One group I often refer to is The Bible Project. It has a wealth of videos, study guides and other resources for people interested in taking a closer look at the Bible. The videos are very well done.
I’ve been reading “Inspired” by the late (and much missed) Rachel Held Evan’s and came across a couple of sentences which have really struck me about how we read Scripture. From memory
“For some people this sentence is their way. ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That’s it’. It’s a bit of a conversation stopper. That’s not the way it works in Judaism. Scripture is a conversation starter”.
I think that’s helpful. It opens up the concepts of midrash and wrestling as an important part of the communal, conversational, aspects of scripture.
Yes, I think congregations should use scripture as a conversation starter, especially about what is happening in the life of the congregation. But most congregations are too passive. They listen to the message, but rarely do they say what they think about it, and often I wonder if they do think about it at all.
I’ve been reading “Inspired” by the late (and much missed) Rachel Held Evan’s and came across a couple of sentences which have really struck me about how we read Scripture. From memory
“For some people this sentence is their way. ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That’s it’. It’s a bit of a conversation stopper. That’s not the way it works in Judaism. Scripture is a conversation starter”.
I think that’s helpful. It opens up the concepts of midrash and wrestling as an important part of the communal, conversational, aspects of scripture.
Yes, I think congregations should use scripture as a conversation starter, especially about what is happening in the life of the congregation. But most congregations are too passive. They listen to the message, but rarely do they say what they think about it, and often I wonder if they do think about it at all.
“Most congregations”? How do you know what “most congregations” are like? Or does “most congregations” mean “most congregations that you are familiar with?”
I'm thinking about the folks I've had conversations with during my time as a traveling speaker. This is a very small number of people, of course, but they are VERY responsive to what they are hearing/looking at--they just don't always open their mouths about it without explicit encouragement and opportunities built in. But when they do...
I love talking to (listening to!) these people, they can have such great insights.
I’ve been reading “Inspired” by the late (and much missed) Rachel Held Evan’s and came across a couple of sentences which have really struck me about how we read Scripture. From memory
“For some people this sentence is their way. ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That’s it’. It’s a bit of a conversation stopper. That’s not the way it works in Judaism. Scripture is a conversation starter”.
I think that’s helpful. It opens up the concepts of midrash and wrestling as an important part of the communal, conversational, aspects of scripture.
Yes, I think congregations should use scripture as a conversation starter, especially about what is happening in the life of the congregation. But most congregations are too passive. They listen to the message, but rarely do they say what they think about it, and often I wonder if they do think about it at all.
“Most congregations”? How do you know what “most congregations” are like? Or does “most congregations” mean “most congregations that you are familiar with?”
Most congregations I have been familiar with.
Oh for the good old days when as young people we went to the Duck In The Pond to discuss the sermon over a beer.
I tend to shy away from the lectionary in my everyday life. I tend to go for a more freer service though go to a traditional church at the moment. I guess I don’t like being told what to do🙂
I only begrudgingly accept that there has to be a certain amount of discipline in life. I am one of life’s creative souls. Not chaos but not caged. That tends to filter down to my Bible reading. I tend to dip into the Bible. Sometimes I may read a whole book.
I don't think there's any right or wrong way when it comes to personal Bible reading and I don't know of any church that would insist on lectionary readings only outside of services.
I think though, that whatever our personal practice it does tend to change according to circumstances.
I used to read big chunks of the Bible when I was in my 20s. I don't do so now. Not because I don't think it's important or because 'I've already it,' but unless I'm reading a particular book for a Bible study I tend not to simply pick it up and read it.
I tend to shy away from the lectionary in my everyday life. I tend to go for a more freer service though go to a traditional church at the moment. I guess I don’t like being told what to do🙂
I only begrudgingly accept that there has to be a certain amount of discipline in life. I am one of life’s creative souls. Not chaos but not caged. That tends to filter down to my Bible reading. I tend to dip into the Bible. Sometimes I may read a whole book.
I’m one of life’s creative souls, too, but I deal with it differently. I need the discipline that the lectionary provides; otherwise I can end up all over the place.
I sometimes do readings in addition, like a whole book, but I the consistency and order of the lectionary (together with set forms of prayer) is a good balance to my creative leanings.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said on the Ship before that I tend to approach the Bible as family history. It’s the stories that have been handed down from generation to generation. It includes beautiful and inspiring bits of family history along with ugly and shameful bits of history, because it’s always complicated. The family tree includes heroes, eccentrics, villains and very ordinary people. There may be some embellishments from repeated telling over the years.
These are the stories have shaped me and continue to shape me. They tell me who I am. They describe how I came to be who I am, and give me a glimpse of who I can be, of the possibilities. And they place me within a larger context of family and community.
The value of some kind of more systematic approach is that you can't stick with the parts of the Bible you are familiar with / like / naturally gravitate to. In turn that leads to a somewhat more expansive picture of God.
(Am I the only one who keeps imagining answers like "a doorstop," "a paperweight," "something heavy to throw at an annoying person," etc.?)
I'm pretty sure I've read through the whole thing at one point in my life. I feel a tad overwhelmed by everything else I need to get done at the moment, though.
I do want to watch Phil Vischer's What's In The Bible? series. It's for kids but very good.
As an aside, and hopefully not as a tangent, I think @Nick Tamen is onto something with the form and structure argument.
I notice how much better a newbie in my poetry group has become in her writing since I encouraged her to attempt formal rhyme and metre. I tend to write free verse but generally with a loosely iambic beat. I do write rhyming poems too and there is something about form that gives greater freedom, paradoxical as it may sound.
As he's a dancer I'm sure @Hugal knows all about the differences and advantages/disadvantages of both free styles and more formal dance formats.
If we apply that to how we read the scriptures then perhaps it's a both/and thing ... 😉
I tend to shy away from the lectionary in my everyday life. I tend to go for a more freer service though go to a traditional church at the moment. I guess I don’t like being told what to do🙂
I only begrudgingly accept that there has to be a certain amount of discipline in life. I am one of life’s creative souls. Not chaos but not caged. That tends to filter down to my Bible reading. I tend to dip into the Bible. Sometimes I may read a whole book.
I’m one of life’s creative souls, too, but I deal with it differently. I need the discipline that the lectionary provides; otherwise I can end up all over the place.
I sometimes do readings in addition, like a whole book, but I the consistency and order of the lectionary (together with set forms of prayer) is a good balance to my creative leanings.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said on the Ship before that I tend to approach the Bible as family history. It’s the stories that have been handed down from generation to generation. It includes beautiful and inspiring bits of family history along with ugly and shameful bits of history, because it’s always complicated. The family tree includes heroes, eccentrics, villains and very ordinary people. There may be some embellishments from repeated telling over the years.
These are the stories have shaped me and continue to shape me. They tell me who I am. They describe how I came to be who I am, and give me a glimpse of who I can be, of the possibilities. And they place me within a larger context of family and community.
Which is why there was a long-standing tussle over whether to include Revelation in the canon.
But yes, there are scary bits in the Gospels and epistles too.
A lot depends on whether we understand some of those passages hyperbolically or as some kind of IKEA instruction manual on how to put up a flat-pack eschatology table or shelving unit.
That doesn't resolve all the issues but it can disentangle the mess to some extent.
Some of the worst bits are in the NT
Yes the NT is not “nice” . It is powerful, it is strengthening, it is scary. It is not a nice read
Who said anything about "nice"?
Every fecking time anyone has a problem with any of the frankly morally indefensible parts of the Bible someone will always chime in with the implication that you want it to be "nice" and tough shit it isn't. I don't want "nice" but I do want "good". People being struck dead over their giving to the church or otherwise isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. The Lake of Fire isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. Paul's diatribe in Romans 1 about how people are all doomed and thoroughly deserve it isn't "not nice" - it's hateful, and his bullshit about how God's existence is obvious is fecking laughably obvious bollocks.
It most certainly doesn't empower or strengthen me. It makes it daily harder to believe it describes any kind of valid God at all.
That doesn't resolve all the issues but it can disentangle the mess to some extent.
Some of the worst bits are in the NT
Yes the NT is not “nice” . It is powerful, it is strengthening, it is scary. It is not a nice read
Who said anything about "nice"?
Every fecking time anyone has a problem with any of the frankly morally indefensible parts of the Bible someone will always chime in with the implication that you want it to be "nice" and tough shit it isn't. I don't want "nice" but I do want "good". People being struck dead over their giving to the church or otherwise isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. The Lake of Fire isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. Paul's diatribe in Romans 1 about how people are all doomed and thoroughly deserve it isn't "not nice" - it's hateful, and his bullshit about how God's existence is obvious is fecking laughably obvious bollocks.
It most certainly doesn't empower or strengthen me. It makes it daily harder to believe it describes any kind of valid God at all.
That doesn't resolve all the issues but it can disentangle the mess to some extent.
That was the impression I got from your post. As has been said a lot on here it is easy to misinterpret the something typed on a screen.
The NT is not written for us. Some of it is written for people under persecution. It is difficult for us to see through that lens. If it was easy to swallow would it be worth understanding it? Only the individual can answer that.
Many things that were acceptable in the 60’s and 70’s are not acceptable now. How much more going as far back as Paul.
Sure. And there ain't any easy answers either. I've often wondered during exchanges like this why I'm not as exercised as you, @KarlLB, are over the scary passages.
Is it because I'm some kind of bastard?
Is it because I can compartmentalise them and keep them in the 'too difficult' file?
Yes, the interesting question for me is why for some people the shitty stuff is what naturally or instinctively seems to take center stage, while for others, the “love” stuff is the what naturally or instinctively seems to take center stage. I suspect it’s not, to phrase it the way @Gamma Gamaliel did, because some of us are bastards. (Well, I won’t deny there are some bastards out there.)
Either way—shitty at center stage or love at center stage—there are apparent discrepancies or inconsistencies that have to be resolved some way or another. How do we approach finding that resolution, and what instincts, assumptions and experiences shape how we approach it?
All sorts of factors. In some quarters within independent evangelicalism there can be a morbid delight in some of the violent stories.
I remember hearing a pastor preach a chilling sermon about Phinehas running through the Israelite man and Midianite woman while they were in flagrante. He seemed to relish the idea.
Mind you, this bloke used to love Rambo movies ...
I can't imagine that incident being preached on very often. I don't think I've ever heard it prreached on anywhere else.
Paul's diatribe in Romans 1 about how people are all doomed and thoroughly deserve it isn't "not nice" - it's hateful
It occurred to me a while back that although this is the standard reading of Romans 1 - how can I as an individual be saved - Romans is not about individuals at all. (Paul's remark later about gentiles who are a law to themselves is incompatible with the idea that all people are doomed.) Paul is talking about Gentiles and Jews collectively, not about individuals. When he says that you who condemn these things do exactly the same he's not saying anything about any individual.
I think also Paul has a rhetorical habit of restating arguments he disagrees with in order to subvert or deconstruct them. Many of the problematic passages in Paul are there for the sake of the punchline where he undoes them.
All sorts of factors. In some quarters within independent evangelicalism there can be a morbid delight in some of the violent stories. . . . .
Yes, but I wasn’t really talking about what makes some people relish the gruesome bits. I was thinking a little more, or maybe much more, broadly: What is it at work that makes some people hear “Bible” and think “writings about how God’s loves humanity,” while others hear “Bible” and think “writings about how God smites humanity”?
The reality is that both seemingly contradictory descriptions are there, in the same Bible. So what is it that leads some people to view one of those descriptions as a/the main takeaway from Scripture, while other people view the other description as a/the main takeaway?
I think that goes directly to the question of how we use the Bible and the hermeneutic assumptions we bring to that use.
I remember hearing a pastor preach a chilling sermon about Phinehas running through the Israelite man and Midianite woman while they were in flagrante. He seemed to relish the idea.
And some would say that there's evidence of that in the text itself in the shape of the pornoprophecy sections of Ezekiel, Hosea etc.
How you resolve those questions, depends very much on your view of inspiration and the compilation of the text.
The reality is that both seemingly contradictory descriptions are there, in the same Bible. So what is it that leads some people to view one of those descriptions as a/the main takeaway from Scripture, while other people view the other description as a/the main takeaway?
I think that there are actually contradictory descriptions in (any canon of) the Bible.
I have heard that "The Bible does not 'speak' with a single voice on any important topic".
I find that unsurprising in light of the history and cultural situation differences that the very human authors were inspired (and I use that term loosely) to write about.
One way for Christians to evaluate the descriptions is to view them through the life and message of Jesus Christ. But even that is problematic, as that is again mediated through different human perspectives.
I think, that the core teaching is the command to love God and love your neighbour, or as the Good Samaritan states, to be the neighbour. It doesn't require any difficult theology or understanding to do that.
I'm not sure they resolve all the issues - I'm not sure we can, life isn't as neat as that, neither are the scriptures.
But I certainly think that Romans 2, for instance, shows a more expansive side to the Apostle Paul's approach than he is often given credit for. And yes to the 'corporate' rather than the individualistic element that @Dafyd highlights.
In answer to @Nick Tamen's question as to why some people react in a 'Ah, God's love!' way or 'Oh, God's wrath!' way - I'm not sure there's any easy answer to that. We are all products of our environment and the various influences that make us who we are.
It'll vary at different times of our lives too, depending on what influences come our way.
In answer to @Nick Tamen's question as to why some people react in a 'Ah, God's love!' way or 'Oh, God's wrath!' way - I'm not sure there's any easy answer to that. We are all products of our environment and the various influences that make us who we are.
I’m actually pretty sure that there isn’t an easy answer, at least not in the vast majority of cases. And I’d be suspicious of anyone who claimed to have an easy answer.
God's wrath *is* God's love. God's love doesn't absent itself when God's wrath is meted out. If our definition of "God's love" can't encompass that, we need to radically revise our conception of God's love.
God's wrath *is* God's love. God's love doesn't absent itself when God's wrath is meted out. If our definition of "God's love" can't encompass that, we need to radically revise our conception of God's love.
It's funny that whenever someone says this it's always "our" conception of God's love that "we" need to radically revise; and not their conception of God's wrath.
God's wrath *is* God's love. God's love doesn't absent itself when God's wrath is meted out. If our definition of "God's love" can't encompass that, we need to radically revise our conception of God's love.
Ah yes, redefine love until it doesn't look like love any more and more like hate.
This is far too much like the abusive spouse who claims they love the partner they're knocking seven colours of shit out of.
Redefine love to include slaughtering babes in arms, like in Canaan, in Sodom, in the flood.
No.
Actually "no" isn't strong enough. "Fuck off" is closer.
I mentioned “Inspired” by Rachel Held Evans earlier in the thread. She’s very good in her observations on the genocidal aspects of the OT, and also the violence towards women.
She doesn’t rationalise the horror, nor is she inhibited in voicing her disgust. Nor should any of us.
Which raises the question. Why should any of us bother to read anything which contains such shocking material?
I think if we have naive expectations about scripture, a serious reading will open our eyes.
The story is told that Winston Churchill’s son Randolph was encouraged by a believing friend to read the Bible from the beginning. Apparently he got part way through the OT then stopped and observed to his friend “God is a shit”! That is entirely understandable.
And that is a good point for the conversation and the wrestling to begin.
God's wrath *is* God's love. God's love doesn't absent itself when God's wrath is meted out. If our definition of "God's love" can't encompass that, we need to radically revise our conception of God's love.
Ah yes, redefine love until it doesn't look like love any more and more like hate.
This is far too much like the abusive spouse who claims they love the partner they're knocking seven colours of shit out of.
Redefine love to include slaughtering babes in arms, like in Canaan, in Sodom, in the flood.
No.
Actually "no" isn't strong enough. "Fuck off" is closer.
When humans do this to each other it's called "gaslighting."
But then, what do you do with the millions of people including Jesus who’ve been able to read theses texts and NOT conclude that God is a shit? Do you just assume we’re all gaslit or something? Because I’m a survivor of abuse, and the God I see in and through the Bible is not an abuser in my eyes. And no, my abusers never taught me to read or understand Scripture, if anything it was my refugee from them.
Yes. Lewis’s “Pilgrim’s Regress” explains very well the hero John’s confusion between the messages that God was “very very good” and would certainly condemn to eternal punishment anyone who did the slightest thing wrong.
Fostering and playing on guilt and fear have been unpleasant characteristics of various expressions of Christianity. As Bono put it, karma rather than grace.
Gaslighting is an important control tactic of the powerful.
But then, what do you do with the millions of people including Jesus who’ve been able to read theses texts and NOT conclude that God is a shit? Do you just assume we’re all gaslit or something? Because I’m a survivor of abuse, and the God I see in and through the Bible is not an abuser in my eyes. And no, my abusers never taught me to read or understand Scripture, if anything it was my refugee from them.
I dunno. But I can't get any non shitty message out of the massacre of Achan's entire family or Uzzah's instant death, to pick two examples.
Actions speak louder than words. If you claim you love me while beating me, I'm not going to believe you. And you can't counter a shitty thing with a nice thing - if you buy me a genuine Gibson Les Paul and ply me with stilton and Theakstons XB that evening it doesn't make up for you beating me or make me believe you love me any more.
I see a development (not straight line) of understanding about the nature of God and the nature of love. The “agape” of “Love your enemies” is both far removed from and a correction to Old Testament genocide.
The tribal God venerated in the early books belongs to henotheistic beliefs, rather than the explicit monotheism of Isaiah.
But I think you have to be prepared to go on that journey of discovery when reading scripture. Rather than treat it all the same.
In the Bible the thought that God is Love or that God loves us is frequently closely associated with the thought that therefore we should love other people. Therefore God is love in the sense that we are to treat other people, which is empathically not doing evil to people who oppose us.
The nearest I can get to wrath being part of love is if one of my children were to do something that endangered the other or themselves. But even then my reaction would be so mixed up with alarm and stress and confusion and therefore ill-considered that I wouldn't want to use it as a model. My considered reaction would be much closer to disappointment than what I normally imagine by "wrath".
For some reason my previous post didn’t include my answer.
The NT is not one book and each is aimed at a different or different groups of people. Some of which were under real persecution None of which are today’s people. They were more violent times. Things that were acceptable in the 60’s and 70’s are not acceptable now. How much more in Paul’s day.
That those times were violent doesn't make violence any less objectively bad though. It's not like torturing people was actually objectively fine in the 1550s; people just thought it was.
That those times were violent doesn't make violence any less objectively bad though. It's not like torturing people was actually objectively fine in the 1550s; people just thought it was.
I agree. Indiscriminate slaughter is objectively bad, regardless of the brutality of the times. It may be more understandable. That doesn’t make it excusable. Or some mysterious demonstration of God’s love or God’s justice.
God's wrath *is* God's love. God's love doesn't absent itself when God's wrath is meted out. If our definition of "God's love" can't encompass that, we need to radically revise our conception of God's love.
It's funny that whenever someone says this it's always "our" conception of God's love that "we" need to radically revise; and not their conception of God's wrath.
Indeed. It seems more natural to try to come to terms with God's wrath in the context of God's love, rather than the converse. This might reflect that the assertion that "God is Love" is significantly more prevalent than "God is Wrath".
One comparatively recent area of study which addresses some of the issues, from a less-traditional perspective, is trauma theology.
Trauma theology is a theological discipline that seeks to both do theological justice to traumatic experiences and also to reimagine theologies in the light of such experiences. Whilst suffering has always been of interest to Christian theology, trauma theology distinguishes between suffering and trauma, noting the specific impact trauma has on the embodied life of trauma survivors.
4 Reading the Bible through the lens of trauma
The hermeneutic approach to trauma that seeks to read biblical (and other) text through the heuristic lens of trauma takes a number of different approaches to this work. Significant research has been undertaken to understand the traumatic origins of biblical texts and the ways in which such texts are threaded through with trauma experiences and responses, often in indirect ways. Additional research has sought to read biblical texts with an eye to the contemporary reader and the ways in which some texts might particularly resonate with trauma survivors today, both individually and collectively. A third strand of this research has sought to consider the relationship between God and trauma, particularly examining texts that seem to portray God as an inflictor of trauma.
... 4.3 Violence and God
Theological concerns around the violence attributed (directly or indirectly) to God in the biblical texts has long been a concern for theologians. ... These texts have, unsurprisingly, been of interest to Trauma Theologians who have sought to make sense of the violence entwined in these narratives. Frechette and Elizabeth Boase note that ‘in many cases, biblical texts attributing suffering to dehumanizing violations enacted by God as punishment can be understood as representations of trauma that serve as mechanisms of survival, recovery, or resilience’ (Frechette 2016: 17).
Yes. Lewis’s “Pilgrim’s Regress” explains very well the hero John’s confusion between the messages that God was “very very good” and would certainly condemn to eternal punishment anyone who did the slightest thing wrong.
Fostering and playing on guilt and fear have been unpleasant characteristics of various expressions of Christianity. As Bono put it, karma rather than grace.
Gaslighting is an important control tactic of the powerful.
John also learns much better than that version of God by the end of the book, of course, for anyone wanting to read it. (Spoilers, I know…)
That those times were violent doesn't make violence any less objectively bad though. It's not like torturing people was actually objectively fine in the 1550s; people just thought it was.
I agree. Indiscriminate slaughter is objectively bad, regardless of the brutality of the times. It may be more understandable. That doesn’t make it excusable. Or some mysterious demonstration of God’s love or God’s justice.
Quite.
"Things were different then" is a fine explanation of terrible things expressed in a purely human source. Not for one that claims divine inspiration or even authorship, depending on whose claims you go with.
'Divine inspiration' is multifaceted and applies to the creation and (later) interpretation (or re-interpretation) of Scripture. Here, we must always be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Could I suggest Karl reads C. S Lewis's book on the psalms? The psalms have some wonderful poetry and beautiful verses, but also stuff about smiting your (god's) enemies. WRT to these horrible curses I found Lewis's POV wise adopted it myself. One bit stays in my memory, that the psalmists (rightly or wrongly) saw evil and took it seriously. Oh that many today would do the same. As to St paul's letter to the Romans (what have they ever done for us?) some high ranking politicians would do well to read it and apply to themselves. They don't of course.
These 'horrid' verses in scripture are of course to be read and applied to ourselves and never said (accusingly or in anger) to others.
There is a lovely little Adrian Plass story about when Jesus was laying into the Pharasees and Jewish leaders. From memory: the disciples were getting quite distressed. Peter tugs Jesus's cloak. Our Lord sees this and replies, out of the corner of his mouth, " It's alright, I'm not talking about you, this is for them".
Comments
Or should do ...
Yes, I think congregations should use scripture as a conversation starter, especially about what is happening in the life of the congregation. But most congregations are too passive. They listen to the message, but rarely do they say what they think about it, and often I wonder if they do think about it at all.
I love talking to (listening to!) these people, they can have such great insights.
Most congregations I have been familiar with.
Oh for the good old days when as young people we went to the Duck In The Pond to discuss the sermon over a beer.
I only begrudgingly accept that there has to be a certain amount of discipline in life. I am one of life’s creative souls. Not chaos but not caged. That tends to filter down to my Bible reading. I tend to dip into the Bible. Sometimes I may read a whole book.
I think though, that whatever our personal practice it does tend to change according to circumstances.
I used to read big chunks of the Bible when I was in my 20s. I don't do so now. Not because I don't think it's important or because 'I've already it,' but unless I'm reading a particular book for a Bible study I tend not to simply pick it up and read it.
'Tolle lege'.
Perhaps I should.
I sometimes do readings in addition, like a whole book, but I the consistency and order of the lectionary (together with set forms of prayer) is a good balance to my creative leanings.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said on the Ship before that I tend to approach the Bible as family history. It’s the stories that have been handed down from generation to generation. It includes beautiful and inspiring bits of family history along with ugly and shameful bits of history, because it’s always complicated. The family tree includes heroes, eccentrics, villains and very ordinary people. There may be some embellishments from repeated telling over the years.
These are the stories have shaped me and continue to shape me. They tell me who I am. They describe how I came to be who I am, and give me a glimpse of who I can be, of the possibilities. And they place me within a larger context of family and community.
I'm pretty sure I've read through the whole thing at one point in my life. I feel a tad overwhelmed by everything else I need to get done at the moment, though.
I do want to watch Phil Vischer's What's In The Bible? series. It's for kids but very good.
I notice how much better a newbie in my poetry group has become in her writing since I encouraged her to attempt formal rhyme and metre. I tend to write free verse but generally with a loosely iambic beat. I do write rhyming poems too and there is something about form that gives greater freedom, paradoxical as it may sound.
As he's a dancer I'm sure @Hugal knows all about the differences and advantages/disadvantages of both free styles and more formal dance formats.
If we apply that to how we read the scriptures then perhaps it's a both/and thing ... 😉
I really like this.
That doesn't resolve all the issues but it can disentangle the mess to some extent.
Some of the worst bits are in the NT
But yes, there are scary bits in the Gospels and epistles too.
A lot depends on whether we understand some of those passages hyperbolically or as some kind of IKEA instruction manual on how to put up a flat-pack eschatology table or shelving unit.
Yes the NT is not “nice” . It is powerful, it is strengthening, it is scary. It is not a nice read
Who said anything about "nice"?
Every fecking time anyone has a problem with any of the frankly morally indefensible parts of the Bible someone will always chime in with the implication that you want it to be "nice" and tough shit it isn't. I don't want "nice" but I do want "good". People being struck dead over their giving to the church or otherwise isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. The Lake of Fire isn't "not nice" - it's monstrous. Paul's diatribe in Romans 1 about how people are all doomed and thoroughly deserve it isn't "not nice" - it's hateful, and his bullshit about how God's existence is obvious is fecking laughably obvious bollocks.
It most certainly doesn't empower or strengthen me. It makes it daily harder to believe it describes any kind of valid God at all.
It doesn't cancel out. The shitty stuff is still there alongside 1 Cor 13.
Is it because I'm some kind of bastard?
Is it because I can compartmentalise them and keep them in the 'too difficult' file?
Is it because I don't always take them literally?
I don't know.
That probably isn't any help.
Either way—shitty at center stage or love at center stage—there are apparent discrepancies or inconsistencies that have to be resolved some way or another. How do we approach finding that resolution, and what instincts, assumptions and experiences shape how we approach it?
I remember hearing a pastor preach a chilling sermon about Phinehas running through the Israelite man and Midianite woman while they were in flagrante. He seemed to relish the idea.
Mind you, this bloke used to love Rambo movies ...
I can't imagine that incident being preached on very often. I don't think I've ever heard it prreached on anywhere else.
I think also Paul has a rhetorical habit of restating arguments he disagrees with in order to subvert or deconstruct them. Many of the problematic passages in Paul are there for the sake of the punchline where he undoes them.
The reality is that both seemingly contradictory descriptions are there, in the same Bible. So what is it that leads some people to view one of those descriptions as a/the main takeaway from Scripture, while other people view the other description as a/the main takeaway?
I think that goes directly to the question of how we use the Bible and the hermeneutic assumptions we bring to that use.
And some would say that there's evidence of that in the text itself in the shape of the pornoprophecy sections of Ezekiel, Hosea etc.
How you resolve those questions, depends very much on your view of inspiration and the compilation of the text.
I think that there are actually contradictory descriptions in (any canon of) the Bible.
I have heard that "The Bible does not 'speak' with a single voice on any important topic".
I find that unsurprising in light of the history and cultural situation differences that the very human authors were inspired (and I use that term loosely) to write about.
One way for Christians to evaluate the descriptions is to view them through the life and message of Jesus Christ. But even that is problematic, as that is again mediated through different human perspectives.
I think, that the core teaching is the command to love God and love your neighbour, or as the Good Samaritan states, to be the neighbour. It doesn't require any difficult theology or understanding to do that.
I'm not sure they resolve all the issues - I'm not sure we can, life isn't as neat as that, neither are the scriptures.
But I certainly think that Romans 2, for instance, shows a more expansive side to the Apostle Paul's approach than he is often given credit for. And yes to the 'corporate' rather than the individualistic element that @Dafyd highlights.
In answer to @Nick Tamen's question as to why some people react in a 'Ah, God's love!' way or 'Oh, God's wrath!' way - I'm not sure there's any easy answer to that. We are all products of our environment and the various influences that make us who we are.
It'll vary at different times of our lives too, depending on what influences come our way.
I think the value is in pondering the question.
Ah yes, redefine love until it doesn't look like love any more and more like hate.
This is far too much like the abusive spouse who claims they love the partner they're knocking seven colours of shit out of.
Redefine love to include slaughtering babes in arms, like in Canaan, in Sodom, in the flood.
No.
Actually "no" isn't strong enough. "Fuck off" is closer.
I mentioned “Inspired” by Rachel Held Evans earlier in the thread. She’s very good in her observations on the genocidal aspects of the OT, and also the violence towards women.
She doesn’t rationalise the horror, nor is she inhibited in voicing her disgust. Nor should any of us.
Which raises the question. Why should any of us bother to read anything which contains such shocking material?
I think if we have naive expectations about scripture, a serious reading will open our eyes.
The story is told that Winston Churchill’s son Randolph was encouraged by a believing friend to read the Bible from the beginning. Apparently he got part way through the OT then stopped and observed to his friend “God is a shit”! That is entirely understandable.
And that is a good point for the conversation and the wrestling to begin.
When humans do this to each other it's called "gaslighting."
Fostering and playing on guilt and fear have been unpleasant characteristics of various expressions of Christianity. As Bono put it, karma rather than grace.
Gaslighting is an important control tactic of the powerful.
I dunno. But I can't get any non shitty message out of the massacre of Achan's entire family or Uzzah's instant death, to pick two examples.
Actions speak louder than words. If you claim you love me while beating me, I'm not going to believe you. And you can't counter a shitty thing with a nice thing - if you buy me a genuine Gibson Les Paul and ply me with stilton and Theakstons XB that evening it doesn't make up for you beating me or make me believe you love me any more.
I see a development (not straight line) of understanding about the nature of God and the nature of love. The “agape” of “Love your enemies” is both far removed from and a correction to Old Testament genocide.
The tribal God venerated in the early books belongs to henotheistic beliefs, rather than the explicit monotheism of Isaiah.
But I think you have to be prepared to go on that journey of discovery when reading scripture. Rather than treat it all the same.
The nearest I can get to wrath being part of love is if one of my children were to do something that endangered the other or themselves. But even then my reaction would be so mixed up with alarm and stress and confusion and therefore ill-considered that I wouldn't want to use it as a model. My considered reaction would be much closer to disappointment than what I normally imagine by "wrath".
The NT is not one book and each is aimed at a different or different groups of people. Some of which were under real persecution None of which are today’s people. They were more violent times. Things that were acceptable in the 60’s and 70’s are not acceptable now. How much more in Paul’s day.
I agree. Indiscriminate slaughter is objectively bad, regardless of the brutality of the times. It may be more understandable. That doesn’t make it excusable. Or some mysterious demonstration of God’s love or God’s justice.
John also learns much better than that version of God by the end of the book, of course, for anyone wanting to read it. (Spoilers, I know…)
Quite.
"Things were different then" is a fine explanation of terrible things expressed in a purely human source. Not for one that claims divine inspiration or even authorship, depending on whose claims you go with.
Could I suggest Karl reads C. S Lewis's book on the psalms? The psalms have some wonderful poetry and beautiful verses, but also stuff about smiting your (god's) enemies. WRT to these horrible curses I found Lewis's POV wise adopted it myself. One bit stays in my memory, that the psalmists (rightly or wrongly) saw evil and took it seriously. Oh that many today would do the same. As to St paul's letter to the Romans (what have they ever done for us?) some high ranking politicians would do well to read it and apply to themselves. They don't of course.
These 'horrid' verses in scripture are of course to be read and applied to ourselves and never said (accusingly or in anger) to others.
There is a lovely little Adrian Plass story about when Jesus was laying into the Pharasees and Jewish leaders. From memory: the disciples were getting quite distressed. Peter tugs Jesus's cloak. Our Lord sees this and replies, out of the corner of his mouth, " It's alright, I'm not talking about you, this is for them".