Lent.
Wandering the wasteland of apparent contradictions in Hebrew and Christian
Scripture. Giving up unproductive—even counterproductive—ways of reading
Scripture. Taking up the challenge of reading Scripture as Jesus did.
The
unproductive ways:[1]
- Reading to defend Scripture (as if it needed my defense!); accepting every word at face value and reading from a prospect of unquestioning obedience, with relative disregard for the people and life situations to which the text was originally addressed and the life situations within which the current reading takes place. This has brought about the necessity of rationalizing (denying) any apparent contradiction in the name of defending the Bible.
- Again, accepting every word at face value, but rejecting the whole on the basis of the unresolved contradictions.
- “Cherry-Picking.” Selecting the texts that support my presuppositions and avoiding the rest.
Jesus’
way:
1. Reading from the prospect
of faithful questioning based upon an
understanding of God’s nature as Love.
2. “The Priority of Jesus was
not on defending a text or a ritual, it was on defending people—in particular defending the victims of religious violence
and abuse.”[3]
The
Hebrew Scriptures make no apologies for their seeming contradictions. Indeed,
the conflicts are a central feature—an organizing theme—of the collection of
diverse writings that comprise what we call the Old Testament.
Walter
Bruegemann compares it to a courtroom with disputing testimony and
counter-testimony representing diametrically opposed understandings of God’s
nature. Which is it: (1) Is God a warrior/despot, jealous of his conquests and
harsh in judgment upon those who stray from his pronouncements and laws, or (2)
is God a creator, redeemer and sustainer whose concern is the wellbeing of the
people who choose to live in relationship with him?
The
courtroom reverberates with the debate[4].
The book of Job is the perfect paradigm, with Job taking the second argument
above, and his friends taking the first.
Many
of the Psalms and later prophetic writings side with Job; in fact, if we are
really alert to the content of the prophetic writings, we cannot avoid the
realization that among the most frequently listed sins of Israel is the neglect
of widows and of the poor.
These
debates are based upon the ancient wisdom that the good are rewarded and the
evil are punished. Job, the Psalms and the prophets don’t argue against this
moral paradigm; indeed, they support it, even to the point of advocating
violent retribution against evil. Their contribution is in their recognition of
unjust enforcement of the paradigm; that is, sometimes evil people prosper and
good people suffer. Still, these Scriptural voices become the earliest
advocates for justice on behalf of victims. Previously, suffering was seen as evidence
that the sufferer had sinned or committed evil and thus deserved to suffer
(such assumptions persist even today within some circles, e.g., the poor are
lazy and should get a job. The truth is that not everybody is able to work. Period.) It is these cries of the
victim that Jesus takes up in his reading of Scripture.
Jesus
entered fully into the debate, clearly and articulately choosing sides. In
doing so, he set the standard for any who choose to follow him. If we are to
read Scripture as Jesus did, we will begin with the understanding that God’s
basic nature is Love, and that the Scriptures are a witness, leading us to
accept that Love, both as a gift (grace) to be received and as a gift to be
given and shared.
Jesus’
new twist that brought him into direct opposition and confrontation with the
Pharisees, was his abandonment of the traditional wisdom that victims suffer
because of some sin or evil in their lives, and thus deserve to suffer. Jesus
acknowledges the reality of “innocent”
victims, and challenges the injustice of their suffering.
Of
course
there are lazy “welfare bums” and “welfare queens.” Of
course
some people have learned to manipulate the system and leech off it! I have
never heard anyone deny that. Given that starting place and the dialectic of
Scripture, we have two choices, and if we are to follow Jesus we will take
sides: (1) we can assure that absolutely no abuse of public assistance is tolerated,
even if it means cutting off funds and thereby abandoning
the many (demonstrably the overwhelming majority)
who are simply unable to work or
obtain resources on their own, or (2) we can respond to the cries of the victim
and make sure that no innocent victim suffers unjustly, even if in the process
some of the undeserving find ways of manipulating the system and unjustly benefiting.
I
think I know which choice Jesus would make. I think you do, too.
I hadn't anticipated that this summation of my Lenten pilgrimage would lead where
it led; nevertheless, that’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is
my world view.
Together
in the Walk,
Jim
[1]
Derek Flood, Disarming Scripture:
Cherry-Picking Liberals, Violence-Loving Conservatives and We All Need to Learn
to Read Scripture as Jesus Did (San Francisco: Metanoia Books, 2014),
Kindle edition, Location 227 ff.
[2]
Ibid., Location 225.
[3]
Ibid., Location 424.
[4] I would add the additional metaphor of a bitterly
partisan legislature, with each side intent upon inflicting and enforcing its
own values upon the whole. And at the infamous bottom line, each side believes
sincerely that its own set of values is the best—indeed the only valid—model for
life.
