The Goings-On at Home

I apologize for the long time between posts, but while I was home, there wasn't much time...and half the time, I couldn't connect to the internet with my computer. If it wasn't my computer, it was the network at home being weird. But since I'm back in New Jersey (even though if I move this laptop I don't know how long it will be before I can connect to the internet again), I have a more reliable connection.

Home was nice. :-) It was good to see my grandmother, though it was a bit difficult finding things to keep her occupied due to her limited mobility. She can still walk, but not very much, and she needs to use a cane when going most places. I drove her up to Colby so she could see where I and my brothers went/go to college, and on the way down we found this cross-stitch store that she absolutely fell in love with. Pheasant Run Needlecrafts. It's a great little store (click to view a web commercial), and I ended up purchasing (well, she bought them for me) two different patterns.

This, however, is what I am currently working on, and I expect that it will take me the better part of the year to finish it. I hope to get far along by the end of the summer, because once the school year starts, all bets are off.

She also taught me to make strawberry jam! We made 15 jars of it, from strawberries that my dad had picked. I took back 4 jars with me.

My other grandmother, who lives closer by, came over a couple of times, and it was the funniest thing to watch the two of them talk together. They're both hard of hearing, so they'd talk, and one would ask a question and the other would switch the subject because she didn't hear the question, or they'd cut each other off without knowing what they were doing. But then again, all they'd talk about were their medical problems and the prescriptions they were taking.

Anyhow, my grandmother said she had the best visit with us. So all in all, it was a success, and it was good to see her.

But now I am back, and I have a meeting with the PPRC tonight! I'm a bit nervous, but since I'm already going there, this is more for them to have the opportunity to meet me and get to know me a bit better, and start ironing out the details of my supervised ministry.

My computer stinks...

I apologize for the brief hiatus. My computer's internet connection has been a bit wacky of late. I have the cord connected to the port, and sometimes it wants to say it's there, and sometimes not....it's really strange.

Anywho, I'm leaving today for a week at home! Yay!

Well, after the meeting about supervised ministry, that is. I think I've finally come to a decision! Another yay!

RGBP Friday Five: Short things!

Short People: I hope my mother doesn't get offended here...but she's really not that short. She's the shortest in my immediate family (but then again, I'm next in line...and I'm 5' 6".) I remember thinking that it was such a big deal when I finally passed her in height, but when my siblings all did the same thing, I understood to some degree what she must have been feeling. :-P But I love my mom. She may be short in height, and I may be taller than her, but I will always look up to her.

Short Hops: What my tennis balls do before they hit the net. :-P Seriously, I just realized how short a walk it is to McCool's, one of the best ice cream places in Madison. I've already been there twice this summer, and already it's starting to become a temptation....they have the best blend-in frozen yogurt.

Short Stories: I'm not sure. I've never been much of a short story reader, but I know that my sister writes some really beautiful ones. There was a (short!) time in my life when I enjoyed writing short stories: mostly fanfics based off of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. I even tried my hand at some other creative stories. From time to time, I've regretted giving up writing like that. I really enjoyed it, even if I wasn't very good.

Short Lists: The food in my refridgerator. It has bread, milk, cheese, meat, celery, and radishes. And eggs. Oh, and some caviar (from Christmas - thank goodness caviar doesn't go bad!)

Short Stops: I was going to make some baseball reference, but I won't do so. Short stops at the local used bookstores quickly turn into long ones if I'm not careful!

What are we teaching our young girls?

I don't know why, but this whole evening I've had the lyrics to "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" running through my head.

I'll be the first to admit it: it's a fun song. It's catchy, upbeat, and (from what I understand) the favorite at karaoke. However, just think of what this song reveals about the hopes, dreams, and stereotypes of young women. The verse that really bothers me is the second one:

The phone rings in the middle of the night,
My father yells "What you gonna do with your life?"
Oh, daddy, dear, you know you're still number one,
But girls, they wanna have fu-un.

I remember first hearing this song (at least a version thereof) on Sesame Street, where young puppets danced around...having fun. Just plain ol' fun. Kids don't think anything of it. Having fun means playing outdoors, racing toy cars, playing with dolls or blocks. Nothing "sketchy" about it.

Fastforward a few years, and there's a drastic shift in meaning. "Fun" begins to be associated with the opposite sex. And this song reinforces this by equating "fun" with "staying out all night and being with boys." And, according to this song, this is all that girls really want.

This is a value that is screamed to young girls through the media culture. Especially MTV, with the dating shows that say, "Hi, I'm Rachel, I love shopping and talking on my phone and flirting with hot guys" as if there was nothing more to the female existence. It's portrayed through television commercials that show women all over guys with six-packs. It's in magazines that say, "10 Sizzling Tricks to Make Him Burn for You." Females aren't taught to want anything more out of life other than a guy that looks good.

Oh, wait. Yes they are. They're taught that motherhood is the other option. Or that if they're going to be a career woman, they have to be good-looking and wear sexy business suits. But really...girls don't want these things, as if they had no value at all. We just want to have fun. That's all we really want. To heck with careers or family or meaningful relationships. Women really don't want to be their own persons, to be beautiful on the inside, or to walk in the sunlight of independence. We don't care for learning new things or for bettering ourselves. After all, we just want to have fun.

And yet, something in this song touches women everywhere, some rather profoundly. It's a song with a terrible, awful, message. But I think it's true that we want to have fun. We want to be like those puppets on Sesame Street, innocently playing and...having fun. No pressures, no expectations, no...boys, at least of the sort that has only one thing on their minds. We want that freedom that seems to happen only in childhood. Where having fun is just that, and not some sort of double entendre.

The really difficult part of it is: we need to free ourselves.

And if two wasn't enough...

...I now have three options for supervised ministry. Yes, that's right. Three options.

The third one came rather unexpectedly after Ben's meeting with his pastor for supervised ministry. He'll be in Spotswood/Monroe Township; Spotswood is birthing a new church in Monroe Township and the pastor there is a big dreamer.

I would love to be a part of a new church start, especially where the pastor there is planning on badgering Adam Hamilton (the pastor of the largest UMC in the country, membership of 12,000) in hopes of becoming a satellite campus. The only problem is that...Ben is there.

For those of you new to my blog, Ben is my boyfriend. We've known each other since freshman year of college and will have been dating for a year as of August 1st. He also goes to Drew and just finished his first year as well. Ben is also more ministerially formed than I am; that is, he's had longer to live with his calling and more of a chance to participate in church life looking through the lens of his call.

I, on the other hand, have not had as much of an opportunity to do so. So if I were to look into this church, I'd want to make sure that (a) no one compares the two of us, and (b) I have a place free to do my own thing totally separate and apart from Ben. 100% apart. No stepping on each others' toes allowed!

This might be possible, though I think it would be touch to coordinate. There are aspects of church life that Ben's not touching (like youth), and he's going to be spending more time at the new church start rather than at the Spotswood church. I'm going to give the pastor a call to see what can happen.

All that being said, if Spotswood wasn't an option, I'm now leaning more towards Westwood. The urban/multicultural setting is something I can do my third year if I feel like that's a piece of my education that I really need. Right now, I think I need something a bit more well-rounded. I've already participated in many aspects of church life growing up, but haven't really had the chance to pull it all together in light of my call. Unfortunately, the dean in charge of this supervised ministry program is out of the office, and when she gets back I will be on my way to Maine, unless I can delay my return home for one more day so I can meet with her (which might be the smart thing to do).

Decisions, decisions...

Ok. After visiting Trenton, I think I'm more confused than I was before.

First of all, I got lost getting there due to faulty directions. I ended up stopping at a CVS to help orient myself and was told by an elderly gentleman, "Oh, you be careful there. That's a bad neighborhood." Driving through there I didn't think it was too bad. Not the type of place you want to get caught in after dark, but it was near the state building in a rather commercial area. St. Paul's is further up the street in a more residential area.

I arrived 23 minutes late, just in time to hear the sermon. I was very thankful that I wasn't there in any official capacity; I think I would die of embarassment otherwise. The people there were nice, and during the passing of the peace the pastor came up to me and asked if I would mind being introduced. I told him to go ahead, and he mentioned that I was there checking them out. After the service, I had the opportunity to talk to a few people. From what I understand, there were many families that were away that week, but there was a new Liberian family in attendance. Apparently, there is a very strong Liberian presence in Trenton.

I didn't get to see much of that building, but I did get to see a bit of St. Paul's, which also hosts the offices for the district. After that, I went to the pastor's house for lunch and had the opportunity to talk with him and his wife.

If I went to Trenton, I would be the one to develop a children's ministry. Rev. Johnson talked about how there's a gang problem in Trenton, but not one that's so severe as to warrant a ministry targeting gangs. His idea, rather, is on prevention -- focusing on 8 - 11 or 12 year olds. I will admit, the opportunity to get really hands on in these churches is appealing. However, my biggest concern is the distance.

It takes an hour and twenty minutes to get from Trenton to Madison with minimal amounts of traffic. The seminarian who was there before warned me that it can take anywhere from an hour and fifteen to an hour and forty-five. Distance-wise, the trip is sixty miles one way. Two trips per week would be 240 miles and over 5 hours of driving. The idea is to be there for worship on Sunday (of course) but also have a full meeting of the team once per week.

My vision would be to really be able to get involved in the community I was placed in for supervised ministry, but I'm not sure how this is going to be possible if I have to travel so far. Westwood is almost as bad, but it's only 45 minutes away. Westwood has its advantages as well, like being a part of a growing congregation that has life and vitality.

I know that either place has its positive aspects and its drawbacks, and that either setting would be a great experience. Both seminarians who were there in these churches (ironically, they were married to each other) both had wonderful experiences and spoke very highly of the pastors they worked with. I think it's time for me to sit down and have a conversation with Dean Samuel.

More angst about Supervised Ministry

Today, I've decided to visit First UMC in Trenton, NJ in order to help my discernment process over where I want to do my supervised ministry next year. I visited Westwood a couple of weeks ago, and so now it's Trenton's turn. To be completely honest, I'm leaning more towards Trenton right now: about 85-90%.

Right now, I think a lot of my resistance is because I'm a bit frightened of stepping out of my comfort zone. Trenton is an urban area of about 70,000 people, which is actually only 6,000 more than the city of Portland, ME (not including the Greater Portland Area, which has about 230,000 people). There are five United Methodist Churches within the city itself, and all are on the decline. First UMC is actually part of a two-point charge with St. Paul's UMC which is just a short walk away. Both are near the State house, from what Rev. Johnson told me. It'll be a cross-cultural experience; the two populations are largely African-American, which is pretty cool. However, the pastor said that he feels like the two congregations are going to be better served in the future by a person of color as a pastor, and they'd also prefer a person of color to join the team. Ebenezer, another student from Drew, is going to be there as well for his supervised ministry -- he's from Africa (I think -- at least, he's originally from there) -- but I don't know how it's going to be working with another student from Drew. I don't think it'll be too bad though, because we'd be doing different things, and only coming together as a team for support during weekly meetings.

We'll see how this morning's worship service goes!

RevGalBlogPals Friday Five

1) Do you celebrate 4th of July (or some other holiday representing independence?)

Not really. At least, not this year. Usually, my family has a cookcout of sorts and we go into town to watch the fireworks over the bay.

2) When was the first time you felt independent, if ever?

Hrm. I'd have to say when I went off to college. That was my first time really away from home.

3) If you're hosting a cookout, what's on the grill?

Red hot dogs, of course! They must be a Maine thing, because no where else have I ever found them. Everyone from "away" has never heard about them. But - they're the best!

4) Strawberry Shortcake -- biscuit or sponge cake? Discuss.

Biscuit, hands down. There's no other way to do Strawberry Shortcake. The best is if you make them with the Bisquick mix...and you can smell them cooking....mmm...

5) Fireworks -- best and worst experience.

OK. Best experience: watching fireworks from a sailboat on Martha's Vineyard with a bunch of college friends. Worst: well, this doesn't really qualify, but I ended up having a little accident with some sparklers after watching the fireworks at my youth pastor's house. A spark jumped and lit about 100 of them on fire. After that incident, I was affectionately called "sparky." Although this happened quite a few years ago, I think there still might be a char mark on the sidewalk outside her house...

What I Learned in Church History I

The papers have been handed in. The classes have all (save one) been attended and noted to death. The final has been taken. This can only mean one thing:

Church History I is done!

With the completion of this class, my two-course Church History requirement is finished. After taking these two classes, I can really appreciate the value of taking a solid year of church history (even if we didn't really get into Global Christianity) before going into ministry.

(1) One of the many things that I have learned in this class that as much as people like to think it, there was no "Golden Age" of Christianity. New Testament touched on this too (I mean, all one has to do is read Acts and Paul's letters (esp. 1 Corinthians) to see all of the tensions in the early Church), but the message wasn't quite as clear there as it was in this class. We tend to forget that early Christianity was marked by a diversity of thought, practice, and understanding...without even going into notions of what people considered "heretical" at that time. We had the martyrs, who thought that Christianity was about being an authentic witness, and the only way to do that was by dying for your faith. We had the philosophers/apologists, who maintained that Christianity was the "true philosophy" (and it is from this branch that we get the foundations of what is considred heretical). We had ascetics: desert monks and others who valued purity as their understanding of the Christian faith. Then we have those who think Christianity is believing the right things -- ascribing to the "true" doctrines. And these doctrines keep evolving and changing - responding to the argument of the moment.

(2) We're never going to have it all right. In nearly 2000 years of Christian history, no one has ever had the complete picture of what the church should look like or how the Christian faith should be practiced. Dare I venture this: not even Jesus, because I doubt his intention was to construct an institution or to found a new religion, although I have no doubt that he alone had the right idea of what God desires for humans to do. In one way, the thought that we're never going to have the complete picture is rather humbling; the tensions that are going on right now are just a part of a longer ongoing struggle of humans working together to figure out just what the Good News of Jesus Christ actually is...or what it means. On the other hand, it's extremely frustrating, because we like to think that we've learned something in the 2000 years we've been at it. I think we have learned something from history -- we just haven't learned enough.

For me, I'm comfortable with the thought that we're never going to have it all right. I like Nietzsche's view of truth (he was not a relativist!!!): Truth is like a huge sphere...like the earth. Looking at it, we can only see one small part of it. Others see different parts. Some see parts of it that overlap with ours. Some see parts that are completely contradictory -- but it's all part of the same Truth. I also like the idea that Truth is a being to be related with. Different people will have different interactions with that Truth, but it's all a part of the same whole.

But I digress. Back to Church History.

(3) It brought to mind some of the theological explanations for certain practices that I had never fully realized before. The example that immediately jumped to mind is: icons. There is a difference between veneration and adoration. Adoration is reserved for God while veneration of the representational image points one in the direction of the God who alone deserves to be worshipped. Thinking about that is pretty neat, and I personally would love to see more icons used in worship services.

(4) The readings. The early Christians had a lot to say, and some of their more devotional writings are absolutely beautiful. I think the church today has forgotten about a lot of these figures. Hildegard of Bingen is one such example of this, as well as Augustine. They seemed a lot more free to express their devotion to God in their writings, breaking out at certain points into spontaneous praise. Some of their work I would love to incorporate into my own devotional time.

In short, I loved this course, even if it did cover 1000 years of history in 6 weeks. It was a whirlwind tour, but a fascinating one. I hope I never forget these lessons I've learned...even if I do forget about the Visagoths and the Byzantines and the Donation of Constantine.

Logan Airport

I survived driving it. In the rain.

Ben and I were supposed to pick somebody up during Annual Conference, so we missed half of the ordination service in order to do this. I had to circle twice, but I finally managed to navigate my way around.

The problem wasn't getting there. It was coming back. Mapquest had directions like "head towards I-90 and 1A. Normally, this would be fine. Except for the fact that I-90 goes West...and 1A goes East. Oops. I know I-90 would take us back to I-95 eventually, and from there I could get back to Annual Conference. But it was a bit touch and go there for a moment.

The Second Virgin Birth of Christ?

Somebody over at the Christianity community at livejournal posted this link:

Insurers have withdrawn the cover on their virginity taken out by three sisters in the event of the second coming of Christ.

So I read the article, not really believing what I was reading. It made me think about the second coming of Christ...or even if Jesus is supposed to return at all. If he is to come back, I don't think he'd appear in the form of a child anyway. I think he'd just appear and whip us all into shape, because if he were to come back today, he'd have a lot of work ahead of him.

I wonder what Jesus would say directly to us in our own American context. In the gospels, he was speaking to that particular situation, cultural context, heritage, etc. Times have drastically changed since then. Would he focus on how we treat each other? How we abuse the earth? Our idolatry? Our insatiable consumerism? Our stubborn individualism?

What would there be to praise? Not much, I gather...

Where have all the young ones gone?

GEN-X RISING: Decline in young leadership threatens Methodism's future.

I wonder if the decline in young people being interested in the pastorate in the UMC is because we've done a rather lousy job as a denomination in terms of supporting our youth and young adults. Many congregations don't affirm the leadership skills of the youth in their congregations, ascribing to the theory that youth should be "seen and not heard." Youth are reduced to "tokens," thrust forward as an example of "See! We have a youth program -- here's a youth right now!"

If the church has botched reaching the young people of my generation, think of how they are failing the youth now. Nothing has really changed in terms of the denomination's approach to young people. Granted, things may vary from Conference to Conference, but New England has done a miserable job in cultivating an atmosphere where youth are valued and upheld as the present reality of our church. There are individual churches who do well at this, however...but they are few and far between. In general, youth are glaringly absent from the life of a congregation. It seems to me that the link between this absence of support and the low numbers of young clergy is fairly obvious.

QUICK EDIT: I would love it if there was some sort of network for young clergy/young UM seminarians planning on ordination. I believe there is a seminarians one among the 13 UM seminaries, but I have no idea who Drew's contact is. Hmph. The website is www.yasn.org.

Hildegard of Bingen

I was reading a bit of Hildegard of Bingen's visions for Church History class, and one of them in particular struck me. She used the analogy of a baby for Christians. If a baby doesn't receive the proper nourishment from it's mother, it will die. So if one who is baptized doesn't receive the constant nurturing of his or her mother "the Church," the soul will die. The Church is necessary to one's life as a Christian. It reminded me of the fact that all too often, worship attendance is not a requirement for Church membership, and that's really sad. We're so ready to puff up our numbers, but not to actually nurture them into discipleship.

This analogy also made me about Paul's letter to the church in Corinth, where in chapter 3 he writes, "And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?" Or the author of Hebrews in chapter 5: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil."

So -- at what point do we stop being "baby Christians?" According to these two scriptural accounts, I fear that there are all too few "mature Christians" and far too many infants running around, thinking they know what is right and true. Christian behavior is often very comparable to that of children: not sharing, intent on getting his or her own way, throwing temper tantrums, not looking before they leap, sometimes wanting to free themselves of parental influence, etc...

When do we grow up?

Cynicism and the NEUMC

I've discovered this past Conference that it really does me no good to be cynical about the motivations of the New England Conference.

First of all, I trust Bishop Weaver and I trust his plan for the Conference. It's not one motivated out of any political agenda, but out of his love of God and his deep desire to see growth in the UMC. He is so grounded in God.

By extension, and because of people I know on the Cabinet, I trust the Cabinet and the decisions they make. Bishop Weaver seems to be intentionally appointing people who are going to hold clergy accountable to doing effective ministry, and I really like that idea. Granted, I may not like some of their decisions in terms of where different pastors get appointed, but I need to trust that they are doing what they feel is best, and that they are doing so from a spiritual point.

I really feel like things are at a tipping point, and are beginning to turn around in New England. There's still a lot of hurt feelings and mistrust because of the merger between Conferences that happened more than 10 years ago, and things don't quite "work" yet, but we're getting there.

My biggest point of frustration and cynicism comes from the youth program, and here is where I am really struggling. Every time a Conference-wide youth program has been offered, it has failed...rather miserably, in fact. The one time when we had a Conference Youth Coordinator, he was essentially set up to fail in that position, and I strongly believe that. So I personally can't get over that feeling of "the Conference hates youth"...because it really doesn't. However, the program they currently have grates on my nerves every time I think about it, because (a) I don't think it's going to work and (b) I feel it negates everything that CCYM has previously worked to acheive. I will admit that I have a very deep, personal interest in the future of youth ministry in the Conference, so naturally I'm biased toward the structure with which I am familiar.

So this is a current struggle of mine. I figure it's best to wrestle with it now, seeing as in a few years I will be a part of that institution.

First thoughts about conference...

Ok.

My first two points are related to each other. Lately, I've felt that while all these sorts of issues are important (homosexuality, the war, our borders with Mexico, etc...), they really serve to distract our attention away from the more important things: growing our church. Making disciples of Christ.

I attended a workshop by Curtis Brown, New England's director of Congregational Development. The "learning center" wasn't that fruitful (my small group wasn't terribly productive), but he made a presentation on Natural Church Development, which I thought was amazing...as well as mind-blowingly simple. All it really takes is a commitment to critique yourself (as a church) and work on your weaknessess.

Too many of our churches are stuck in the 1950's, not realizing that we can't simply open our doors and expect throngs of people to come streaming through. We expect people to come to them, when in reality, we should be going out to the community. We should be actively figuring out what the needs are in the area around us and determine how best to serve those needs. Making people feel valued and wanted is the first step to getting them into the church and helping them along the path of discipleship. If you can't get them in the door, then this isn't going to happen. This isn't rocket-science.

I really feel like if people were committed to doing actual ministry, a lot of these other symptomatic issues (arguments over homosexuality and the like) would not go away, but I feel like the arguments would be more spiritually and ministerially framed. We'd be debating about these things more from experience rather than from our theological ideologies. And while I do believe that there is experience that factors into arguments on either side, it's largely about theology and not about ministry.

Annual Conference

There isn't much to say about it at this point, as I am at the brink of exhaustion, but I will say that I have several thoughts about what went on this year, and I will be posting about them shortly. Things that I will hopefully include:

1. Congregational Growth is Key
2. We won't be able to fight about homosexuality in the church (and other such pressing issues) in the coming years if there isn't a church around.
3. A vow to purge myself of the remaining cynisim I have buried inside of me somewhere about the New England Conference
4. The horrendous worship (particularly the ordination service)
5. The adventure of navigating Logan Airport
6. The disappointing Drew presence
7. Why not to write a sermon during Conference.
8. I'm sure I'll think of something else...

I hope to do this in a couple of installments (as several of these overlap to a certain extent). Conference really was a mixed bag this year, and felt off kilter from many Annual Conferences I've attended (including the bad ones). For now, I am running on fumes.

Supervised Ministry Placement

Today, I'm meeting with Rev. Jack Johnson about the possibility of a supervised ministry placement in Trenton, NJ. It's a two-point charge: First Church and St. Paul's. I was going to drive down there, but my car broke down, so the pastor is graciously coming up to Drew to meet with me.

This is my second meeting; the first was with Rev. Tom Korkuch of Westwood UMC. It's pretty much the opposite of what I might get in Trenton. Right now, I'm leaning there, though I'm not really sure. I'm trying to pick the placement that will afford me the right preparation for work in New England.

Seeing as there aren't a lot of urban churches, part of me thinks it would be great to get that experience. On the other hand, it might not be that practical.

Ideally, I wanted a church setting that was actively using principles of congregational development, since that's something I'm not going to get in my seminary education at Drew. At least, I want a church that is growing. From what I understand, Westwood is growing, but I'm not sure about Trenton. I know Trenton has limited resources (like so many of our churches in New England!), but they're doing a lot of outreach (something New England churches desperately need to do!).

Let's see what becomes of my conversation today...

Christian Music

I just had a thought while at work (slow day in the admissions office...and I didn't bring my sermon with me to work on, nor any of my reading because I thought I'd be swamped...grrr....). The radio was on in the office and I started thinking about how the vast majority of Christians I know here at Drew don't listen to Christian music -- they listen to secular music. I wondered why exactly that is, and I had a thought that I think might explain at least part of it.

Most Christian music spouts a very particular brand of theology, i.e., not mainline Protestant. Most Christian music lies firmly in the evangelical sphere, and there are very few bands that address God with a more mainline Protestant framework in mind. Jars of Clay is one of the few bands that come to mind. But most groups are content to use contrite, cliche lyrics when speaking about God rather than talk about human experience. And when the human experience is addressed, it, too, comes off as lyrically boring and musically uninteresting.

Secular music, on the other hand, deals pretty exclusively with the human experience, and tends to do so in a way that has more musical integrity. There have been times when I've been home when I switched off WMSJ because of the music in search of something more interesting.

So I wonder what would happen if there were more Christian artists grounded in human reality? Or...more Christian artists geared specifically toward Mainline Protestant theology? One that isn't so "oh, you saved me God from the fiery pits of hell, and now I'm so happy, I could dance and sing and laugh forever and ever"? There's a place for that type of expression in Christian music, certainly. I simply don't want a steady diet of it.

"Orthodoxy" and "Heresy"

Part of last night's Church History lecture was on constructions of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in the early Church. I found myself getting a bit frustrated at some points, as the Gnostics were portrayed in a rather favorable light at times, and people like Irenaeus were portrayed as deceptive and slight hypocrites because he came up with a new, innovative system for determining what is "right" and what is "wrong."

I fully understand that there was no "Golden Age" in church history, where everybody got along, agreed with each other, and there were no disputes about anything. The diverse perspectives in the New Testament clearly refutes this, and there is loads of conflict: between Jews and Gentiles, between people who claimed to be baptized by Peter vs. those baptized by Apollos in 1st Corinthians. No group ever got it all right.

But at the same time, there's something to be said for the creation of boundaries. In my opinion, Gnostics clearly were outside of the Christian faith, no matter how much they called themselves "Christian." So what if they were "new" and "innovative" and "diverse"? Just because it was such doesn't mean that the philosophy itself was in any way good. The claim that Jesus didn't come in the flesh or that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures was not the God of the New Testament seems completely against what the scriptures teach.

Oh. Wait. I forgot -- the creation of the Christian canon was an attempt to exclude differing opinions and was completely a socio-political move for those who were in the "right" to solidify their power. How could I have missed that???

I think we need to remember that these people had very good reasons for including what they did in the Bible. Apostolic succession isn't a bad theory, and I think it works rather well. I mean, doesn't it make sense that those who were closest to Jesus probably knew better what they were talking about than people like Marcion or Valentinus who just made everything up on their own?

At the same time, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, I love belonging to a church without a creed. There is a way in which theological diversity makes for greater richness in the sharing of ideas. Additionally, there is the freedom to accept what you wish and disregard something you happen to disagree with. I would add, however, you at least have to listen to what other people are saying. But there are still some boundaries; United Methodism does hold to some general principles. "United Methodists profess the historic Christian faith in God, incarnate in Jesus Christ for our salvation and ever at work in human history in the Holy Spirit." (From www.umc.org.)

Today this "orthodox"/"heresy" debate gets disguised as the "conservative"/"liberal" in which each "side" claims to have the unique truth and the other gets denounced as blasphemous and heretical. While on the one hand, I wish that some middle ground could be reached (since I think that's where the majority of Christians live), on the other, I realize that I'm just imposing my own view on what I think is "right" and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Truth is out there. We will just never know it fully. Why can't we all just leave it at that?

New resolution...

Hmmm. No one seems to ever read this blog. Then again, I haven't updated it in several months.

Anyway, I'm hoping that this will become my place for more...theological/other sorts of musings. My livejournal seems to have become more a platform for day-to-day activities.

So, I promise to update this side more frequently. If I follow up on that promise remains to be seen...

Exegesis of Genesis 16 and 21

Melissa Yosua

Exegesis Paper

November 28^th, 2005

Isaac and Ishmael: Issues of Inheritance

The story of Abraham fascinates us; we see the story of a man God promises much to: a great nation that will be a blessing to all the nations of the world with land of their own. Establishing one’s family line and securing one’s rights to the land were essential components for survival in ancient Near Eastern culture, so God’s promise to Abraham carries the assurance of perpetual security and prosperity. Yet this seemingly simple story of the fulfillment of God’s promises involves a multitude of complications, two among which are Abraham’s wife Sarah and her Egyptian maidservant Hagar,[1] both of whom have sons by Abraham. Whose son will become the beneficiary of Abraham’s inheritance – of both his property and God’s promise? Though Ishmael is the first-born, God’s fulfills the promise through Isaac, meaning Ishmael will not receive his rightful inheritance.

The narrative begins by telling us that Sarah has borne Abraham no children, but desires a son for herself.[2] To solve this problem, she approaches Abraham saying,

‘Look, the Lord has kept me from bearing. Consort with my maid; perhaps I shall have a son through her.’ And Abram heeded Sarai’s request. So Sarai…gave [Hagar] to her husband as concubine.[3]

Sarah’s request is in line with common ancient Near Eastern practices; should there be no heir, the wife could produce one of her handmaids for her husband to consort with and the resulting child would belong to the wife.[4] Even so, Sarah’s proposal raises questions surrounding Hagar’s status as a result of her relationship with Abraham.[5] Once she discovers she is pregnant, she looks down upon Sarah. Sarah’s brilliant scheme has backfired, as Hagar’s pregnancy challenges Sarah’s status as the dominant woman in the household – a position she has held for many years.

When confronted with the situation, Abraham gives Sarah permission to deal with Hagar as she sees fit, apparently disregarding the fact that Hagar could bear him the promise-fulfilling child he has been awaiting. Abraham returns Hagar to Sarah’s jurisdiction, and Sarah uses her power over Hagar to abuse her.[6] Hagar flees from Sarah but a confrontation with a messenger of the Lord results in Hagar returning to her mistress. In this conversation between Hagar and the angel, God promises Hagar that she will have many children, much like the promise God gave Abraham.[7]

‘I will greatly increase your offspring,

And they shall be too many to count…

Behold, you are with child

And shall bear a son;

You shall call him Ishmael…

He shall be a wild ass of a man;

His hand against everyone,

And everyone’s hand against him;

He shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen.’[8]

While there is no mention of land or blessing (in fact, he will live in constant discord with his neighbors and dwell alongside them), Ishmael is a likely candidate for the fulfillment of God’s promise.[9] Abraham now has an heir, although Bruce Vawter points out that Ishmael doesn’t quite fit the ideal picture, being the son of an Egyptian – Abraham’s “surrogate wife.”[10] In addition, God’s pronouncement of Ishmael’s personality as a “wild ass of a man” does not bode well for the potential heir of promise.

Sarah eventually gives birth to Isaac. This poses more problems as to the rightful inheritor of Abraham’s property.

Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing. She said to Abraham, ‘Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.’ The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.[11]

Certain translations portray Ishmael as “mocking” Isaac instead of “playing,” interpreting the Hebrew pun of Isaac’s name in a derogatory manner, attempting to justify Sarah’s desire to remove Ishmael from the household. [12] The Jewish Study Bible notes remark, “Ishmael was ‘Isaacing,’ or ‘taking Isaac’s place’,” which could provide incentive for Sarah’s behavior.[13] Even though Ishmael is the rightful first-born, Sarah wants her son to receive the inheritance.

Sarah makes no claim on Ishmael as her son, although Sarah’s desire for a family caused his birth in the first place. She refuses to accept responsibility for the situation,[14] and she rejects Ishmael himself, though he should have been treated as if he were her own son. In her eyes, Ishmael is merely the son of “that slave-woman,” and her denial serves to keep Hagar in her place. Although Hagar remains a slave, Ishmael is still in line to receive Abraham’s inheritance.

But while Sarah rejects Ishmael, Abraham accepts him as his own child. Abraham recognizes Ishmael as his legitimate first-born son and as such, Ishmael is entitled to the rights accompanied by that acknowledgment.[15] The code of Hammurabi justifies this acknowledgement, as the sons of a slave-woman and the master of the house are allowed their share of the inheritance, should they be legitimatized. Otherwise, the child and the slave are given their freedom in exchange for the claim to the inheritance.[16]

Ishmael’s position as the legitimate first-born son was threatening to Sarah. If Abraham were to die, the largest portion of the inheritance would fall to Ishmael, who was sixteen at the time while Isaac was only three.[17] Ishmael would assume the position of the head of the household. After seeing how Sarah treated his biological birth mother Hagar, Sarah might have feared how Ishmael would treat her. This potential role-reversal could have distressed Sarah enough to remove this risk from the picture. The inheritance would give both Ishmael and Hagar power that Sarah would not want them to have. [18]

Abraham, concerned because this issue pertains to his son Ishmael, heeds Sarah’s request at the Lord’s prompting. God says to Abraham,

‘Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you. As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.’[19]

Nahum Sarna writes that Abraham only sends away Hagar and Ishmael at God’s mandate.[20] God refers to Hagar as Abraham’s slave and attempts to distance the relationship between Abraham and Ishmael by referring to him as “the boy” rather than “your son.”[21] Sarna points out that Abraham has to wrestle with giving Hagar and Ishmael their freedom or letting Ishmael share in the inheritance with Isaac. He is “torn between conflicting loves and rent by the rival claims of what society and law permitted and what righteousness seemed to demand.”[22]

However, Abraham does not seem to be concerned about the economic inheritance, just the fulfillment of God’s promise. When speaking with Abraham, God does not address the rights of the first-born son. God is also silent about the moral implications of casting out this woman and her son. God sanctions this decision to put out Hagar and Ishmael, instead of what one might expect from a God of justice and mercy, and one of former slaves, especially![23] God supports Sarah’s position, and reveals to Abraham that God will fulfill the promise through Isaac. God also assures Abraham that a great nation will descend from Ishmael because he is Abraham’s son, although this promise pales in comparison to what Abraham was originally promised.[24]

Upon learning this, Abraham supplies Hagar and Ishmael with some bread and water and abandons them to the wilderness. This small provision from Abraham parallels the small portion of God’s promise that Ishmael will inherit; Ishmael will become a great nation without land or blessing, and he will receive nothing from Abraham except for these meager supplies for an unknown fate in the desert.

Perhaps another reason why Abraham so easily dismisses Hagar and Ishmael is because Hagar’s status is diminished after the birth of Isaac. As Phyllis Trible points out, the language used in reference to Hagar shifts between chapter 16 and chapter 21. “From being a maid (sipha) to Sarai in scene one, Hagar has become a slave (ama), serving the master of the house as his second wife.”[25] The connotation of the original Hebrew conveys the sense that Hagar, through the act of having his child, is now bonded to Abraham, enslaved as a second wife.[26] Despite Hagar’s giving birth to Abraham’s first-born son, she is not equal in status to Sarah. And by elevating Isaac over Ishmael, God’s intervention seals the fate of Hagar and that of her son. She becomes nothing more than a slave to be cast out.

In one sense, Ishmael’s status is dependent upon that of Hagar, as sons of slaves were slaves themselves, but his legitimacy as a son of Abraham has already clearly been established.[27] Because of this, he was entitled to his portion of the inheritance. Yet because it is through Isaac that God will fulfill the promise, Ishmael is cast aside, the land will be given to Isaac, and the promise will pass to the younger son.

These two inheritances – God’s original promise to Abraham and the inheritance of Abraham’s property – are inextricably linked together. Land is a key component in Abraham’s promise. If Ishmael received the inheritance due the first-born son, he would also receive the land. Ishmael had already been promised many offspring, and now he would have the land to go along with it. He would be the inheritor of Abraham’s name. As the leader of the family, he would be responsible for its security in the land and for managing Abraham’s great wealth. Ishmael would be the head of the household, the one accountable for Abraham’s entire legacy – including God’s promise to Abraham.

There is little to address this particular situation in Biblical law. Deuteronomy 21:15 – 17 sets up a scenario much like the 21^st chapter of Genesis: a man has two wives who have both born him sons, and the son of the unloved wife is the first-born. The law states that in this case, the man may not give the first-born son less of the inheritance than he would normally be entitled to.[28] Other laws found in the Torah stipulate a legal obligation to care for slaves. For instance, Exodus 21:10 describes the situation of a woman being sold as a slave for the purpose of marriage. If the man takes another wife in addition to the woman sold into slavery, this law obligates the man to give her food, clothing, and shelter. Failure to do this would result in her freedom without compensation.[29] In this case, Abraham had a responsibility to at least provide for Hagar and Ishmael, even though Hagar’s status in the household is ambiguous. The hearers and authors of this story would have understood this, yet the text gives no critique of Abraham’s action or God’s demand.

Stories of the younger son receiving the inheritance instead of the first-born are evident in many of the patriarchal narratives, subverting this notion that the first-born is entitled to the inheritance. Jacob gets blessed instead of Esau, Isaac receives the inheritance instead of Ishmael, and Joseph is favored above his older brothers. Even in other places in the Hebrew Bible this is manifested, as David, the youngest of his brothers, is anointed king over Israel, and Abel’s offering is favored over Cain’s. Unique to this situation of Isaac and Ishmael, however, is the fact that the first-born son is of mixed heritage. Ishmael’s mother is Egyptian and his father is Abraham, the great ancestor of the Israelite nation. Ishmael as head of the household would mean that someone of Egyptian heritage would have ultimate responsibility for the continuation of Israel. Thus, as one might expect given the outcomes of other stories, Isaac gets the inheritance instead of Ishmael.

This narrative could have been useful in post-exilic times. After returning from exile, the Israelites faced foreign influences in their own land. Those remaining in the land had married foreign wives and produced children of mixed heritage. As a small community of people struggling to redefine their identity as God’s chosen people back in their own land, foreign cultures posed threats to their heritage. These returning exiles were a people with a specific legacy, language, and belief system. Those with foreign wives risked upsetting this delicate balance, as these women would teach their mixed children a different language and about their own gods rather than the God of Israel. The Israelites understanding of the exile was founded in the belief that their consorting with foreign gods led to God’s judgment upon them. The displacement of foreign wives and their children was seen as a preventative measure against God’s further displeasure. Additionally, if these children who had no knowledge of the God of Israel and who grew up learning different customs inherited the land, the whole identity of the Israelite people would be at stake.

The writers of the story of Abraham could have used the episode of Abraham sending away Hagar and Ishmael as an incentive for the post-exilic community to do the same to their foreign wives. Abraham set the precedent, and the story demonstrates that even though Abraham cast Hagar and Ishmael out into the wilderness with minimal provisions and was distressed about doing so, God still took care of them. This could have been used to comfort men who loved these women and their children, proof that God will ultimately provide for them. These men would need to have faith that God’s promise to Abraham was a promise for them: they are the inheritors and their community together would have to trust that this promise would continue to be fulfilled despite great odds.

While this story can be used to exclude, it can also be used to include. As battles rage in churches over who is “in” and who is “out,” modern day readers of this story can see the actions of Sarah and Abraham as an invitation to self-reflection. Many in the church identify strongly with Abraham and Sarah while glossing over this story involving Hagar and Ishmael. The blindness this produces raises questions for us: should we strive to emulate Abraham and Sarah’s behavior, or should we seek out the people in our communities who are prevented from sharing in the inheritance God has to offer through the church? The modern church has become the arbiter of who can partake in this promise, pronouncing people undeserving of sharing in the inheritance like Sarah. Yet unlike the God of the Israelites, our God is no longer a God of one particular people, but of the entire world, entrusting to all nations the inheritance of God’s favor. We are all deserving; no one person is worthier than another. The church, rather than seeking to bar individuals from inheriting God’s promise made to them, should ensure that all can enjoy the inheritance that God provides for everyone.

Works Cited

The Jewish Study Bible featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Tanakh or JSB in the Class Schedule)

Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis. New York: Schocken, 1966. Pp. 127-29; 154-57.

E. A. Speiser, Genesis. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964/80. Pp. 116-21; 153-57

Phyllis Trible, "Hagar: The Desolation of Rejection." In Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Pp. 9-35.

Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.

Pp. 213-18; 246-50.

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972 (rev. ed.). Pp. 190-97; 230-35.

---

[1] According to Phyllis Trible, the language of the original Hebrew used in reference to Hagar describes a woman serving as a personal servant to another woman.

[2] Translational differences affect how one might view the character of Sarah. For example, Sarah wanting children implies a certain sort of desperation to find some security in making sure Abraham’s family survived. Or one could infer that her desire for children was motivated by a searching for worth in a society where a woman having many children was highly valued. In either case, one may assume that she is ignorant of the promise God made to her husband Abraham and is acting solely for her own benefit.

[3] JSB, Genesis 16:2 – 4

[4] Von Rad, p. 191

[5] Translation differences document. Certain translations refer to Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham to be his wife, to be his concubine, or to be as a wife. This leads to ambiguities as to Hagar’s rightful position in the household.

[6] According to Vawter, it was Sarah who had the right to reduce Hagar’s status to that of an ordinary slave. But Sarah legally had to appeal to Abraham to regain control of Hagar.

[7] As Von Rad points out, “there is no clear distinction between the angel of the Lord and Yahweh himself” (193). However, the promise made to her is still from God.

[8] JSB, Genesis 16: 10 – 12

[9] However, according to Von Rad, “the reader understands that a child so conceived in defiance or in little faith cannot be the heir of promise” (196). He assumes that the reason Ishmael is not the heir is due to Abraham’s and Sarah’s lack of faith that God will provide.

[10] Vawter, p. 216

[11] JSB, Genesis 21: 9 – 10

[12] JSB, 44

[13] However, the two could be playing together in a perfectly innocent manner, or Ishmael may not be playing with Isaac at all!

[14] JSB, Genesis 16:5

[15] Sarna, p. 156

[16] Sarna p. 156

[17] Vawter points out the how the two chapters came from different sources, so Ishmael’s age is unclear. The addition of the Priestly author would have us believe Ishmael is 16. The Elohist portrays a child much younger. (Vawter, 248)

[18] As noted in precept discussion on October 5^th, 2005

[19] JSB, Genesis 21:12 – 13

[20] Sarna, p. 157

[21] Trible, p. 21

[22] Sarna, p. 156

[23] In addition, putting out slaves was against ancient Near Eastern culture. E. A. Speiser mentions this by referencing both the Hammurabi Code and Deuteronomy 21:14 (Speiser, 121)

[24] Von Rad, p. 233

[25] Trible, p. 21

[26] Trible, p. 30

[27] Discussed in precept on October 19^th, 2005

[28] JSB, Deuteronomy 21:15 – 17

[29] JSB, Exodus 21:10 – 11

Philosophy Paper Number 2

Meh, blogger bothers me. I had this whole preamble to my paper written out and when I went to preview it and come back it disappeared. The general gist of it is this: I still have no clue what my professor is looking for, as he said about my last paper that I didn't stay clost to the text. So in this one...text. Lots of it. I fear now that it errs too much on the side of being a summary, but oh well. The conclusion is where it's starting to get interesting, though there are a few tidbits in the paper itself that would be really neat to delve into a little more, if I had the ability to do it in such a way that it connected back.

Where Can Truth Be Found?

Saint Augustine’s Confessions and On Christian Teaching demonstrate his attitude toward secular learning and suggests how one should go about searching for Truth. Augustine characterizes God as entirely good, unchanging and eternal, omnipresent, and as Truth itself, and this characterization of God allows for different approaches to Truth. In each book, he takes a different angle as to how one can relate to this Truth. Confessions recounts Augustine’s personal discovery of Truth and relates his story to how others can come into a similar relationship with God. On the other hand, On Christian Teaching is less personal and more abstract – about how one can find truth in secular learning and apply it to understanding the truth in Scripture.

Confessions outlines Augustine’s journey of how he came to a fuller understanding and acceptance of the Christian faith. He wrote this book to God as a confession of his life before becoming a Christian, and throughout the text he acknowledges God’s guidance even in the midst of his sinful ways. He recognized that throughout his life, God never forsook him and was continually striving to bring Augustine into a relationship with God. At one point he mentions, “But your mercy is unknown to sinners such as I was then, though step by step, unwittingly, I was coming closer to it” (Confessions 107). He constantly repeats how he was looking for God in all the wrong places outside himself, yet once he “entered into the depths of [his] soul” (Confessions 146), he discovered the Light of God.

According to Augustine, one must go beyond one’s memory in order to reach God. In Book X, he describes going past the power of the soul and the power of the senses, arguing that these features are not unique to human experience. He writes of the soul, “this is not the power by which I can find my God, for if it were, the horse and the mule, senseless creatures, could find him too, because they also have this same power which gives life to their bodies” (Confessions 213). Animals also have this ability to perceive the world through the senses, so Augustine concludes that he must go further than this in order to reach God. He also didn’t find God by the means which one experiences the outside world – through the senses. His desire for Truth led him to apply it to ideas and things other than God: a mistress and the teachings of the Manicheans. He searched for Truth in these different places, but did not find it.

It was only when he turned and looked inward did he find God. God was found in his memory, “since the time when [he] first learned of [God]” (Confessions 230). God had always been present in his memory, and for this reason, Augustine had never forgotten God. While he was searching for God out in the world, God was actually with him and within him (Confessions 231). He says to God, “You were there before my eyes, but I had deserted even my own self. I could not find myself, much less find you” (Confessions 92). Self-realization led him to a point where he could recognize that God was already inside of himself.

Though Augustine narrates his own personal journey of discovery, his asserts that every person is able to find God. While the wicked do not know Christ, the mediator between humanity and God, they have only to “turn back, and they will find [God] in their hearts” (Confessions 92). This assumes that everyone has a means by which they can personally connect with God without necessarily having any prior knowledge about God. At some basic level, we have a desire for God even if we are unable to figure out exactly what we desire. This seems reminiscent of Plato’s idea of a shared memory: we are all trying to rediscover the true forms that we caught glimpses of in our pre-existence. As noted in class discussion, in Plato’s Phaedrus there is a connection between knowledge and memory, and Augustine appears to be using that connection to argue that each individual has access to God without the individual necessarily being conscious of it. He asserts that all men have a desire for happiness, so at some level, they must know what happiness actually is. “Unless we had some sure knowledge of it, we should not desire it with such certainty” (Confessions 228). For Augustine, true happiness is God alone, and any other source of happiness cannot be true. “True happiness is to rejoice in the truth, for to rejoice in the truth is to rejoice in you, O God, who are the Truth” (Confessions 229).

He also mentions briefly in Confessions about how truth can be found outside of the Scriptures. His time with the Manicheans showed him that their calculations about the world were, in fact, true. This knowledge, however, did not bring him any closer to God. According to Augustine, the pursuit of knowledge shouldn’t be an end unto itself. For him, it only matters whether or not an individual knows God. “Even if he knows them all, he is not happy unless he knows you; but the man who knows you is happy, even if he knows none of these things. And the man who knows you…is happy only because he knows you” (Confessions 94 – 95). Yet Augustine understands that knowledge is not without its uses, which he shows in On Christian Teaching.

In On Christian Teaching, Augustine argues that certain aspects of secular knowledge are necessary to the understanding of Christian Scripture, and that truth can be found other places because all truth is rooted in God. Before this, all “pagan” knowledge was forbidden but Augustine recognized the value of learning and suggested a system of education that included particular elements of this culture. He argues for the knowledge of languages, specifically Greek and Hebrew, so that one could reference the original text for the resolution of discrepancies between the various Latin translations. One must have understanding of the characteristics of different plants and animals in order to understand expressions that shouldn’t be taken literally in the Scriptures. An understanding of numbers should also be had to understand the significance of the way they are used in relation to each other. Music is important as well. Essentially, Augustine believes “A person who is a good and a true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature, but rejecting superstitious vanities” (Teaching 47). While his conception of God as Truth isn’t as clearly spelled out here as it is in Confessions, the general idea is the same. These truths point to and are a part of a bigger Truth that is God, and these truths can appear in places outside of the Scripture.

However, Augustine cautions people not to get swept up by the pursuit of knowledge. “Do not venture without due care into any branches of learning which are pursued outside the church of Christ, as if they were a means to attaining the happy life, but discriminate sensibly and carefully between them” (Teaching 63). Augustine appears to be speaking from experience in this case, as his own quest for truth led him to pursue knowledge as a means of finding happiness. Yet he still recognizes its worth. He even compares the appropriation of secular knowledge for religious purposes to the Hebrew people leaving the land of Egypt with Egyptian goods. There, too, he warns the people that just like the Egyptians possessed idols and burdens alongside the useful goods, so too does pagan culture contain “false and superstitious fantasies and burdensome studies” in addition to “studies…more appropriate to the service of the truth” (Teaching 65).

Augustine also talks about how one should study the Scriptures in order to find truth. He has already established the importance of this outside knowledge in order to aid comprehension. He goes on to say that it is important to understand which passages are to be taken literally, and which passages should be taken metaphorically. Misinterpretation of a passage hinders one’s understanding and limits their relationship with the Truth. He calls it “spiritual slavery” (Teaching 72) – not being able to see beyond what is physically present to the Truth that exists beyond the literal.

Throughout both these texts, Augustine’s equating God with Truth allows him to use truths wherever they may be found as a connection with the Divine. God’s presence is not limited to what one can find in the Scriptures, but can be found in music, mathematics, logic, and even sciences. All of these truths about the world point to a larger Truth that we all have access to, whether we are aware of it or not.

God in Genesis - Who is this God, really?

Texts: Genesis 6 - 9; Genesis 18:16 - 19; Judges 19 - 21

The God portrayed in each of these stories subverts our image of the character of God. In the flood story, God destroys all flesh because of its corruptness and the evilness of men’s minds, and God regrets having created humanity. With the situation in Sodom and Gomorrah, God hears an outcry and has to descend to earth to investigate. God debates whether or not to clue Abraham in on the plan, and once God does, Abraham bargains God down to not destroying the city for the sake of the righteous within, and yet, God decides to wipe it out anyway. In the Judges text, God doesn’t even speak until the Israelites are battling Gibeah, and then it is only to reassure Israel that they will be victorious over the city, put the people are quick to attribute these actions as God-sanctioned.

This characterization of the divine raises questions about God’s ability to administer justice. God’s willingness to wipe out a whole city due to some injustice without a thought for the innocent in the city causes concern for us who picture a God who deals with sin on an individual basis. God gives little forethought to the destruction of the earth in the flood, saving only one individual, Noah, and his family and all the animals. God’s lack of restraint in curbing God’s violent tendencies is alarming; after the flood, God needs a reminder not to wipe out the earth ever again.

From these texts, it seems like God’s justice is like a WMD, as class discussion on Friday noted. Others suffer innocently at the hand of God’s justice. Furthermore, it’s not clear that those saved are more righteous than those destroyed, as each story is followed by an account of sexual sin. God’s judgment in these cases appears muddy.

Note: Class was great. There were two great comments, the first one being that God's justice is akin to our millitary tactics -- we decive ourselves with our "smart weapons" and while we think we target well, we really aren't that accurate, and innocents die.

Second was a side comment made by a fellow student about Lot and the story after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We were talking about who is really telling the story here. Are the girls heroes because they truly thought that they were the last people on earth? Or was Lot telling the story and instead of taking the blame for the incest, he blames it on his daughters. The student's reaction to this was...priceless.