Greg Boyd's Take on "Violence in the OT"

 

Getting Honest about the Dark Side of the Bible
http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/

by Greg Boyd
March 7, 2013

While most of the Bible exhibits a “God-breathed” quality, reflecting a magnificently beautiful God that is consistent with God’s definitive revelation on the cross, we must honestly acknowledge that some depictions of God in Scripture are simply horrific. They are included in what is sometimes called “the dark side of the Bible.” To give just a small sampling, we find God portrayed as doing things such as:

 

• causing parents to cannibalize their own children (Lev. 26:29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Ezek. 5:10)
 
• causing pregnant women to having their wombs ripped open and their children dashed on the ground (Hos. 13: 16)
 
• refusing to allow any compassion to keep him from smashing parents and children together (Jer. 13:16)
 
• commanding the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, child, infant and even animals – “everything that breathes” – though they are not to harm trees, for “trees are not your enemy” (though babies are?) (e.g. Deut. 7:1-2; 20:16-20)
 
• telling Israelite men that, while everyone else in a region is to be mercilessly slaughtered, they may spare women they find attractive and marry them. However, if they later “find no delight in her,” they may turn them out on the street (Deut. 21:10-14)
 
• commanding parents and others to stone to death children who are stubborn or who strike a parent (Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18-21)

 

In my forthcoming book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, I have an entire chapter of material such this. It is not easy reading! Now, out of obedience to Christ, who consistently spoke of the Hebrew Bible as divinely inspired, and in solidarity with the historic orthodox Church, I feel obliged to confess all Scripture, including horrific material such as this, is “God-breathed” (theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16). At the same time, I believe it is also vitally important that we remain ruthlessly honest with ourselves and others and God about this material. How else can we describe material such as this as anything other than horrific, macabre, grotesque, and even revolting? If a portrait of God commanding people to slaughter babies and causing mothers to eat them doesn’t qualify as revolting, what would? If you found material like this in any other ancient or modern text, would you hesitate for a moment from labeling it as macabre, revolting, or some such phrase? If we are honest, we cannot deny it. So how does horrific material like what I just reviewed suddenly become less revolting by virtue of being found in our sacred text rather than someone else’s?

 

Not only this, but if we refrain from calling this material what it is and instead gloss over it in order to sound more pious, we are in effect condoning its violence. And as I mentioned in a previous blog, there is now a wealth of research demonstrating that violence in literature that is considered sacred is a powerful force in motivating religious violence. It can only be negated by being renounced.

 

I know it sounds impious to describe any of God’s inspired Word to be horrific or revolting, but I am actually in good company in speaking this way. No less an authority than John Calvin was willing to describe some of the portraits of God in the OT as “utterly barbaric,” “crude” and “savage” as he affirmed that God had to condescend to give such brute laws because his people’s hearts were so “hard,” “incorrigible” and “depraved.”[1] So too, Calvin admits that God’s command to destroy “everything that breathes” in Jericho “would have been savagery” (immanis) and would have been “a deed of atrocious and barbaric ferocity” (quad atrociter et barbara saevitia) were it not God who commanded it.[2] Elsewhere Calvin describes some of God’s commands and actions as “harsh,” “savage” and “barbaric’” (durum, immane, barbarum) as well as “savage and fierce” (saevi et atroces), as involving “execrable savagery” (detestabilis immanitas), and as constituting a “barbaric atrocity” (barbara atrocitas).[3] I appreciate Calvin’s candor!

 

Of course, once we acknowledge that some portraits of God in Scripture are horrifically violent, it forces the question of how we can nevertheless continue to affirm this material as “God-breathed.” Calvin tried to resolve the dilemma by arguing that God accommodates himself to human sin and by insisting that God is not subject to our sense of morality.[4] This view is highly problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it undermines the analogical basis of referring to God’s “goodness” and “love” etc. Unless what we mean by “good” as applied to God is analogous to what “good” means in other contexts, then the “goodness” we ascribe to God is devoid of content. The idea that God utterly transcends our moral categories also unwittingly ascribes to God a Nietzschian ethic in which morality is reduced to nothing more than the preferences of whoever is in power. If God says that it was “good” in a particular instance to cause pregnant woman to have their unborn children ripped out of their wombs, then in this view, it was in fact “good,” because he has the power to send you to hell if you disagree.

 

These problems with Calvin’s view aside, the more fundamental problem is that the dilemma we’re facing isn’t first and foremost about the clash between horrific portraits of God in Scripture and our moral intuitions. It’s rather about the clash between these portraits and God’s own self-revelation in the crucified Christ. On the cross he reveals his eternal nature to be self-sacrificial, enemy-loving, non-violent love. God is love (1 Jn.4:8), and this love is defined by the cross (1 Jn. 3:16). This love doesn’t seem compatible with God committing himself to mercilessly smashing families together, and that is the core problem. In fact, not only would we expect all material in Scripture to be consistent with what we learn about God in Christ, but on Jesus’ own authority as well as the uniform witness of Church history, all material in Scripture bears witness to Christ (Jn 5:39-45; Lk 24:25-278, 32, 44). It’s not self-evident how a portrait of God committing himself to mercilessly smash families together and causing parents to eat their children bears witness to Christ. That is the real problem, and nothing Calvin says has any bearing on this issue.

 

I will say more about this in blogs to come, and much more to say in my forthcoming book. For right now I will just leave you with this. I only began to discern a way to understand how horrific depictions of God in Scripture bear witness to the crucified Christ when I finally stopped trying to deny these depictions were horrific. So long as we try to tidy up, sanitize, minimize and piously gloss over material that we honestly know in our hearts is macabre and revolting, the best case scenario is that we will succeed at finding a slightly less revolting deity in these portraits than we initially found. This is what standard evangelical apologetic approaches accomplish, on a good day. It is in essence the approach I adopted five years ago when I began this present project. But I came to see that even the very best of these approaches are of no value when it comes to disclosing how this material bears witness to the self-sacrificial, enemy-loving, non-violent love of God on Calvary. And to make matters worse, all the while we are tidying up our macabre depictions of God, we are bearing some responsibility for the way this material continues to serve as a precedent for people to appeal to in order to justify their hatred and violence, as it has served throughout history.

 

To be clear, in obedience to Jesus, I adamantly affirm that all this material is inspired by God. In my book I argue against the many scholars today who try to resolve the problem this material poses by dismissing the text, whether on historical or theological grounds. But to say it is God-breathed says nothing about how it is God-breathed. Nor does it say anything about how this material is to be interpreted such that it bears witness to God’s unfathomable love revealed on Calvary.

 

As with all matters of faith, the place to start is by getting honest with ourselves, each other, and God by admitting the obvious. It was when I got to this point that the clouds began to lift and I began to discern that something else is going on in these horrific portraits that I hadn’t noticed before. So can we be honest? Can we agree that causing babies to be viciously ripped out of wombs, causing babies to be dashed on the ground, and causing mothers to eat them is horrific, macabre, and revolting, regardless of where the divine portrait is found, and regardless of the deity this behavior is ascribed to? As we admit this, let us hold fast to the conviction that this material, in all of its ghoulish detail, is “God-breathed.” And now begin to prayerful ask – how might this depth of depravity point us to the cross?

 

Lord bless our honest ponderings!

 

 

---

[1] For discussions of this material, see D. F. Wright, “Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, A. G. Auld, ed. (JSOT, Supp. 152: 413-27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 413-27; item., “Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Hart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony commentary,” Calvin Theological Journal, 21 (1986), 33-50. There is, of course, a “paradox” running throughout all Calvin’s work – shared by all other Calvinists – that the hardness that God must condescend to work through and that God ultimately punishes people for was all predestined. But that issue is for another time.

[2] Wright, “Accommodation,” 417.

[3] Ibid., 417-18.

[4] He says, for example, “let us remember that the court of heaven is not one whit subject to our laws.” Ibid., 418.


 

Peter Rollins: The New "Anti-Theists" of the 21st Century

 

 

Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens: The New Theists?

http://peterrollins.net/?p=4370

 

posted by Peter Rollins

March 10, 2013

Today the word “sacred” is employed to name a certain realm of life that can be contrasted with the secular. The idea here is that some object, area of life or geographical location can act as a “thin place,” i.e. a site where the transcendent shines through.

 

This approach to the sacred is ubiquitous in the contemporary situation and is borne witness to in the phenomenon of religious music, books and art, in the New Age interest in ley lines, the notion of Christian universities and in the embrace of artefacts believed to contain supernatural power. Here the religious or sacred is taken to be a sphere that can be identified in some way, visited, held or touched.

 

In contrast to this the work of theologian Paul Tillich reveals a different approach. For rather than seeing the sacred as some distinct thing (even the greatest thing), one can see it as the name we give to the affirmation of a depth of dimension that can be found in all things.

 

In this way one does not attempt to place the sacred alongside reason, ethics or aesthetics, but rather sees the sacred affirmed in our heartfelt commitment to these. From this perspective, insofar as we affirm the world as wonderful, we express the sacred. It is as we show loving care and concern for existence, and as we participate fully in life, we proclaim the sacred even if we are not aware of it. This is somewhat similar to the way that everything we see proclaims the existence of light even though we likely have no direct cognisance of the light (for we are focused on what the light illuminates).

 

As such, Tillich argued that a serious rejection of God (rather than a mere lack of interest in the subject) is a deeply sacred act. For when someone rejects the notion of God because of the wars that have been fought over that name, as well as the abuse, the fundamentalism and the ecological destruction that is bound to so much religion, they are demonstrating a profound concern for both people and the planet. As such their attack is directly testifying to a depth dimension in existence. The stronger their attack the more care and concern they are showing. In this very assault they are thus asserting, in a direct and visceral way, a commitment to the protection and promotion of life. The result is a proclamation of the sacred that is birthed from the same mother as the message found on the lips of the various poets and prophets in the Biblical text. To take one example, consider the words of Amos who cries out, in the name of God,

 

I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assembles. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

 

It is because of this that both the theologian Tillich and the philosopher Heidegger each claimed that there is a form of atheism that is closer to the divine than the standard theism witnessed in the church. For wherever a concern of beauty [is found], [wherever] an embrace of life and a love of liberation are exhibited, the sacred is proclaimed. In this way the passionate critiques of God propounded by the New Atheists can be seen as potent defences of the sacred. Defences that, at their best, are worthy of being called divine.

 

Peter Rollins

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

My take-away from Peter's essay is that we are to listen to a-l-l elements of humanity - not just are chosen favorites. Moreover, counter to the idea of atheism is arising an element of men and women committed to religion's deconstruction... who we would not normally deem a theist or theologian, but not necessarily an a/theist or a/theologian either. Rather, they are to be viewed as ones eschewing a Christianity become religious and not spiritually antithetic to its originating Creator and Author. But become more of an institutionalized faith emphasizing all the worst of humanity's passionate elements. As such, perhaps we should deem such men and women as anti-theists, or anti-theologians, sent amongst our midst to point out the illogic of our Christian faith become un-Godlike. Un-image like. Un-natural.

 

Who stand up to tell us that God created by evolution (Darwin). That God does not condone violence, abuse, biogtry, idolatry, injustice (Richard Dawkins). That God says to love, not hate; to serve others, not ourselves (Rob Bell). That Jesus is not religion but a Person; not an institution but a relationship; not what we do but who we are and can become  (Peter Rollins). To each person there is an element of truth that they vibrate passionately for. And rather than seeing such passionates as anti-God or anti-Christianity, we should accept their passion, allow it to sink in, and then become redirected in our hearts and minds to the more subtle things of God we have missed in our religious zeal and fervor.

 

For does not sin even corrupt our faith making of it a religion, a platform, a belief, a life model? To these things God has brought to us contradictory ideas and epistemologies that need sorting out, deconstructing, and reconstructing. Which can give to us, God's people, His light and life into a human faith sped upwards and outwards, inwards and downwards. That illumines and breaks us down, helping to see our Creator God-Redeemer more truly for who He is, and wants, and does. This is the wonderful promise of God to never leave us nor forsake us. But to give to His children at all times the sustaining manna they need from heaven, and His reviving waters from the arid deserts surrounding us. Restoring us. Keeping us. Holding us to Himself, eternally, for all our days.

 

R.E. Slater

March 12, 2013

 

 

 

Rob Bell: What People Talk About When They Talk About God



Toco Toucan, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil



Rob Bell's newest book debuted yesterday at my church, Mars Hill, to a lot of hype and adulation, without any further word from Rob as to its contents. Rather than wearing his basic Johnny Cash black, Rob wore a silky California grey suit buttoned stylishly in the middle, complete with a white shirt and no tie, underneath a greasy mop of wavy auburn hair and shod in whitish-tan docksiders. He looked healthy, rested, restored, refreshed, and especially excited about his upcoming book tour for this next month. It was good to see him again, and especially good to hear of his future plans for a Christian talk show, more books, more hip-pastoral conferences, and more road tours (perhaps he'll use these to take his TV show on the road someday as Christianity's newest Jay Leno late night figurehead).

My prayer for Rob is that he is successful. Not in this world's sense of monies and riches - for Lord knows he's already got that compared to our simple Grand Rapids lifestyles here in Michigan. But that he is spiritually successful both in his own life, with his kids and family, and in his urban ministries wherever they may be. That God would protect Rob from the sin and harms of this world while allowing him to share Jesus with a world questioning all-things Christian. Certainly Rob's brand of Christianity will provoke, prod, rebuke, and reprove Christians about their faith and good works. As well it should. But I suspect it will also bring a magnitude of spiritual blessings and help to many who have been discouraged in their faith outlook about God, the church, by Christian friends and fellow-workers, to a degree that will be enlightening, absorbing, convicting, steadying. If anything, these past many years at Mars has been a testimony to the many fractured, broken lives that have found wholeness in Jesus against unhelpful religious upbringing, education, knowledge, worship, and self-imposed cynicisms. To me, that has always been the mark of a spiritually healthy church. Is Jesus preached? And, are people finding love and forgiveness?

So I got to wondering, in a Robbish-sort of way, about Toucans, and what they would talk about if they were to talk about the Jungle. Not being a Toucanologist I can only speculate if when a Toucan talks whether they talk about the latest sources of food supply, its quantity or quality, variety, and location. If whether they talk about water supply, its hazards or protection, its coolness or dank infested waters. If predators are in the area, perhaps from the air, or on the ground. And if they are knowledgeable about what can make them sick. If a certain source of tree(s) or bushes are available with fruits and nuts. Whether their plumage is colorful enough to attract the latest female of their interest. Whether their beaks are bright enough, long enough, large enough, strong enough. And whether in all this Toucan talk they enjoy the beauty of resident sunsets, the smells of the cool morning Jungle air, its liveliness and stream of avian consciousness.

Similarly, when we talk about God just what is it that we wish to know about God when we talk about God? I suspect I would like to know if God is real like the jungle-experience of the toucan. If He is present in my life or simply unconcerned with anything I do, how I feel, my troubles and woes. If He loves and cares for His creation, and especially me and my family, my friends, and all mankind like He says He does. Or, like History channel's recent movie about "The Bible," simply goes about killing women and children, beasts and burden with lasse-faire disdain, hardness, austerity, and holy zeal in religious wont and fervor. Using Ninja-like angels to mop up the blooded fields of urban battle and warfare against any who do not fear and worship Him. If whether my life actually matters to God in my dark loneliness and brokenness, questions and hazards. Or if God understands my heartaches, lies and deceit, and through them all still yearns to make Himself everywhere present in my toils and failures. And whether this God of the Bible, and of the Church, is the actual God of the universe and cosmos, or some misconceived, misplaced product of religious zeal, ego, pride, inward legalism, self-righteousness, and proud academic learning, that I, and others, have had to endure along with legions of other mind-numbed, cauterized penitents who only wish to gather around His forbidden, holy temple ushering freedom's joys amid man's grand, spiritual restrictions. And if, within this bonded servitude of ours to Christ, my heart is pained, wronged, angry, or despairing. Or whether this burden can be made right in Jesus - that He'll forgive me for my many faults and sins - and help me find His humility, modesty, divine favour and fellowship within this precious life that we live?

Hence, I suspect that Rob will be asking very similar question in only the way that he can ask them, because, as you can tell, I've yet to buy the book or read it (with, or without, Rob's requisite authorial signature, which I'm told makes reading his book all the more valuable to his ardent followers). I suspect I'll disagree with some things he says (as I have in the past); that I may wish he turn a phrase or a word one direction or another than he does; that I may make less harsh, accusational comments towards fellow brethren already beaten up within their church traditions; perhaps allow readers a little more grace against God's gathering convictions in their benighted lives. Being younger than myself (as Rob always has been to me), and growing in God's grace and glory, I've watched Rob learn about life as a young man, and now as an aging father of young children; as a maturing husband; and, as a tortured public figure that has sometimes been self-imposed if not relished. At times Rob says things that I can relate to, and at other times, he is learning things that I have already been through (without as high a public cost or its summary notorious consequences). As such, not everything may be as relevant, or as meaningful to me, as it is to him as he grows and learns, matures and learns humility before the hand of man and of God (sic, he reminds me at times of a modern-day version of the biblical "Job"). Nonetheless, I pray for his spiritual health and well-being against the religious onslaught that is surely to come from the world, Satan, sin's temptations, and even the church itself.

That overall, my prayer is that this world's success is disdained by Rob. And that its Hollywood allures and glories not go the way of so many other would-be public figures in Christian life. I really don't want to see his spiritual train-wreck should it happen. I rather would like to see Jesus preached against Christianity's many religious detours and non-sequitors. For in Christianity we worship God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus. However, we do not worship the church, its pulpiteers, its servants, nor its many letters and doctrines. But God himself. Unfortunately, it is inescapable to not make a religion out of Christianity like so many other sects and faiths have done with their beliefs. I suspect its part of the sinful fabric of mankind to want to put on an altar anything-and-everything that has to do with God. The wisdom here is that within Christianity is a religion that has at its faith center a person - Jesus. Not a tradition nor an institution. And this is where Rob comes in to help us with the task of keeping faith, and not a religion. By questioning us about ourselves, our wants, our needs, prides, ego, accomplishments, sin and disbelief. A good preacher is hard to listen to when the Spirit of God is upon him. And Rob is a good preacher. Quirky. Not quite my cup of tea at all times. But a steady preacher as a servant of Christ. Who convicts many with God's word, even to the point of exasperation at times. So then, let us give him his due, neither praising nor worshipping him, but together with him, seeking the God of the Bible who wishes to come to the hearts of man. Serving in the name of Jesus, the Son of God come in the flesh to mankind, who was risen as the divine Son of Man unto the right hand of God on high. And empowered by that self-same Spirit of God as Jesus was abundantly empowered. For we have now become fellow servants together in this postmodern age of faith and witness, service and solitude. And by these things may the God of grace and mercy, forgiveness and hope, redemption and salvation, be glorified and embraced until the end of mankind's illustrious days of sin and woe, bright choices and foul deeds. Amen.

R.E. Slater

March 11, 2013
edited August 22, 2013

 

 



May this light be you... however humble, however small



 

 

 

Join Rob Bell via USTREAM for the launch of What We Talk About When We Talk About God -- LIVE from powerHouse Arena in Brooklyn, NY on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 4:00 pm PST / 7:00pm EST. To watch the live event from your computer or other device click here: http://www.robbelllive.com/.

 

 

 

The Imcompatibility of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act with the U.S. Constitution

March 8, 2013

 

Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act

 

Posted by Richard Socarides

 



Bill Clinton shakes hands with members of gay-rights groups after a speech in 1992. Douglas C. Pizac/AP.



It is extremely rare for former Presidents to admit mistakes made in office, and rarer still for one to disavow a major piece of legislation. That’s partly why Bill Clinton’s op-ed in the Washington Post calling the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a law that he signed—“incompatible with our Constitution,” and asking the Supreme Court to overturn it, is so important.

 

The essay, a Clinton associate told me, was Clinton’s own idea; he wrote it out himself in longhand on a legal pad. As his former White House adviser on gay-rights, I was not surprised by the message. But Clinton’s willingness, just twenty days before two gay-rights cases go to the Supreme Court, to publicly call DOMA discriminatory is a big step, even if his comments stopped short of the full apology some have asked for.

 

But the op-ed leaves a political mystery intact. Clinton, though clearly unhappy with the law today, does not really explain why he signed it, other than to say “it was a very different time.” Perhaps that is explanation enough. Still, how was it that Bill Clinton, the first President to champion gay rights, put his name on one of the most discriminatory anti-gay statutes in American history?

 

The simple answer is that he got boxed in by his political opponents, and that his campaign positions on gay rights ran ahead of public opinion. But there was another important factor: a failure to imagine how quickly gay rights would evolve, and how difficult it would be to undo the damage that DOMA did.

 

When Bill Clinton first ran for President over twenty years ago, he was the first candidate for national office to seek and receive support from an organized gay political community, which was itself new to Presidential politics. In 1992, after twelve years of Republican control of the White House, the federal government had neglected funding the battle against the quickly burgeoning AIDS epidemic. Clinton was sympathetic; because of his interest in civil rights generally, and long friendships with gay and AIDS activists, he was then one of the national politicians most conversant on gay-equality issues.

 

During that campaign, in May of 1992, as governor of Arkansas, Clinton spoke at the first large-scale Presidential campaign event for gay and lesbian supporters, in West Hollywood, California. He gave an emotional speech largely focussed on the AIDS crisis, in which he spoke of the moral costs to the country of ignoring those suffering from the disease. Gay men with AIDS had been dying at a stunningly rapid rate. Their families, friends, and caretakers had, in many cases, shunned them, and so had national leaders. In contrast, Clinton said, “I want to give you my thanks for that struggle…,” and concluded, “I have a vision and you’re a part of it. I believe we’re all a part of the same community and we’d better start behaving as if we are.”

 

Clinton won the enthusiastic support of gays and lesbians in the 1992 election. For the first time, contributions from gay Americans factored significantly in campaign fundraising. Gays and lesbians finally had a President who included them rhetorically in the national policy debate.

 

But soon after Clinton took office, in 1993, it was apparent that his tenure was off to a rocky beginning. The early days of the Administration were marred by opposition within the military and the Democratic Party itself to Clinton’s idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the uniformed armed forces. The White House was unprepared to shepherd a major social-policy change through Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, led opposition to Clinton’s gay-rights policy, working behind the scenes with General Colin Powell, who was a Bush-holdover as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The so-called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise was born: gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation secret. Gay-rights advocates were outraged that Clinton had agreed to a bad compromise, but at this point, in the spring of 1993, it was clear that the President was going to lose this battle. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, in fact, turned out to be a policy and personnel disaster.)

 

After what was regarded as a fiasco on gays in the military, the Administration entered a phase of deep reluctance to tackle substantive gay-rights issues on the national stage. Although Clinton made a number of first-ever, high-profile appointments of gay leaders to his team (I was one of the minor ones), any kind of gay-rights policy agenda seemed stalled as a result of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hangover.

 

As Republicans prepared for the 1996 Presidential election, they came up with what they thought was an extremely clever strategy. A gay-rights lawsuit in Hawaii was gaining press coverage as an initial series of preliminary court rulings suggested that gay marriage might be legally conceivable there. Clinton was on the record opposing marriage equality. But Republicans in Congress believed that he would still veto legislation banning federal recognition of otherwise valid same-sex marriages, giving them a campaign issue: the defense of marriage.

 

What Republicans had not counted on, though, was just how adverse the Administration had become, especially in an election year, to getting ahead of public opinion on gay rights after having had to backtrack on open military service.

 

On May 23, 1996, as DOMA began its rapid journey through Congress, the New York Times reported:

George Stephanopoulos, a senior Presidential adviser who has overseen the issue, said: “It’s wrong for people to use this issue to demonize gays and lesbians and it’s pretty clear that that was the intent in trying to create a buzz on this issue. But the fact remains that if the legislation is in accord with the President’s stated position, he would have no choice but to sign it.

That was a bit of a bombshell, but it laid an intentional marker. The columnist Frank Rich, then writing for the Times, wrote that, “The bill also forces Mr. Clinton, who says he opposes both same-sex marriage and anti-gay discrimination, into a corner…. He’s presumably praying it will never reach his desk.”

 

Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reëlection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.

 

What we didn’t fully comprehend was that, sooner than anyone imagined, there would be thousands of families who would be harmed by DOMA—denied federal benefits, recognition, and security, or kept apart by immigration laws.

 

During the campaign season, Clinton would sometimes complain publicly about how the Republicans were using the marriage issue against him. He said, derisively, that it was “hardly a problem that is sweeping the country” and his press secretary called it “gay baiting, pure and simple.” And that September, when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, President Clinton signed it.

 

There are no pictures of this occasion—no pens that were saved. My advice to the people who arranged for these things was to get it done and out of the way as quickly as possible; he signed it late at night one evening after returning from a day-long campaign trip.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act became law, and President Clinton was reëlected, again with overwhelming support from gay Americans. He was enthusiastically endorsed by the nation’s leading gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, which had urged him to veto the legislation. They had called DOMA“a Bob Dole for President publicity stunt.” (There was a small dustup during the later stages of the campaign when a Clinton-related committee ran a radio ad in the South, heralding the enactment of the legislation. The ad was quickly pulled.)

 

Was it realistic to think that a Presidential veto of DOMA would have put Clinton’s reëlection in jeopardy? At the time I thought not. But in 1996 less than thirty per cent of Americans supported gay marriage, and even eight years after that, in 2004, President George W. Bush used gay marriage extremely effectively as a wedge issue against John Kerry, who at the time only supported civil unions. In fact, many believe that it was the Bush campaign’s very strategic placement of anti-gay-marriage state constitutional ballot initiatives throughout moderate and conservative leaning states (like Ohio) which brought out conservative Bush voters and carried the day for him in that election. Could similar tactics have been used with the same effectiveness in 1996? Obviously, we will never know.

 

Had there been a President Dole, none of the advances President Clinton accomplished in his second term for gay equality would have been possible. Funding for H.I.V. and AIDS would have no doubt been cut. A DOMA veto would likely have been overridden anyway, and so even if President Clinton had been reëlected, we would still have had the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

After his reëlection, President Clinton became considerably bolder on gay-rights issues. He became the first President in history to endorse gay-rights legislation by announcing his support for a new federal hate-crimes statute that included sexual orientation. He supported legislation banning employment discrimination against gays. He continued, and even stepped up, appointments of openly gay Americans to important Administration positions, including the recess appointment of James Hormel as the first openly gay Ambassador. He signed an executive order banning sexual-orientation discrimination in the federal civilian workforce, leading the way for much of corporate America to follow.

 

A decade later, in 2009, when Clinton finally endorsed same-sex marriage, he commented, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, “So I said, you know, I realized that I was over sixty years old, I grew up at a different time, and I was hung up about the word. I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong…. I had an untenable position.”

 

What are the lessons of the Defense of Marriage Act? Perhaps the clearest one is that if you compromise on principle, on the assumption that the world will never catch up with your ideals, you will likely come to regret it. Marriage equality was not some completely far-off vision; it was something that could be achieved. Clinton never believed that the federal government had the right to discriminate. The harder question is this: When is winning the most important thing? Would a veto, in retrospect, have been worth the risk?

 

Richard Socarides is an attorney, political strategist, writer, and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served as White House Special Assistant and Senior Adviser during the Clinton Administration.

 

 

 

Who Is the God of the OT? Is the Jesus of the NT that same God?

 

  

I continue to be interested in the topic of whether we have a dipolar God of the bible who is harsh and judgmental in the OT, or loving and forgiving in the NT. Some have answered that this is a problem between cultures and societies - that humanity is progressing steadily forwards in its apprehension and understanding of divine redemption and forgiveness (sic, David Webb's "Redemptive Movement" hermeneutic). While others suggest that it is the biblical authors themselves who allowed their nationalized perspectives to overrule their descriptions of God (re the creation of the composition of the bible during the Jewish second temple period when collating Israel's ancient, oral legacies and stories). Some, like Richard Dawkins, simply give up trying to understand the God of the OT altogether and throw both God, and the bible, out as imperfect representations of the true God of the universe, recreated by zealous, religious bodies of believers. And then there are charges of a less-than-sublime bible that cannot be authoritative nor infallible if it isn't also inerrant and literal. Which subject we have declared null-and-void in previous discussions pertaining to all things salvific and redemptive, as versus literature that is genre-based (poetry, songs, psalms, hymns, etc) and comparatively written to the cultural beliefs of ancient Near-Eastern societies of the day.

 

 

 

 

So that it seems to me that the issue of discovering who the God of the bible is, is one that has been percolating within the ranks-and-files of the church for awhile now. On the one side, we see wild acclamation for the unbelievable and unsupportable in films like History channel's recent depiction of "The Bible" supporting the stoutest of evangelical doctrines delivered in the best of the American imagination. And in years past, we have beheld Discovery channel's many interpretive depictions of the bible and its characters swinging from conservative beliefs to liberal charges of incredibility and inaccuracy. So that battle lines are drawn up between the faithful and the heathen, and no one seems to be able to civilly discuss their charges without delivering one-line zingers from one side to the other in smug propositionalism and fracturous impunity.

However, the better course of action is to attempt to provide civil answers to these topics rather than denigrations about fellow rivals by honestly allowing legitimacy of the problems pertinent in each area while working towards resolution without the necessity of having to form complete answers. That is, to live in the tension and mystery of the bible where-and-when it must reside, while at other times declaring what we think we do know couched within whatever working paradigm we are coming from. And in this case, when looking at the seeming differences between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, asking ourselves just what area does this discussion fall within.... Is it Theology Proper - the study of God Himself? Is it in the field of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics? Is it within our frame of modernism's scientific enlightenment and forced syllogisms? Or is it within postmodernism's frame of tension and narrative? Does it delve from questions of Sovereignty, or the Divine Character of love and holiness - touching then upon the several theosophical areas of Classical Theism, Relational Theism, Process Thought, and Open Theology? Is it one of human subjectivism based upon our closed epistemologies and personal existential needs of the moment?

Accordingly, this broad base of anomalous biblical study is made even broader and more complex so that we find ourselves sucked into the vortex of a black hole of theologic discussion causing us to flail around its turbulent center unable grasp onto anything solid enough without losing hold to drown even deeper within its violent philosopohic whirlpools and eddies. Ultimately to give up and say its too complex, or to determine within ourselves our own subjective declarations and pejorative judgments regardless of fact or reason, creates in essence our own revisionistic fiction and mitigating group beliefs.

However, theologians, historians, sociologists, psychologists, academicians, ethicists, and so on, each are asking, like Eric Siebert himself, who this God of the OT is when we see Him so brightly portrayed again in the NT by its many biblical authors and descriptive stories. And to that extent we need answers, not calls to be more "zealous and faithful" to the Bible. Part of the answer lies in not separating out the Actual God of the bible from the Textual God of the bible, which can be fraught with redactive subjectivity and cultural impingement. But in sublimely discerning that Jesus identified the YHWH (God) of the OT as His God, who was present in Himself fully, who was Himself YHWH, become Incarnate amongst His creation, in the NT.

Thus, we know the God of the OT through Jesus who necessarily redefines Yahweh by His incarnate life and ministry. And apparently this needed to be done because by the time Jesus appears in Jewish history the templed priests and hierarchy were speaking of a God of merciless law judgment rather than of one who ruled by divine love and example. So that when Jesus corrects these representatives of the Old Covenant He is crucified for His heretical teachings and rejected for His example. Leaving with us the gnawing feeling that those who study only the OT cannot know God's true mind and heart without the Christ of the NT. Such is the legalism found within religious man's prideful heart. A legalism no less found in the church today as it was 2000 years ago.

Henceforth, for guide and guidance we must start with a Jesus-centered bible and move both backwards in time, and forwards in mission, with Jesus at the center of all things present, historical, and teleological. For it is in Jesus that we have a fuller understanding of God whose image is all the poorer and murkier without Jesus. In Jesus Yahweh becomes One. Not less. Not two. Not idealized nor idolized. But one in revelation by divine incarnation. It is the grand mystery that Christianity must spin around less we become flung from orbit around the very God we proclaim and vouchsafe.
 

And it is here then that we have a baseline to begin with. A baseline that Siebert mentions many articles earlier as a possible answer to the charges of a dipolar (ethical) God. One which he says that the Jesus of the NT is the exact representation of the YHWH of the OT - an OT God who doesn't simply judge, but loves, and loves intensely. Just as the Jesus of the NT not only loves, but judges intensely (ultimately, Himself, upon the Cross, for our sins). Charges that may transcend mere human editorial in the OT and NT, towards discovering a consistency between the God portrayed in both Testaments, singularly and alone.

 

That said, we might then begin  with Scott McKnight's review of David Lamb's book, "God Behaving Badly," and see if we cannot discover another line of thought alongside the several that Eric Siebert has helpfully proposed. Thus transitioning this discussion from one of biblical interpretation to that of "theology proper" (e.g., "the study of God"). To begin here first before moving forward to all other areas. And more than that, to the study of Jesus, the incarnate Yahweh, come to men.

R.E. Slater
March 9, 2013

 

God has a bad reputation. Many think of God as wrathful and angry, smiting people right and left for no apparent reason. The Old Testament in particular seems at times to portray God as capricious and malevolent, wiping out armies and nations, punishing enemies with extreme prejudice.But wait. The story is more complicated than that. Alongside troubling passages of God's punishment and judgment are pictures of God's love, forgiveness, goodness and slowness to anger. How do we make sense of the seeming contradiction? Can God be trusted or not?

 

David Lamb unpacks the complexity of the Old Testament to explore the character of God. He provides historical and cultural background to shed light on problematic passages and to bring underlying themes to the fore. Without minimizing the sometimes harsh realities of the biblical record, Lamb assembles an overall portrait that gives coherence to our understanding of God in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

- Amazon book description, "God Behaving Badly"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Articles by Scot McKnight

May-June, 2011

 

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 1

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 2

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 3

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 4

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 5

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 6

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 7

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 8

 

 

 

Suggested further study

 

How God Became King, by NT Wright

Book Review: How God Became King, by Scot McKnight

 

 

 

Interpreting the Violence of the OT, by R.E. Slater

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern Baptist Call for Siebert's Removal re "Violence in the OT"

More Bullying by the Southern Baptists: but this time someone crossed the line
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/03/more-bullying-by-the-southern-baptists-but-this-time-someone-crossed-the-line/

by Pete Enns
March 7, 2013
Comments

Recently, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary broadcast another “panel discussion,” this one taking to task Eric Seibert for his views on God’s violence in the Old Testament. Seibert posted a three part series on my blog, the first of which is here, and has written two books on the subject, The Violence of Scripture and Disturbing Divine Behavior.

 

In brief, Seibert argues, “At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept. Rather than seeing this as a sign of disrespect, we should regard engaging in an ethical and theological critique of what we read in the Bible as an act of profound faithfulness.” (from the above linked blog post)

 

The panel, consisting of Al Mohler, Phillip Bethancourt, Denny Burke, and Owen Strachan (more on Strachen below), were predictably alarmed about Seibert’s handling of the issue of God’s violence. Seibert’s position is certainly outside of their universe of theological discourse, and they felt strongly enough to record their hour long session and post it. There is nothing at all wrong about that.

 

As for the content of the discussion, the panel’s position amounted to a marginalizing, if not dismissal, of the moral and theological difficulties with Yahweh acting like every other tribal deity of the ancient world. [In their estimation,] since the Bible is God’s Word, whatever it says holds as valid and binding, the standard by which our sinful human hearts are to be searched and tried rather than that which must be judged by sinful humans. God says it, and that’s that. Disagreement on that point is an attack on the Bible and God himself. [Hence,] they are welcome to publicize their position to any and all who would listen.

 

I won’t take the time here to rehearse the arguments themselves. They are transparently driven by the need to protect perceived theological non-negotiables, and they have been raised and answered many times. If they do not feel the need to engage their critics, their arguments are not worthy of serious attention.

 

What concerned me more than the content of the discussion was the calculating manner in which Seibert was set up not only for failure but demonization. I don’t know how else to interpret Mohler’s opening where he juxtaposed Psalm 106 (“the Lord is good, his steadfast love endures forever”) to–and here I was waiting for a good old genocide passage like Deuteronomy 20, but instead Mohler read a rather inflammatory excerpt from Richard Dawkins about the God of the Old Testament being a moral monster.

 

Apart from the fact that Psalm 106 speaks to God’s steadfast love for the Israelites and is therefore 100% irrelevant for the discussion of violence toward outsiders like Canaanites, the implication of the juxtaposition is quite clear: Battle lines must be drawn, and Seibert and others who wish to discuss how to rethink God are on the wrong side of the Psalm 106/Richard Dawkins divide.

 

Mohler is stacking the deck, but I think alert readers won’t be taken in by it.

 

Next, the specter of Marcion was raised (2nd century heretic who called for a dismissal of the Old Testament and significant portions of the New Testament that made God sound too–well–Old Testament like). The rhetorical stab being made here was that Seibert’s rethinking of the God of the Old Testament because of things like the violence God is nothing more than a repetition of old heresies. It’s all been said before.

 

I might have asked the panel to speak to the Orthodox tradition that saw these same violent portrayals of God as incompatible with the nature of God and so allegorized these portions of the Old Testament, but I would venture to guess that the tradition of Orthodoxy would not carry much weight at SBTS. Regardless, rather than juxtapose Seibert to Marcion, perhaps an acknowledgment that the violence of God has been a perennial theological conundrum in Church History would have been a more noble way of setting up the discussion.

 

Elsewhere the panelists juxtaposed Seibert to Nietzsche and then repeating the accusation of Seibert’s “postmodern reading strategy.” I think an objective observer would be able to recognize quickly the use of scare words, and so engaging Seibert’s thinking was not the primary focus of the meeting.

 

I feel that both the content and the rhetoric displayed by the panel are unbecoming of learned Christian discourse, but we all have our blind sides and those factors alone are not motivating me to respond. I am far more alarmed by an episode involving Owen Strachan, Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Boyce College.

 

When Seibert’s first post came out, Strachan quickly registered his shock. Of course, it’s Strachan’s blog and if he wants to be shocked he can, and if he wants to rail against Seibert and warn others of him, that is fine, too. But what he does next is not fine, but reprehensible, and something of which I feel he needs to repent publicly.

 

Strachan apparently felt that he was serving Christ and furthering his kingdom by driving home what he considered to be the incompatibility of Seibert’s views with those of Seibert's employer, Messiah College. I was incredulous as I read the following, and I feel I must quote Strachan at length (my emphasis):

 

[Seibert] is subverting the faith of his readers and, I assume, his students. I don’t know what could be more problematic for a biblical studies professor than this. Remember–these aren’t my interpretations. I’m pulling direct quotations from his piece. He’s put his argument out there in public on a widely-read evangelical blog. He’s invited engagement; his unbiblical and spiritually dangerous argument deserves it.

 

It will be interesting to see how Messiah College responds to this. Will it take its own statement of faith seriously, as Steffan and Christianity Today pointed out? Or will it treat its confession as unimportant? Do professors at Christian schools need to abide by their doctrinal statements, or not? Is a statement of faith just a piece of paper with some well-intended but ultimately inconsequential thoughts, or does it shape the life and health of the students entrusted to the school by God?

 

Confessions aren’t for policing. They are for health. Doctrinal statements aren’t designed to punish, though that should happen if needed. They are intended to lead people to flourishing. In this doctrine, a school or a church says, you find the core of biblical teaching. This is what will give you life. This is what will bless you and lead your feet on sure paths. We offer this to you to guard you, protect you, and keep you. We will answer to God in some sense for your soul, and we are doing our utmost to shepherd you to glory.

 

It is therefore good and right and gracious when a school upholds its own standards and protects its students so that Satan cannot destroy them. And it is devastating when a school allows it standards to grow lax.

 

**Will Messiah College leadership allow this to happen? We’re all watching and waiting to see.**

 

With many others, I am praying that good will come from this, that error will be corrected, that the truth will be vindicated, that God’s Word will not be attacked but will be seen as right and true and without error and loving and good and life-giving.

 

And that students, young men and women who are put in the care of professors by their parents and churches, will thrive in Jesus Christ, triumphing over darkness and doubt and sin.

 

This is not a veiled comment. Strachan is publicly challenging Messiah College to terminate Seibert–which is to say he feels both called upon and competent to insinuate himself into a matter that, if I may be blunt, is none of his business. I cannot fathom the level of either self-delusion or a confused sense of spirituality that would lead a Christian professor to do such a thing.

 

What complicates the matter is the Christianity Today article Strachan mentions. The author, Melissa Steffan, in what strikes me as an incendiary piece of journalism, for some reason raised the specter of Seibert’s fitness to teach at Messiah, though hardly as confidently as Strachan. But, in what appears to be nothing more than a dig, Steffan felt it was of high priority–while writing under a strict word count–to cite a critical comment by Scot McKnight from his blog when Seibert’s Disturbing Divine Behavior was being discussed.

 

The use of the quote strikes me clearly as an attempt to cast Seibert in a bad light rather than simply report a story of interest. I know McKnight and contacted him, and, although he was clear he disagrees with Seibert’s position, he was not pleased with how his quote–in the midst of a lengthy vetting of the book–was used.

 

Far more disturbing was the deliberate use McKnight’s name in the title of the Facebook link to the article–thus giving the impression that the core of the CT piece and Strachan blog was McKnight condemning Seibert. The link has since been reworded after McKnight contacted Strachan.

 

All this is bad enough, and I was hoping that the issue would be raised in the panel discussion and that Strachan might give some account of his actions. Mohler did raise the issue, and Strachan justified his actions thus: ”I wanted to look at Seibert’s argument in light of his school’s confession of faith.”

 

Really? Why? Just because? And after “looking,” Strachan made it the core element of his post. Again, why? The lengthy quote above makes clear why. Strachan wanted to nail Seibert and get him fired--for the good of the kingdom so that Satan could no longer destroy Messiah college students.

 

But Strachan had more to say. He next relayed anecdotes of students he has known who entered Messiah with a strong faith and left with a weak faith. As Strachan put it, the pieces fell into place, knowing now what Seibert teaches there. (Apparently Strachan is unaware that all schools, including his own, have all sorts of anecdotes.)

 

Strachan’s use of anecdotes in a public forum to build a case against a professor, a department, and a school is at the very least unwise, and at worst borders on immaturity. Such rhetoric will safely be ignored by wiser heads, but, to mimic Strachan’s words, “Will Boyce College leadership allow this this type of public display? We’re all watching and waiting to see.”

 

Without any disrespect intended, in my opinion the position of the panel on divine violence is theologically and hermeneutically naive and untenable, and their rhetoric unfair to Seibert. But neither should cause us to lose sleep because these things can be ignored. But Strachan crosses a line.

In exercising zeal to maintain sound doctrine, Strachan and others should also remember the biblical admonition to lives lives that reflect that doctrine (Titus 2:1). As a Christian college professor myself, that is something Christian college students need modeled for them, not public personal attacks [yes, it IS personal when someone is gunning for your job] against Christian brothers with whom you have a theological disagreement.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Scott McKnight, Disturbing Divine Behavior

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/01/disturbing-divine-behavior.html

it is not uncommon for an innocent Bible reader to read a text like the flood of Noah or the death of the firstborn in Egypt and wonder how in the world God can be involved in such actions, and then to ask what such acts would inform the Bible believer about what God is like.

Some just tell such folks to knock it off or to silence such critical thoughts or they offer thoroughly unacceptable theories, but others want to ponder such texts and to do so within the faith and within some kind of traditional view of the Bible. One such scholar is Eric Seibert at Messiah College, and his new book is called Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God.

 

After sketching the principle passages, Seiberts makes a few suggestions, and I want to call your attention to three and see what you think:

 

1. The God who really is and the God who is sketched in the Bible, that is, the Textual God vs. the Actual God, must be distinguished. And here he is saying that the Bible’s depictions of God are from a human point of view and reflect Ancient Near Eastern views of God that are not modified.

 

2. The God of the Bible, he says, must be judged by God in Jesus or Jesus as God so that what conforms to Jesus is the Actual God and what doesn’t may be the Textual God.

 

3. And he argues that the Bible’s inspiration is “general” instead of “comprehensive.” He doesn’t care for accommodation theories and finds the traditional evangelical view of plenary inspiration too problematic so he concludes that inspiration is general instead of comprehensive.

 

Thoughts?

- Peter Enns

To be Continued -

Who Is the God of the OT? Is the Jesus of the NT that same God?