just BTW contrast this with the tradition surrounding the Koran, which loses its authority completely when translated. Translations are regarded as mere commentaries. Unlike the Bible, the Koran might therefore be seen as the "words of God", to borrow Allan Leggett's turn of phrase. Allan also speculated whether the Koran will one day be the subject of similar scholarship to the Bible. The answer is, probably not. The two intellectual backgrounds are far more different than is generally assumed (and assumed by people of both traditions). It is, for example, hard to write meaningful apologetics in countries where "criticising the Koran" is a criminal offence.
If a repetition of the story of Isaac were to occur today, I would find it deeply troubling.
Hmmmm. Well, likewise. But see below.
So what has changed over a few thousand years? Certainly people have changed. And we could argue that the way God interacts with people has changed.
We could indeed. But there's also the little matter of the Incarnation. Words fail me. I'll try.
We are on a Christian list discussing theology, and you ask "what has changed" since Abraham and Isaac? Hmmmm, OK. IMO the main thing that has most changed is our understanding of God. Jesus is, dare I suggest, an awesomely important part of this. I think that was part of the exercise.
The Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection all have an enormous bearing on our relationship with God, and also on our understanding of that relationship. I really thought that would go without saying. But having spelled it out, is this now agreed? If not, I think we should probably explore this as our first priority.
Now I wanted to deal with that first. But there's another, relatively minor but still important, complication to what you say above. You seem to assume above that similar stories do *not* occur today. You may be right, and I hope so, but it's a big nasty world out there. How confident are you that human sacrifice is totally unknown today?
But I think we would say that God has not changed. So, I find the story of Isaac disturbing.
As an aside, I find HG Wells' Short History of the World (or an equivalent title) to be quite revealing in this area. His thesis is that human sacrifice was part of many primitive religions. Over time this gave way to animal sacrifice, which in turn eventually faded in importance. In this context, the aborted sacrifice of Isaac seems me to be more part of primitive religion in general than a revelation of the Hebrew God in particular.
I think this is a good and credible explanation of part of the development of the understanding of God that we see in the OT. Another factor is that the Isrealites seem to have gone from polytheism, to belief that their God was supreme in a particular place, to belief that their God was supreme everywhere, to belief that their God was unique.
Science builds successively better models as it goes. Theology, it seems to me, is the same. But as you say, that's not God changing. It's our changing understanding of God. This still parallels physics. There are heretical philosophies of science that say we create the world in our minds, a similar scenario to the Matrix movies. But the orthodox view is that the universe stays the same, and we understand it better and better.
I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make?
If so, let me go further. Take *any* proper subset of the Bible, big or small, and IMO it represents a more limited understanding of God than the whole Bible does.
That seems to be a generalisation of the point you are making here. Have a good look at it. Would you agree with it?
If Isaac *had* been sacrificed, I'd have a lot more trouble. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I don't agree with you that changing the request isn't important. I think it's very important indeed (and I'm sure Isaac would agree with me (;-> ).
I didn't say that it wasn't important. I'm saying that it doesn't lessen the barbarism of the initial request (and I have a hunch Isaac would agree with me).
Understood. Agreed. God meets us where we are. Again, it's not God who is changing.
In mathematics, we have a constant debate over the nature of our subject. Is it creative, or is it analytic? That is, are we *inventing* new structures, or are we merely *discovering* structure that already exists? Both approaches are valid and profitable in mathematics.
It seems to me that you and I are on the opposite poles of a similar divide in theology. I am asking what God is like, while you are laying down the rules as to what sort of God you can believe in.
I preach caution. Unlike mathematics, I think theology is strictly descriptive. We don't have the freedom to invent the sort of God we'd like. God is there before us.
Yes, theology is descriptive. But it is also largely discerned. So if we discern a God that is ugly, I think it is reasonable to press further and look for possible human reasons for that.
Agreed.
Of course I can't make rules for God. But if I was forced to accept a barbaric God then I certainly would not worship him/her. It would only be fear that might make me give up time and money for that God. And as the consequences of unbelief (as observed in a large part of the population) seem to be minimal, that would be a natural course.
I don't think these consequences are "observed" to be so minimal. Claimed yes. I think these claims are documented throughout history, and particularly in the Bible, many times over.
The impression I gained both in Primary School and in Sunday-school (1950s-1960s) was that at most times and places in history people were pretty good, life was pretty good, and most people were God-fearing. This IMO was an unfortunate and inaccurate world-view. What the Bible and history both seem to actually say is that throughout history, people have been barbaric, life has been unpleasant for most of them, and God has struggled to be heard. I think this is the picture you describe below, so perhaps we agree on this.
So was this period unusual? Well, yes and no. We are still suffering IMO from the misplaced optimism and faith in science, industrialism, and the (secular) American way that marked this period in Australian society at least. But IMO this misplaced faith in substitutes for God is not unusual in history either. I've previously spoken of the self-assured physics of the second half of the 19th century. I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably much the same story, from the little evidence we have.
I've been involved in past years in Kairos Prison Ministry (and may be again one day I hope). Just BTW there are opportunities for people to participate in this program, both to see it in action and to help it significantly, and all it takes is a few hours on a Friday afternoon and evening and a bit of paperwork some weeks beforehand (and this paperwork is *not* negotiable). If you haven't already, I recommend you take one of these opportunities to see God really rock your socks off with the relevance of Christ today. Email me, privately if you like, if you are interested. Or talk to almost any other current or past Kairos team member.
Over the years several of the guys in green have said to me words to the effect of "I'm glad I went to prison, I would not have met Christ otherwise", in a situation that makes me think they are quite genuine (which is, bluntly, a contrast to many other prison programs). It brings a lump to my throat every time. These guys are not for one moment belittling the cost to them of going to gaol. Rather they are awed by how important God is to them.
Or to put it another way (and the point is), how great the price has been of their unbelief.
Going back to Allan's example, let's just assume that God *did* ask for children to be stoned (well, specifically, a son who is old enough that he "spends all his time drinking and partying" (CEV) and has been punished, not just warned, for this before). Why would God say this? For the same reason he condoned slavery, and Israel having a King, and marriage customs which gave some protection to women but at enormous cost to their human rights and dignity. None of these were ever God's idea of the world he wanted.
You raise many topics here. To take up one of them - Israel's King. According to the OT, God does not want Israel to have a king and repeatedly warns them of the dangers. But eventually God gives in. How can that be parallel to say, God *not* wanting human sacrifice, but asking Abraham to carry it out?
God is in both cases responding to a fallen world. God meets Abraham where he is. Abraham understands human sacrifice, or thinks he does. God doesn't want it, although Abraham thinks at one stage he does (but why does he tell the servants to wait with the donkey until "we" return?). But God does ask for the readiness to do it. I suspect that Jesus gave the same sort of challenge to the Rich Young Man, but we'll never know, because so far as is recorded he rejected the offer.
Abraham accepted the offer.
This is not in contrast to the God I see at work in the world today. It's very consistent. I don't believe God wants children to die of malaria, or AIDS, or hunger, either. But they do, daily. Why? Another big topic, and all I want to say for now is, God seems to me to be the same today as then.
Children dying of hunger or disease is a completely different matter to God asking for a child to be sacrificed.
My point was just that I don't understand why God can't miraculously get rid of malaria, any more than I understand why he puts Abraham and Isaac through the torture he does.
I agree they are different matters, but I don't see what your objection is here. Is that any clearer?
The question that Allan asked was, how do I reconcile this with my concept of Biblical authority? And the answer is, there's a big difference between a naive reading and a simplistic one. I'm happy to take the Bible at face value, which is what I call a naive reading. But I won't defend a simplistic reading. I don't think this passage commits me to stoning my children, and I don't know anyone who does, and if you do then let's lock them up and arrange medication as a matter of urgency. They can be helped. (;->
If we would lock them up today, then I think it is a consistent standard to say that Abraham *should* have been locked up back then. When we decide that slavery is not acceptable, we don't decide that its acceptability has changed from one day to the next, even though changes to the law might mean that it is legal one day and not the next.
I don't agree that Abraham "should" have been locked up. Christopher Columbus would be court-martialled in any of today's navies for errors of navigation. We can't always apply today's rules to yesterday's events.
But let me see if I am understanding you ... in the same way that you have agreed that saying "this is the word of God" does not mean "these are the words of God", is it that by saying "the Bible is all authoritative" you do not mean "all the statements in the Bible are authoritative (at face value)".
Because it seems to me that your statement that the Bible is all authoritative (and that we cannot pick and choose which bits are authoritative) is not bourne out by your discourse.
Hmmm. OK. Is there anything in particular that I have said that contradicts the idea that the Bible is *all* authoritative?
Perhaps that's because you fail to grasp what I mean by "authoritative". What I mean is simply that if *I* honestly know what it means, then I'm bound by it. But I don't acknowledge the right of you, or the Pope, or *anyone* else to tell me what it means.
This is not a cop-out. It's a very important principle.
I am very interested in what others think of course. My interpretations are not always right, and I know this. But at the same time I don't get excited over puzzle-cases that seem to have been invented to try to discredit the Bible. There are certainly things that it says that are puzzling to me. Paul's advice to Timothy over women in leadership (not) worried me for many years, and at one stage I found myself in the uncomfortable position of nominating a female friend for eldership, and even persuading her to stand, with this still unresolved. But you'll notice it didn't stop me. Was this disobedience? I don't think so. It was an honest admission that I didn't then understand this part of the Bible. (I think I do now. But that's another story.)
My question, always, is not so much "how could a lawyer attempt to interpret this in court if they wanted to prove a point (on which they've already decided)" but rather "what is God saying to me (with me listening)". Successful, accurate communication depends on both parties *wanting* to communicate accurately, that's one important consequence of the theory of speech acts. I can truthfully say that, firstly, whenever I have heeded what I believed the Bible to be saying, I have been glad of having done it. Secondly, whenever I have read the Bible in this way, I have found it reeked of God's love and wisdom. And thirdly and most important of all, while I find some bits puzzling, I have far more trouble *doing* what God says in the Bible than I ever have in *deciding* what God says.
This three points all seem to me to be far more important than these puzzle-cases.
I think we often underestimate the barbarism both of the past and of the present. Children were executed for being uncontrollable only a few hundred years ago in England. Women are executed on suspicion of unchastity in some parts of the world today.
Barbarism from humans is a norm in most of history. But we are talking about barbarism from God.
Hmmm. If Isaac had been sacrificed, then this would be true. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I can't think of any scenario in which it would have happened. Had Abraham refused, then Isaac was safe. Abraham obeyed, and again Isaac was safe. So what's the problem?
But I think we can easily find examples of barbarism from God. Does that make God barbaric? Not IMO. We need to also understand the constraints he was under, which we can't do completely but it helps to try.
I'm curious that you find barbarism from humans the norm only in "most" of history. When was the non-barbarous period?
Allow me to propose a different scenario. Supposing that you took two groups of people today and asked each group to draft a model criminal code. If you like, they could all be faithful people. But one group consists of say Pauline Hanson (before her time in jail) and like-minded souls. The other group is more left-wing in bent, including prison visitors, charity volunteers, social workers, the disabled and dispossessed.
I think that the first group would probably come up with something a lot like the law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy - long lists of offences with specific, fixed, harsh punishments. The punishments are designed to act as a deterrent, a rehabilitation, and a redress.
The second group might come up with something a bit like the 10 commandments. Broad principles of justice, fairness and mutual respect. And no mention of punishment but rather a statement that this code would lead to a cohesive community of generally (spiritually, psychologically) healthy individuals.
Both groups would genuinely believe that together they had discerned the wisdom of God.
Then when the two groups get together to combine their insights, they naturally find that to be impossible and arguments break out.
Hmmmm. Are you sure you *can* set up two harmonious groups like this? It sounds credible, but it's essential to you argument, and it may not be as simple as you suggest. I guess as a prison visitor, I'm clearly in the second group as described, and so is the current Pauline Hanson. And yet I can easily think of scenarios that would have just as clearly placed us both in the first group, without changing our opinions significantly. I have a number of paraplegic friends and one quadraplegic, who would also all automatically go into the second group, but while none of these voted "one Australia" AFAIK they generally seem a bit to the right of my views regarding crime and punishment. Some of them do vote for Fred Nile and his crew.
IMO these fights would break out long before the two groups met. Food for thought?
Which group really did discern God's wisdom? I'm not sure that there is a global answer to that. Faithful on-lookers must make their own prayerful decision.
But one thing is clear, trying to combine the two codes while maintaining the integrity of each, is impossible. What is possible is to opt for one or the other, or to force a compromise by combining some of each, and dropping some of each.
I guess this has got a bit long-winded but I'm coming to the point:
The point is, that to embrace the entirety of both codes (regard them both as authoritative, if you like) is impossible in practice.
Hmmm. If you mean in a legalistic sense, I guess I'd agree. But again, we seem to be discussing something that I don't believe.
I agree some people do take this approach to the Bible. They write drivel such as the song, apparently written only a few years ago for the Anglican "Connect" senior primary SRE material, that said of the Bible "...I'm telling you, every single word of it is true...". Whoever wrote this obviously didn't realise that the writers of the rest of the current curriculum for K-6 include people familiar with modern linguistics and formal logic. To talk of a "single word" having a truth-value is already a nonsense to many of my students, and many more will discover it to be a nonsense long before they reach University. This song discredits our whole program, and the Gospel. (Fortunately, the kids hated the song anyway. The music was as poor as the lyrics, and for the same reason IMO... the writers assumed that the kids were stupid.)
I'm quite happy to join you in trying to educate these people, and probably more fruitfully, those who employ them. They are a real menace. But again it ain't easy. Their hearts may be in the right place, but I've yet to locate their brains. (;->
And yet that is exactly the problem we face in reconciling the law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy with much of the rest of the Bible. And in sitting on the fence, we get splinters :-)
Only because we insist on reading other people's mail. I understand the Bible to be authoritative over *my* life. I don't use it to tell others what they must do. I do make some recommendations when asked, in fact I try to be ready to give an explanation of my beliefs to any who ask. But I think my living the Gospel is far more important than anything I say, and that trying to change other people's beliefs or practices against their will has little to recommend it.
I'd certainly agree I get splinters from the Bible. I'm not sure that sitting on the fence is really a good analogy. It's true that there are many times when I wrangle over what something means.
There are far more times when I am painfully aware that I'm not prepared to do what God is telling me to do. And I then need to deal with this attitude first. I can't listen very well to God while I am in rebellion. Only when I'm committed to joyfully doing *whatever* God wants can I really be objective as to what that might be.
And this is the point of the story of Abraham. It's not promoting human sacrifice, any more than it is promoting donkeys as pack animals. The focus, both for us and for Abraham, was and is obedience.
It's not always easy.
Kind regards,
Lindsay Brash (*not* Linz Cullen).
Point taken. Sorry if I took an unwarranted liberty with your name before.
Yours in Christ
andrew a
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/04
