May 06, 2011

Word

The Gospel of John begins thus:
1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Many, many, many years ago we lived in a small rural community in the deep south. We were poor, but not so poor that we couldn't afford an African/American lady to help mother in the kitchen.

An inside door was propped open with a black dictionary. I saw our helper come through that door and say (devoutly) 'the Word of God' Well she was right.

Here's the last verse in the Gospel of John:
21:25:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
....................................

The Word is not (just) this 'holy book' we call the Bible. It emanates from God; Those of us who see 'that of God' in you, (in me, in anyone) must realize that our words are the Word of God, just like John's words. Whenever you witness to that of God in yourself, you're speaking the WORD.

What did the writer of Hebrews 4:12 mean when he wrote:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

I don't think he was talking about any words in the Bible; I think it meant something else. What do you think?

May 02, 2011

The "Story" of the Bible

Many people set out to "read the [Christian] Bible," to "start at the beginning, go on to the end, then stop." I've almost made it, a few times, though Paul usually defeats me!

Anyway, there's this rough chronological order through most of these books... getting confusing when one reaches the prophets (whose material was, if I have this right, arranged in "longest first" order-- not chronological-- as a way of conserving space on long, expensive, scrolls.)

But most of the time there seems to be a clear story line... There are non sequiturs, loose ends, a multitude of unfamiliar names-- But one's mind works through this material, assuming that one big series of things has happened, and that what we're reading is a somewhat bewildering account of it.

It isn't there!


What is there... is something more like William Burroughs' old literary cut-ups. Several texts (including oral works) that went through a blender. Some places, you think you've got one story with discrepancies... and it turns out to be a mixture of two or more.

It's a lot like what Christians have done with the nativity and resurrection stories from the Gospels: One takes a little from Matthew and a little from Luke... and one gets one story with angels, shepherds, visiting Persian astrologers and an urgent flight to Egypt followed by a massacre of all the children of Bethlehem-- plus a leisurely trip directly to Jerusalem & on to Nazareth, where Mary and Joseph either eventually settled down, or had been residents all along. Given two stories, both considered sacred, both differing greatly on details like where the parents lived, why they were in Bethlehem, what happened there and what they did afterwards, we mentally construct a history containing an impossible mixture of both. People have written & performed such composites many many times, never seeing any contradiction until they find some reason to carefully compare details.

Even then, if they tend to believe that both stories are "The Word of God," must necessarily be error-free, etc... they are likely to construct a really elaborate story that "explains" the contradictions--something only a Believer could find plausible.

Every week, I and a few friends have been reading our way through some pretty cogent analysis of Biblical stories, and everywhere we find: 1) The same things keep happening to the same people in different places, or to different people (as you've no doubt noticed) in a manner that strongly suggests that the tellers have recycled traditional stories more than once, filling in the blanks as needed. 2) The customs taken for granted in these stories are space-alien weird much of the time, when they aren't just savage and ugly. 3) What looks like simple redundancy is often the alternation of two or more accounts of one incident, each account reflecting the tribal patriotism or institutional politics of a different group. 4) Comparison with archeological finds, mythologies & records from neighboring peoples (written on more durable materials) shows up much of what was supposed to be Biblical history as legendary at best. The Exodus goes through places that didn't exist at the time, as if we told stories of General Washington fighting the British at Hollywood. Signs (that ought to be there) of an immense multitude traveling from Egypt to Israel... aren't there. We have one tribe (the Levites) with Egyptian names; the other tribes seem to have adopted and improved that tribe's history when they formed a loose alliance against Egyptian domination of Palestine. No doubt those Levites had some miraculous good fortune in the course of their escape... and to that extent, what we read in Exodus is faithful to the meaning they saw in those events. But it's all stories-about, not factual accounts.

So. Why have people throughout subsequent history-- read this highly inaccurate book to find out what God is like, what God is doing with the world, what God wants of us?

Should we, can we still, read it for those purposes?

I believe we can, but it isn't the blithe and simple enterprise we've been told-- and I'm having a little trouble justifying the effort.

Next post...

April 29, 2011

Hallowing God's Name

For many years I wondered just what that meant; the infinitive form is said to be "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate", but as the years went by that came to mean less and less to me. Does it mean to worship? Maybe. Worship also came to mean less as the years went by. Evelyn Underhill is reported to have said of worship: "The absolute acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God". That seems more satisfying to me than the conventional forms of worship or hallowing.

William Blake gave the most satisfying statement for me: "Everything that lives is holy" (end of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell).

George Fox gave a very satisfying definition: there is "that of God in every one".

Everything that lives is holy and there is that of God in every one: is that the best (or only?) way that we may hallow God?

April 24, 2011

Glory

Isaiah 6:1-3
"[1] In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
[2] Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
[3] And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
[4] And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
[5] Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
[6] Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
[7] And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
[8] Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."

Isaiah saw the glory of God, and he thought he was done for. But praise God, the seraphim has touched our lips and made us fit to 'show forth his glory'.

"This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in rustling grass I hear him pass
he speaks to me everywhere.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King, let heaven ring!
God reigns; let earth be glad."

April 22, 2011

Bad News and Good

I drifted away from this study over a year ago, because it was getting very hard to find the God I know amid all the theological rants of 'John'. I've got a longer love/hate relationship with that book than my similar relation to computers!

Somewhere in the intervening time, I read 1) several of NT Wright's series on Jesus ("Christian Origins and the Question of God") plus 2) The Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan. Both efforts have been illuminating, though in different ways.


First of all, the Bad News. There's nothing "secret" about what Callahan has to say. Much of it has been known for a very long time; and what I really like about his book is his talent for clarifying how we know it, what evidence has led modern scholars to certainty, not just that "It ain't necessarily so" but that often it certainly ain't so at all!

Wright, on the contrary side, chews up a lot of what modern scholarship has "proven" via atheistic assumptions, and makes a good, long argument for an underlying story behind the Bible that turns out to be true, after all.

So I'll get this posted, and wait for the dust to settle in my poor mind... and see what more I can say... soon!