Isaiah 15-16: Contextualization and Imagination

Recently, I've been accused of taking out of context some of the biblical passages on which I comment. This is a charge worthy of discussion, given the nature of books like Isaiah. Let's consider the context of Isaiah 15 and 16, for instance, in which some predictions are made about Moab, a nation neighboring ancient Israel (Judah) to the east. Moab and ancient Israel were not often friendly with one another, as we have seen in the way Moabites are represented in the Genesis narrative and in the myth of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Genesis mocks Moabites as descendents of Lot and his incestuous daughter, which would mean that the people of Moab have a common ancestry with Abraham and his children. Some archaeological evidence also points to conflict between Moab and ancient Israel, with the Mesha Stele proclaiming Moabite victory over one of the sons of Omri (9th century BCE).

Within the context of the ancient world, then, there is some evidence that the people of Israel had political reason to foster some prejudices against the people of Moab. The Moabites also held different religious beliefs than the Israelites. There is some mention of Moabite worship in 2 Kings, in which they are accused of human sacrifice to Chemosh. Then again, Solomon built a site dedicated to Chemosh too, and that site remained until Josiah's reign in the late seventh century BCE. (So, people in and around Jerusalem were apparently engaged in Chemosh worship during the time that the prophet Isaiah was alleged to have written these early chapters of the book that bears his name.)

Contextually speaking, honest readers must acknowledge that the Hebrew scriptures represent particular biased points of view by particular people in particular circumstances; these writings cannot be assumed to objectively represent the culture of their neighbors. Unfortunately, we have very little objective evidence about Moabite religion. It can be said that they were polytheistic, like most of their neighbors. Archaeological evidence indicates that, in addition to Chemosh, the Moabites revered the goddess Ashtar-Chemosh, and the god Nebo, which may have been the Babylonian god Nabu. The Israelite authors of biblical texts obviously expressed consistently negative opinions about these religious practices, based on the Israelites' beliefs about their own god.

This is a tricky statement to make, however. The Bible does not reflect a consistent impression of Yahweh, but rather suggests the growth and development of a belief system over time. As the people of Israel continued to experience different circumstances, their ideas about their god had to develop as well. The alternative would have been for them to abandon their religion and take up other practices, and there is some evidence that people did just that on more than one occasion. It's a major theme for some of the prophets, at least. So, Israelite belief about Yahweh is not an inflexible concept that leapt fully-formed from the minds of the earliest religious practitioners. We can see throughout the Hebrew scriptures that their religious concepts evolved over time.

That being observed, one cannot simply assert that there is a fixed context within the Hebrew scriptures. The writings were composed and assembled over centuries, and they reflect centuries of development in terms of thought and practice. Some attempts by later editors and compilers were made to harmonize the material, but even that process is something we can't accurately discern. The book of Isaiah, for example, claims to be the work of a prophet who lived in the last half of the 8th century BCE (based on the kings named in the first sentence of the book). Later portions of the book contain details about events that happened two centuries later, and then some. Some people would like to claim that the same person wrote the entire book, having been gifted with supernatural foresight by a supernatural. This would be a reasonable claim if we had any copy of the text from the 8th century BCE, but we don't. Most scholars believe that the book is the work of at least three separate authors writing at different times, along with an unknown number of scribes and editors.

What we have of the book of Isaiah is a completed version dating from the early 1st century BCE. This version shows obvious signs of editorial work, but it's impossible to trace the 600+ year journey of the material from inception to our earliest extant copy. We simply cannot know how the material developed, and we may not ever be able to know. In a very honest sense, this means that we cannot know with complete assurance the context(s) within which the material was written, nor can we know how many pens were involved in the process. Moreover, the different ancient copies of Isaiah that we actually have are not identical. There are over 5000 differences between the most "reliable" versions of the book of Isaiah.

The Bible as an overall whole is what some people prefer to consider as context--the canonized works that men approved as authoritative expressions of their faith. This could prompt the question: Which canon is the appropriate context? The Hebrew canon was determined over a few centuries from around 200 BCE to 200 CE, but there are still variant canons among Ethiopian Jews and the descendants of Samaritan Jews. The Christian canon was supposedly fixed by 350 CE, but variations exist all over the world. Eastern Orthodox canons differ from the Roman Catholic canon. Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox canons differ from one another, as well as from the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canons. The Protestant canon has some major differences with all of the Catholic and Orthodox canons. So, when one speaks of the "biblical context," one is already speaking of something rather subjective.

Most people, including the people who determined various canons, develop an idea of what they believe first, and then they assess their scriptures accordingly. People formulate ideas about God, and then they latch onto supporting scriptures (or other data) and dismiss all of the information that disagrees with what they have already decided. For instance, some people have decided, completely apart from scripture, that it's immoral to sell their daughters. The Bible doesn't tell them this, but they interpret the parts of the Bible that refer to selling a daughter as being antiquated and no longer applicable to them. In some parts of the world, in the twenty-first century, people are still selling their daughters into slavery. Based on biblical testimony, there's some support for their actions. If we wish to confront the practice of selling one's daughters into slavery, we can't do so on the Bible alone. We must rely on some additional moral understanding. We rely on our personal perspectives every time we read anything, but especially when we read scripture.

Accusing someone of misrepresenting the context, then, may mean nothing more than, "I disagree with you." It just sounds more damning to suggest that someone has made a grievous error of interpretation rather than to merely state a difference of opinion. Millions of people claim to believe in the Bible without going through the trouble to define what they mean by that. The Bible cannot be completely morally accurate, because it is not completely morally consistent. The Bible cannot be completely historically accurate, because it internally conflicts with itself and it externally conflicts with evidence. The Bible cannot be completely spiritually accurate, because its depiction of divinity develops over time as the beliefs and circumstances of the people who composed it changed.

When someone says they believe in the Bible, then, what must they really be saying? My suspicion is that they have developed a set of beliefs, and they read the Bible through the lens of those beliefs. For those portions of the Bible which can be read in support of their beliefs, they consider the Bible authoritative. For those portions of the Bible which seem to contradict their beliefs, they discover or create justification to ignore what is written. Add to this a coating of self-assurance, indignation, or superiority whenever one's assertions about the Bible are questioned, and a rather tidy illusion has been created. It seems to be a biblical context, since support can be found in the Bible, but it is actually a context created by the individual's imagination, since personal beliefs have the ability to trump what the text actually says. There is no way to deny that this is the reason for a multiplicity of denominations and sub-denominations within Christianity. If everyone went with exactly what the text said, wouldn't every Christian believe exactly the same thing?

Of course, that is a trick question framed a bit dishonestly. The sad truth is that one must formulate beliefs external to what the Bible says, because the Bible says such a great many things that do not fit neatly into one system of beliefs. There is no secret formula or correct answer to determining how to interpret biblical texts accurately. Some of it is simply the result of a great number of people writing things from their own perspective. Some of it was only relevant to the particular culture in which it was composed, and it cannot have any real meaning for people who are not members of a pre-scientific patriarchal monarchy. There is no single biblical context. There are lots of people with individually developed beliefs looking at texts and drawing the conclusions they prefer.

This is, in fact, one of the reasons I undertook this commentary in the first place. If we want to draw some wisdom from any text, we have to engage it from an honest perspective. Part of being honest involves recognizing that there is an objective reality in which we exist, and that objective reality is going to be what it is, whether we like it or not. If we try to reject reality, we create problems for ourselves and the people around us. Imagining something different doesn't change what is. If we recognize reality and align our own values and intentions with what is, we stand a much better chance of creating the lives that we most want and having a positive influence on the people around us. Within the context of reality, no person has been able to make consistent accurate risky predictions about the future. Within the context of reality, no god has ever been demonstrated to be observable by any objective means. Within the context of reality, the (approximately) 4.3-billion-year-old earth goes around the (approximately) 4.6-billion-year-old sun, and life has been evolving on this planet for (approximately) 3.6 billion years. Within the context of reality, human beings behave as they do for natural reasons. Human beings wage war for human reasons, and human beings can create peace for human reasons.

So, Isaiah 15-16 in its context? The Moabites were another little Ancient Near East nation that was around before Israel as an Egyptian vassal state and most likely fell during the Persian Empire in the 6th century BCE. The Israelites didn't like the Moabites because they were different, most specifically in terms of their religious practice. The authors of these passages of Isaiah, being a little more ignorant than we are today about the way that the world works, saw every event as being ordained by their supernatural, which they naturally thought of as superior to every other supernatural. Yet, the general message is for the Israelites to be hospitable to the Moabites fleeing destruction at the hands of the Assyrian army (late 8th century BCE).

These neighbors of Israel would most likely have been treated like illegal immigrants are often treated in the United States today, and yet the prophetic words are to shelter them and mourn with them. Perhaps the Moabite king, seen by the authors of Isaiah as arrogant, has made Moab a target by allying with Philistia, Judah, and Edom to revolt against Assyrian ruler Sargon II (r. 722-705 BCE). Or perhaps this is written in reference to the Moabite king Salmanu paying tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE). As previously mentioned, the precise historical context is impossible to discern; these passages may actually refer to multiple historical contexts, as Isaiah 16:13-14 may indicate. These last phrases seem very much like the addition of a later scribe.

In any case, it's obvious that the authors see no hope for Moab's prayers to be answered, because they are praying to the wrong god. This is interesting, since Yahweh wasn't any more forthcoming in sparing the Israelites from being conquered and taken into captivity. If Yahweh has justifiable reason for allowing his people to be disciplined by foreign powers, might not the gods of Moab have been displaying equal power in the situation? It's interesting how the same ideas that we use to bolster our own belief systems, we also use to mock the beliefs of others.

We all have biases, and yet we can work toward objectivity. To say that we all bring our own beliefs and perspectives into a situation is not grounds to throw up our hands in futility. Knowing that we have biases helps us see how those biases may be affecting our perception, and we can perhaps conduct an experiment or two to see whether what we believe is congruent with reality or if our beliefs are more products of our imagination. The Israelites had obvious biases against the Moabites. They probably looked at them as lesser human beings. Although Isaiah doesn't come out and say so, the words admonishing Israel to compassionately welcome Moabite refugees challenge the people's biases against Moabites. They were fellow human beings, worthy of compassion, even if they were praying to ineffectual gods. Perhaps these words were an attempt to contextualize the presence of these strangers flocking across Judah's borders.

There's nothing we need to know about Moab that will make any difference in our day-to-day lives. We don't need to know about Chemosh or Yahweh or any other god in order to create meaningful relationships and lives. What we might draw from these chapters, though, is the idea that there are still people around us who are suffering as a result of other people's actions. There are refugees of all manner and stripe around us every day: from actual immigrants, to people who are seeking refuge from domestic violence, to people who are suffering economically. We can imagine stories about these people that will keep us from feeling any obligation toward them--

They deserve what they get...

If I give them a little bit, they'll just want more...

They don't really want to work for a better life... 

We can imagine stories about ourselves that will keep us from feeling any obligation toward them--

I have to take care of myself first...

It's not my problem...

I don't have anything to offer... 

Or we can engage our compassion, see human beings of inherent value, and treat them accordingly. There doesn't actually have to be any sense of obligation in that at all.

Honestly, all of the people around us are our context. They are part of our reality. We can imagine whatever we like about the world in which we live and the lives we lead, but the reality is that we share this world with a lot of other people. Some of those people make a difference in our lives that we may not even recognize, and we can make a difference in other people's lives whether they recognize it or not. We don't need a religious book or a contrived belief system to know that people matter to one another -- we matter to the people around us, and they matter to us. We can choose to be more discerning about the difference between what things we have good reason to believe and what we just like to pretend about ourselves, other people, and the world we share. The sharper we are willing to be about these things, the greater our opportunities to build a better world.

Deuteronomy 6: Love for the Divine (Expanding on the concept of valuing yourself)

Locating the character of the divine within oneself is not really a new concept.  The idea has been incorporated into the belief systems of other religions and philosophies, some of which are older than Christianity and evolved parallel to Judaism.  Still, some people have concerns about looking within because they are afraid they will be disappointed by what they find.  One writer stated that when he looked within himself, he found only selfishness -- that all of his relationships and activities revolved around what others could do for him.  He determined that there needed to be more to his life than this selfishness, and so he turned to the Christian church to find that something more.  My question would be: What informed the belief that there needed to be more than selfishness?  If one is only relying on what is within oneself, and one arrives at the conclusion that selfish behavior leads to a certain emptiness in life, mustn't one conclude that something within oneself contributed to that conclusion?  Something deeper than the surface level selfishness?

Different people will have different answers to that question, but what makes sense to me is that human beings are complex creatures and that one cannot merely glance within and gain a complete picture.  We have layers of thoughts and beliefs, and it requires a bit of work to truly be connected with oneself.  This is not all that different from what the writers of Deuteronomy wanted the Jewish people to understand.  It is a simple thing to say, "Love the Lord your God," but most people require a bit of guidance to put that command into practice.  Similarly, it is an easy thing to say, "Seek the divine within," but most people would actually appreciate a little more direction on that journey.  Deuteronomy 6 elucidates that command for the Israelites, so what follows is how I would update that chapter in light of a new understanding of the divine.  As the biblical chapter refers to the Ten Commandments in its opening line, I refer to the agreements from last week's discussion.


If you are willing to make these agreements with yourself, you stand a much greater chance of living a happy and satisfying life.  Cultivate respect for yourself and you will find it easier to respect others.  Love yourself and you will be better able to love others.  This requires constant awareness, and it can mean working through many false ideas that you've learned through the years.  Because there are many other voices and ideas in the world, you may find that you are reminding yourself of the truth about your value repeatedly.  This is not in any way a weakness; it's simply the process of recognizing a deep truth and beauty and creativity on which you haven't been very focused. 

This is what it takes to have confidence in honoring and valuing human beings (yourself included): Talk about the truth of human value whenever you have the chance, whether in the privacy of your own home or walking about in public.  Put up visual reminders of this truth in your home, your car, your office, and wherever else you spend time, so that you will constantly be drawn back to the reality of your worth and the worth of the people around you.  And if you teach your children to value, honor, and respect themselves and other people, they will have a much easier time living meaningful lives as adults.

Be grateful for what you have.  Recognize the benefits in your life that came about because of the generosity of others, and acknowledge the things you have created yourself.  When you are grateful, it is much more difficult to be distracted by petty disappointments, by superficial comparisons, or by pangs of entitlement that tempt you to place your value above that of other people.  When you are grateful, it is much easier to see the value of other people, to be generous with what you have, and to be connected to yourself, other people, and the world.  In short, gratitude makes life more satisfying. 


Trust yourself.  Even when you make a misstep, trust yourself to be able to improve upon it.  Test the beliefs that other people try to instill in you, and weigh cultural concepts against the truth of human value.  Our creativity can be a double-edged sword, because we can create all manner of distractions away from the reality of our own intrinsic value.  It's tempting to focus on acquiring money or things, to concentrate on what makes some people "better" than other people, or to shift personal responsibility for our lives away from ourselves.  These lines of thinking will never help us to realize our full potential.  Trust yourself to be able to see your own worth and the value of the people around you.  If you see something less than that in the behavior and beliefs you've adopted, look deeper.  At the core of your being is undeniable and connecting truth, a deep sense of beauty, and inspiring creativity.  It's at the core of all of us, even if we have covered it up with other things.  Trust yourself to find it within you.

Rewriting Leviticus, the Little Book of Legalism that No One Really Likes

The book of Leviticus gets its name from the descendants of Levi, who had special religious and political responsibilities among the Israelites. While there are certainly spiritual lessons to be gleaned from the Bible, the book of Leviticus has a very legalistic message that largely has little bearing on modern life. There are a few verses here and there which have merit as sage advice, as we’ll see, but even within the overall context of the Bible, the legalistic approach didn’t work. That’s the whole point of the New Testament, actually.

Which is a point worth mentioning, since there are those apologists who promote the concept of biblical inerrancy and insist on using the Bible as proof of its own veracity. A large portion of the book of Leviticus deals with the appropriate way to handle blood sacrifices: which animals are appropriate for what kind of sacrifice, how the sacrificial animals are to be handled, and how soon it has to be eaten by the priests. If the Bible is absolutely true and without contradiction, then these regulations (from God, mind you) have to be addressed. Most Christians would say that all the business with sacrifices was nullified by Jesus, and that’s all well and good. Except that it means a portion of the inerrant, infallible scripture has been improved upon and rendered obsolete. Which is not to say that the New Testament has it “right” either, but merely to point out an obvious discrepancy.

Another large portion of the book of Leviticus is about cleanliness, as in what kinds of things make a person clean or unclean and what a person must do to regain purity. Among the things that make a person “unclean” are: leprosy, menstruation, having a discharge of any kind below the waist, giving birth (especially giving birth to a girl), touching certain animal carcasses, or eating a creature found dead. Ritual washing after a waiting period is typically enough to cleanse a person from those impurities. Mold is also unclean, and if washing moldy clothing or walls doesn’t get rid of it, a priest can order the moldy object to be destroyed. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. We still have issues with mold in our homes today. Some of the ideas about what makes a person “unclean” reflect a certain level of ignorance within the culture, however.

Of particular interest are the regulations about what can be eaten. Orthodox Jews today still follow many of the prescribed dietary laws of Leviticus, if not all of them. Americans will be disappointed to learn that fat is prohibited, along with pork, rabbit, shrimp, monitor lizards, and “flying insects that go about on four legs.” The laws even go so far as to dictate something of a “resting period” for fields, years in which nothing is harvested so that the land will continue to be bountiful. That part’s not actually a bad idea. Most people wouldn’t have a problem giving up bats and weasels from their diet, although they may not be keen on adding grasshoppers to the menu. The biggest problem with this whole topic (aside from the idea that what a person eats can make them innately impure) is once again with regard to the issue of inerrancy.

In the New Testament, it is proclaimed that all food is clean. Peter reportedly had a vision about it, and Paul wrote explicitly that all food is clean and people should stop getting hung up on such insignificant issues. I’ll just come out and say that I agree with this point of view. It bears noting, however, that the same Bible that declares all food to be clean also declares that, according to God, eating some things will make you unclean and could get you kicked out of the community of chosen people. Both statements cannot be true. And if God is infallible, then how can he have changed his mind on the subject? Since the Bible obviously holds contradictory information, it doesn’t make sense to cling to the concept of a completely inerrant body of scripture. And, truth be told, most self-proclaimed Christians use a certain amount of personal discernment and judgment about such things anyway.

The last big topic in Leviticus is sexual impurity. We don’t really need divine guidance to tell us that we shouldn’t sleep with our close relatives, but it’s understandable given what we know about Abraham’s family tree that this was important information for the Israelites to clarify. And it is clarified in great detail. It is spelled out exactly with whom (and what) a person should not be having sexual relations. Punishments for disobedience range from being ostracized or childless (which their god could obviously determine), to being burned or stoned to death. If nothing else, it certainly offers some insight into how the Israelites were tempted to pass the time as they were wandering in the wilderness.

Leviticus also records some very wise advice, though. For instance, it recounts the commandments about not stealing from each other, not deceiving one another, and not lying about people. It commands employers to deal with their workers honestly and justly, and it instructs people not to hold grudges. One of my favorite lines urges people to confront people directly and earnestly instead of sugar-coating things or just standing by and watching someone’s unhealthy behavior. In fact, it is here that the Bible first admonishes, “love your neighbor as yourself.” It’s a shame that these tidbits of wisdom are scattered in and amongst rules about not trimming the sides of your beard. It can be easy to lose sight of what’s important when confronted with the legalism of exactly how a purification sacrifice has to be done and exactly which of your family members you can’t sleep with.

But it isn’t all threats of punishment from on high. There is a short passage in which God expresses what the reward will be for following all of the laws. He’ll send rain to nourish the earth, and he’ll make their harvests plentiful. He’ll make the land peaceful, eradicating all the wild beasts and keeping invaders out. In fact, he’ll make the enemies of the Israelites fall by the sword before them. He’ll increase the Israelites in number, and he won’t hate them. If they just do everything properly.

These sorts of promises seem somewhat problematic. How many people have to do things right in order for the harvest to be plentiful? If it doesn’t rain, how do we know whose fault it is? And if it does rain, does that mean that we’ve been perfect? If our numbers increase, does that mean we’ve done everything right? Or right enough, at least? Or is it only the actual number of Jews that we should be keeping track of? While there are some people who still believe that natural cycles are a direct measure of God’s satisfaction with humanity, most people understand that weather patterns are not based on whether my neighbor eats fat or sleeps with his aunt. The abundance of our food supply depends on a lot of factors, but none of those factors has to do with whether we have properly put our community’s sins into a goat and set it free in the wilderness.

The book of Leviticus reminds us how ludicrous we can be sometimes when we start trying to control every detail and ensure perfection in how we orchestrate our lives. For those who are Christian, the book shows the need for a savior, since it would be impossible for anyone to do everything precisely according to the law. From another standpoint, perhaps it is worth looking at the few rays of insight that shine through the legalism. Which basically boil down to one thing. Respect people. Just respect other people. Not for any particular reason. Just because they are human beings. We don’t need magical rituals to purify us, and we don’t need to stone people or burn them when they make mistakes. We have done and will do some things that we’re not proud of. We’re all in the same boat as far as that goes. If we could just cultivate a little respect for other people, we might eventually even be able to make a few more laws obsolete.

So, the book of Leviticus rewritten? Respect people. All people. And if you fail to do so, forgive yourself and go back to respecting people again.

Exodus 32-33: Golden Calves and Undeniable Access to the Divine

Those who assume that the Bible tells things chronologically with infallible accuracy must draw some strange conclusions about the events of Exodus 32-33.  The Israelites are either outright liars, fickle with their word, or they have the brains of carrots.  A few chapters back, Moses told them all what God wanted them to do, and all the Israelites agreed to it.  Aaron was there, along with all the other Israelite leaders.  Then, Moses went off to get the stone tablets God was carving for him, which took about 5 weeks.  In that span of time, the Israelites, with cooperation from Aaron, forgot what they had promised and made a golden calf to worship.

As Aaron tells the story, the Israelites were evil-hearted from the start.  They didn't know what had happened to Moses, and they wanted Aaron to make some gods to go before them, so Aaron told them to take off all their jewelry, which he threw into the fire and -- Voila! -- out came a statue of a calf.  That was apparently a god the Israelites could relate to and worship for a few weeks before they got distracted by something else.

Well, Moses was so angry that he broke the stone tablets he had spent so much time carving, melted down the golden idol, ground the gold into powder, scattered it in the water supply and made the Israelites drink it.  Then he ordered the Levites to kill 3,000 of their fellow Jews.  That's less than 1% of the total Israelite population as the Bible records it, but it's still a hell of a violent streak. Back in Genesis, Jacob had this to say about Levi and his descendants:

"their swords are weapons of violence.
 Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel."

Moses was apparently more comfortable with their genetic propensity for violence.


The story is illustrative of a big issue, obviously.  We want something concrete to believe in.  Even when we believe we know the divine on some level, we still want something tangible.  People (both in and out of the church) worship all sorts of things: money or the accumulation of personal possessions, fame or acknowledgment, physical pleasure, power over other people, political favor -- the list could go on and on.  Very few people sincerely worship an intangible, invisible force that epitomizes unconditional love for all, which is how the Christian god is often portrayed.  Even the Israelite god in Exodus was closer to a Greek deity with human emotions and weaknesses, as we'll see in just a moment.

First, though, let's consider what worshiping external things really says about us psychologically.  The idea of worship literally means that one is attributing worth to something.  To worship a thing is to proclaim its worthiness.  And when we truly worship something, a part of us is committed to the belief that whatever we're worshiping is worthy of our total effort, adoration, gratitude -- the fullness of who we are.  It's why some people who worship success become workaholics and why some people who worship fame do incredibly stupid things just for the attention it will garner.  Our perception isn't always healthy.  It can't be completely healthy when we are looking outside of ourselves for a target to which we can attribute value.

We are terribly uncomfortable with the idea that we ourselves are worthy of anything, that we have value.  It's a bit of a burden for some people.  If you are worth something, then you have to live up to that somehow.  If you have value, then you have to maintain that value.  As if you have to keep proving your worthiness to yourself, and potentially to everybody else.  So we look to something outside of ourselves so we don't have to look inward and potentially face the fear that we are, at the end of the day, valueless.  That we do not even approach worthiness.  Much better to find something tangible that we can target.  Money.  Titles.  Golden calf.
 
What's very interesting about the Exodus story is that God tells Moses that he needs to take those people away.  They need to get on the road, and God will send an angel ahead of them to clear their enemies away.  If the Israelites wait around, God may not be able to control his anger at this whole idolatry business, and he just may destroy them all.  And God can't travel with them, because he is so angry that he'd just kill them en route.  But when Moses pleads with him, God changes his tune rather quickly.  Actually, Moses' pleading comes across as a bit manipulative and demanding, but the point is that it doesn't ultimately matter what Moses or the Israelites do, the divine presence won't abandon them. 

This suggests a deep truth about the character of the divine: It cannot be separated from us.  Even when we have acted in ways that betray that divine nature within us, when we have pursued things that do not lead us to satisfaction or happiness or peace, there is no chance that we will be abandoned by our divine nature.  We cannot ultimately blot it out or eradicate it.  The divine is a part of who we are, even if we decide to use some external imagery to relate to it. 

People who recognize that there is nothing earthly that is truly worth that level of devotion sometimes find solace in the concept that there is something bigger, something beyond our complete perception, watching over us and guiding us.  That there is someone who has taken care of all our mistakes -- covered over our unworthiness.  Certainly that figure is worthy.  That person is valuable enough to be worshiped.  That person surpasses all that any human being could hope to be, especially us.  And thus the stories and the beliefs and the mythology is born.  Because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it. 

We build golden calves and mythologies because we crave some source of meaning, and we are too afraid to look within to find it.

Stop being afraid to look within yourself.  There is nothing you need to do to have value.  You simply are valuable.  You are worthy of your highest level of commitment because you are you.  The divine is a part of who you are, inseparable and yet deep enough to run the risk of being overlooked.  There is no amount of money or fame or drugs or charity or sermons or political action or Communion that can truly overshadow the profound value and worthiness of being you.  You are worth your best effort.  You do not need to use any adornments to shield yourself from any ugly truth about who you are.  That fear is a lie.  You are worthy.  Period.

Exodus 3-4: Purpose, Passion, and "Calling" Come from Within (no shrubbery conflagrations required)

Moses’ story continues in Exodus 3-4, in which he is called by God to return to Egypt and negotiate the release of the Israelites from the country. When Moses argues that he isn’t capable of the task, God teaches him some magic tricks (gimmicks that were known by other “sorcerers” of the time). When Moses still resists, God angrily suggests that Moses’ brother Aaron can help. God also promises that there will be “dramatic displays of power” that will convince Pharaoh to do what God wants, and that God will forcibly keep Pharaoh stubborn until the displays of power have run their course. If Pharaoh acquiesced after the first couple of plagues, it would be like the audience leaving before the grand finale. As icing on the cake, God promises Moses that the Egyptians will heap wealth upon the Israelites when they leave, going so far as to label it a robbery on the part of the Israelites.

Then there is this tricky little scene that is so fraught with pronouns and euphemism that every translation says something slightly different. Basically, when Moses fled Egypt and ran to Midian for safety, he married Zipporah and adopted the cultural and religious practices of the Midianites. As such, Moses’ son went uncircumcised. When Moses and his family set off for Egypt, after God has gone through a great ordeal to convince Moses to even consider the journey, the Lord decides that Moses’ son needs to die because he wasn’t circumcised. So, with her son in the throes of what appeared to be a life-threatening illness, Zipporah gave in and circumcised her son. Depending on the translation, this was either something done with an understanding of symbolic ritual, or it was a repulsive act she performed out of desperation for her son’s life. Either way, once he’s circumcised, the boy gets better.

The matter of free will is certainly central to how things play out for the character of Pharaoh, and there will be plenty of opportunity to explore that in later passages.  Having established the character of the biblical patriarchs and their god in our exploration of the book of Genesis, it is not of utmost importance to go through each verse in meticulous detail to point out further moral, ethical, and psychological issues with the narrative and its characters.  It is more useful to look beyond the assumptions of the text and draw spiritual insight that can be meaningful in everyday life.

Accepting that the divine is something within us rather than outside of us, there are some significant ideas in Moses’ confrontation with the divine that are worthy of consideration. The divine is displayed as a burning bush which is never consumed. Fire can be frightening and fascinating. We talk about a people having a “fire in their bellies” or being “on fire” for a particular cause because we recognize the similarities between actual fire and human passion. Passion for an ideal or for another person can at times be frightening as well. It may threaten to overwhelm us and take precedence over everything else in our lives. Some of us tend to be afraid of being controlled by our passions, but it’s foolish to try to ignore them completely.

The things that we are passionate about stem from our essence. They are deep truths about us becoming manifest. Everyone isn’t passionate about the same things or in the same way, but there is something that burns within every person, untamed, unquenchable, and ultimately unavoidable. When we stoke our passions, they burn brighter, and when we ignore them, our own energy and sense of purpose gets consumed. There are ways to focus our passions and maintain them in a way that doesn’t run roughshod over every other aspect of our lives. However, in order to manage that fire, we have to embrace that it exists and that it is divine.

To say that the passions we have are divine is to acknowledge that they originate in that place of deep truth, beauty, and creativity within us. If it seems that the most obvious way to express our passions is to do something harmful to ourselves or another human being, we are missing something. The fires of our true passions are not about gaining power, but rather they inspire us to exercise the power we already possess in a meaningful way. That may seem like a challenge sometimes, but the reward is authentic connection with ourselves.

When Moses asks the burning bush for a name, the response is “I am who I am” (depending on the translation). While this is often interpreted as an indication as to the character of the Israelites’ god, it is also a healthy point of view for us to adopt about ourselves. We spend so much time worrying about being healthier, skinnier, more beautiful, wealthier, happier, more socially connected, more influential, more knowledgeable, more vindicated, and on and on. We are who we are. We can aim for lofty goals, provided those goals are tempered in the reality of our capabilities. That is precisely what our passions drive us to do. But any time and energy we spend detailing the ways in which we don’t measure up to some arbitrary ideal is squandered time and energy.

All of us can name some essential truths about ourselves. They may be character traits or things we experience for just a moment. We may think of them as positive or negative, but truth is simply true. If a person is sad… or unsociable… or fearful… or obese… or angry… or whatever, judging that state of being as inappropriate or wrong is a denial of truth. People are able to take action and make changes, but in order to travel to any destination, you have to be aware of your starting point. You are who you are. I am who I am. That is a divine truth.

Acknowledging who we are includes acknowledging the passions that blaze within us. If your passion is making birdhouses, it doesn’t make sense to spend all of your time campaigning for a political cause. There are other people who are passionate about various political causes, and it wouldn’t make sense for them to spend all of their time building birdhouses. Other people do not have to validate who you are. Who you are is simply true. People will not always agree on what is most important in life, in politics, in industry. But no one can determine what is most important to you except you.

Like Moses, we often make excuses as well. Fire is scary. Passion is scary. Truth can even be scary if we are accustomed to thoughtlessly accepting other people’s opinions as our own truth. There are plenty of resources on the market to help people stop procrastinating, stop making excuses, and take action. The key is that you know when you are making excuses. You may fool yourself into thinking that the excuses are true, but the part of you that burns with inspiration knows better. The truth of who you are is not a secret to you, although for some there are decades of excuses piled on top of that unquenchable fire.

Within each of us, that which we call “divine” burns with a passion for something that honors the truth of who we are in congruence with the value of every human being. It may be birdhouses. It may be freedom for people suffering in addiction. It may be dancing. You are who you are. You know what your excuses are. You can be done with them whenever you are ready.

Exodus 1-2: Identifying with the Oppressed, Idolizing the Heroic, and Being Truly Human

First, it bears mentioning that, after a century of archeological research, no physical evidence has been discovered to suggest that the Exodus story is factual, while considerable evidence has been discovered which contradicts the biblical account.  I mention this not to write off the story completely, but to clearly justify an examination of the story from a purely spiritual perspective rather than getting caught up in the debate about what parts of the story are fact or fiction.

That said, there are many people who identify with the oppressed, at least in their own minds.  In popular media and in conversation, we often demonize people with power or wealth.  Quite understandably, we can feel somewhat oppressed by comparison.  Even when we do what we believe is right, like the Israeli midwives in the story, we lie about it when confronted by people we fear.  We either turn ourselves into weak and vulnerable caricatures of people, or we see ourselves as shadow agents working through subterfuge under the radar to stick it to the Man.  “We’ll show you, Pharaoh!  We won’t kill those boy children, and then you’ll get your comeuppance!” 

When we see ourselves as weak, we often do things that artificially make us feel strong.  That included ordering larger meals at fast food restaurants in one recent study.  In our minds, more food somehow equals more power.  So the things we do to counteract our perceived weakness aren’t always healthy.  Quite the opposite, actually.  It’s a clever way of spinning our wheels and maintaining a false sense of victimhood in the long run while not making any real difference in the world.  Some individuals manage to turn their awareness of oppression into purposes that change reality for many people, and that requires something slightly different from wallowing in victimhood and taking potshots at the villains we create in our own minds.  The people who make a difference recognize two things: They understand that people are not the enemy, and they acknowledge their own strength.

This sort of person becomes something of a hero in the eyes of others.  Like Moses, we may invent a dramatic origin story for them.  All of the boy-children were getting drowned in the river by the CEO’s henchmen, but Moses escaped (through the will of God) and was raised as the CEO’s grandson until he became a violent civil rights activist and had to go into hiding because of his crimes.  We build up certain people into heroes partly because what they accomplish is so extraordinary.  Unfortunately, part of the reason we build up other people into heroes is that we don’t want the responsibility of making a difference on our own shoulders.  If we realized that our heroes are not superhuman, we may start to see how we could take action in small healthy ways, not to reclaim a false sense of power, but simply to do what we know is right.

There are many characters in the story.  It may be fun to identify the people we despise as the Egyptians and to identify ourselves as the poor oppressed Hebrews, but the truth of the matter is that every person is potentially Moses.  Of course, Moses’ first response to injustice went too far.  He killed a man and made another human being the enemy, and he was ashamed of that act.  He knew that standing by and watching another person get beaten was wrong, and he knew that he had the power to do something about it.  He just hadn’t figured out how to use that power effectively.  We are no different, when we are willing to acknowledge our own power to act.  We may not get it right the first time out of the gate.  That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

So, understanding spiritual truth comes from an awareness of what archetypes we identify with and how that alters our perception of the world.  We have authentic power that stems from a deep truth, beauty, and creativity.  And we can balance exercising that power with value for the truth, beauty, and creativity in others.  When we embrace those two truths, we can do extraordinary things.  And the more we do those extraordinary things and inspire others to do likewise, the more those acts will seem like ordinary behavior. After all, it isn’t really a matter of being heroic; it’s just a matter of being human.

Wrestling with God, Fear, and Ourselves: A rigged match that could have a big payoff

Once matters are settled with Laban, Jacob turns his focus to settling matters with his brother in Genesis 32-33.  Fear of Esau's anger was one of the driving forces behind Jacob's departure two decades earlier, since Jacob had tricked Esau, his elder brother, out of his birthright and their father's blessing.  So, Jacob approached expecting hostility.  He was prepared to offer great gifts of livestock in exchange for his brother's tolerance.  He never really considers apologizing or asking his brother for forgiveness, but the bribe seems to be a sort of supplication in itself.  Basically, Jacob has invented a scenario in his mind about how things are going to go and he plans for the events his imagination has concocted.

Before he and Esau are reunited, there is an interesting night in which Jacob wrestles with a stranger until daybreak.  In the story, the stranger suggests that he is God, and he changes Jacob's name to Israel.  Of course, he wrenches Jacob's hip out of socket first.  Now, there were no witnesses to this incident, and it seems like a fanciful bit of folklore.  Setting aside the question of whether the story is accurate, though, there is certainly something true about the lesson embedded in it.  It's common to hear talk of people "wrestling with themselves" about an issue, or being "of two minds" on a subject.  Neurologists have even been able to watch the physiological indicators of a mind struggling to reach a conclusion about a complex matter.  While we may not all have the experience of literally wrestling with a god, we can certainly relate to the feeling of wrestling within ourselves.

What if the two experiences were actually the same thing, though?  What if wresting with ourselves was actually wrestling with the divine by a different name?  While there may not be an external divine being to wrestle with, people certainly possess the characteristics of the divine within themselves.  We don't always recognize the truth, beauty, and creativity within ourselves, and we are often conflicted when expectations and actions don't line up with that deep sense of truth.  Whether it's our own expectations and actions, or the expectations and actions of other people or society as a whole, life can be pretty messy.  It can be a real wrestling match to come to terms with how we are going to be in the face of conflicting expectations and beliefs.  We can hope that the divine within us will win out, that the deep truth, beauty, and creativity will be stronger than misguided beliefs that foster fear and violence.  When we are really in tune with the character of the divine within us, the fearful and violent reactions might even seem silly.  Other times, the fear wins.

Like in the case of Jacob when Esau came to greet as a brother.  Esau didn't seem to hold any grudges.  He wanted to do everything in his power to make his brother's homecoming easy.  Esau had his own prosperity.  He wasn't suffering.  And he wasn't angry.  Still, Jacob just can't quite embrace that reality.  Whether it's out of shame or suspicion, he keeps his brother at arm's length.  We do the same thing when people or circumstances surprise us.  Sure, if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is.  But sometimes we decide that something is too good to be true simply because it doesn't lock into the fears we've cultivated.  In those moments, the divine within us has lost the wrestling match.

The good news is that we are capable of changing how we see things, if we want to.  When we find ourselves wrestling within, we can hone in on the invented fears and imagined dangers we've been believing and wrench them out of socket.  We can let the divine -- that deep sense of truth, beauty, and creativity -- win the wrestling match.  We can ask for forgiveness without bribing someone into accepting our apology.  It isn't weakness to acknowledge when we've made a mistake.  We can receive the gifts that others offer graciously without trying to figure out what their angle is, or what's going to be expected in return.  Suspicion smothers beauty (although we can be very creative when we let our suspicions runs free).  We will most likely never find ourselves literally and physically wrestling with a god next to a stream until daybreak, but when we wrestle with ourselves -- when our fears and doubts wrestle with our divine character -- we choose which side wins.   

The Morality of Being Willing to Kill a Child Doesn't Change Just Because You Think God Told You to Do It

Continuing with the narrative of the Old Testament story, Abraham and Abimilech make peace, the elderly Sarah gives birth to Isaac and promptly becomes too jealous of Hagar to bear having her around, and Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael (Abraham’s firstborn) out on their own into the wilderness, with God’s blessing. Which brings us to Genesis 22, in which Abraham takes his son Isaac to a mountaintop with the intention of sacrificing him to God. He reportedly does this because God told him to, and thus Abraham is willing to go through with it. At the last minute, a ram caught in a nearby bush (seen to be provided by God) is substituted for the boy, and God makes a promise about the future of Abraham’s bloodline.

Supposedly, the promise God makes to Abraham at the end of this horrifying story is the seventh promise God has made to him, but the promises are all strikingly similar: God grants Abraham a stretch of land (although he doesn’t provide any legal documentation that anyone else would honor), he promises Abraham lots of “children”, and he makes promises about how mighty and prosperous those children are going to be. Since the Jewish people are the ones who scribed all of this after passing it down through word of mouth for generations, one would expect them to be the heroes of the story. The promise by God is obviously intended to be indisputable, except that this story calls into question God’s morality and trustworthiness.

First of all, why did God find this test to be necessary? Abraham had already made a pact with God involving sacrificing animals, and then he made a further pact with God requiring physical mutilation, for which Abraham and his descendents really didn’t get anything further from God for the additional requirements. It is as if an insurance company decided to add an enormous fee onto the premium while offering no additional benefits, simply because they don’t quite trust their customers. Even though Abraham is faithful with the requirements of previous agreements, God decides he needs to be tested. The primary reasons to test people are either because you want to verify they know the material or because you don’t trust them. Abraham obviously knew the content and requirements of the previous arrangements, because he did what God had requested of him. So, this test can only be about God not trusting Abraham, which seems remarkably insecure for an all-powerful deity, but there it is.

Readers of this story may see spiritual lessons about trusting God in difficult times or about God providing what one needs or about God honoring the faithful. Such lessons are much easier to accept if one doesn’t think too much about the motivations of God in the matter. It’s one thing to think of a being as all-powerful and deserving of respect, but the all-powerful being’s behavior in this story is petty and manipulative. Who challenges someone to see if he will kill his own son, just to prove a point about divine might? Later on, Christians would see this story as a mirror of God’s own sacrifice of his son, which is an obvious narrative parallel, except that the God of this story in Genesis seems to have some psychological issues, not the least of which is a profound insecurity that leads him to require further evidence of Abraham’s faithfulness, just so God can renew a promise that wasn’t made with an expiration date.

So, apparently to satisfy his own ego, God commands something immoral, confirms that Abraham is willing to do this immoral thing without question, and then steps in and saves the day. Say what you will about God’s provision or trustworthiness, but the entire situation wouldn’t have existed unless God had contrived it and the sacrifice wouldn’t have needed to be provided if God hadn’t required it. Certainly, there were other gods worshiped in the area at the time, and there are reports of other people sacrificing children. The archaeological evidence of any widespread culture of child sacrifice in the area is scarce, but the Jews certainly accused some neighboring peoples of the practice. To the casual observer, the willingness to sacrifice one’s child is evidence of equal moral depravity, whether a ram gets substituted in the end or not.

It comes down to a matter of blind obedience. Trust without thought can be dangerous, even dangerous enough to put people’s lives at risk. If one believes in a Creator, then surely one must assume that the Creator provided human beings with brains for a purpose. Not to use those brains for rational thought seems like an insult. Beyond that, trusting in an external source to provide a way out of difficult situations abdicates personal responsibility. If one knows that killing a child is wrong, it is ludicrous to lose one’s moral compass for the sake of trusting something outside of oneself. The concept of an omnipotent and all-loving external divine being opens the door for people to stop reasoning for themselves. And if they can pin any horrific behavior on that omnipotent and all-loving divine being, then the mindless faithful and the god are both beyond reproach.

The entire concept of trusting God, even when what he asks seems suspect, opens the door to rampant justification for bad behavior. On top of that, people often wind up with different ideas about what God wants. How does one determine who is right? It would makes sense for believers to rely on their own internal awareness of what interpretation respects other people and acknowledges the innate beauty and value of every human being. Instead, the deciding factor is often which interpretation is expressed with the greatest amount of outrage and conviction. Plenty of horrific acts throughout the course of humanity have been pinned on God, because no one can legitimately argue against God. The truly horrific part is that God did not swoop down and stop any of those actions with a ram caught in a bush. Nor will he. The conclusions believers choose to draw from that observation are likely to be different from the conclusions I come to, but the fact remains that God does not intervene when people do immoral things in his name.

Reading or hearing the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac may convince you of God’s trustworthiness and the value of faithfulness, but the God of this story behaves in such a petty, manipulative, and insecure manner that I would find him difficult to trust if I believed in him. But where do we turn in the absence of an all-loving, omnipotent divine being? Some people are happy to believe in an external divine being, even one which displays symptoms of severe psychosis, just because there seems to be such a void without such a belief. I would suggest that human beings have value, and that we all possess the means to acknowledge and respect that value, should we choose to be thoughtful and aware. I have written these words before, but they bear repeating: Every person embodies an innate truth, beauty, and creativity, and every functional adult is capable of taking personal responsibility for honoring and respecting that innate truth, beauty, and creativity. That is the divine nature. It is not outside of us, driving us to do immoral things so that it can swoop in and save the day and gain our eternal gratitude and adoration. The divine is that truth and beauty and creativity within us, and we have the power to acknowledge it in ourselves and in every other person.

Why the Concept of Scriptural Inerrancy Is a Matter of Faith and Not Evidence

There are those who believe that the Bible is true, and there are those who believe that the Bible is not true. Among these groups, there are a number of refinements that can be made. Sometimes beliefs form out of an opinion regarding one specific aspect of scriptural content. Some may think that the miracle stories are far-fetched, or that the creation story is not to be taken literally, but they think the historical and geographic record is more or less based on fact. Incidentally, this is the camp where I usually place myself. Some who claim that the Bible is true mean more or less the same thing, except that they probably believe in the divinity of Jesus and the validity of the resurrection. In fact, many times when people say that the Bible is true or not true, they are really expressing their belief about one very specific event in the Bible: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Many Christians understand that this is a matter of faith. One cannot prove much about even the existence of Jesus, since there is so little trustworthy information about him outside of the scripture. If something is a matter of faith, then by definition it must be believed without concrete proof, and many people of faith understand this. It causes some problems when believers insist that other people believe the same things they do, at which point having convincing evidence makes a bit more of a difference.

Thus the “truth” of the Bible enters a prominent place in the discussion. Some people determined that if the Bible was accepted as absolutely true, then there should be no question about the existence, divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, nor should there be any doubt about the need for salvation and the gift of grace. Likewise, if any part of the Bible is seen as fantastical or outright falsehood, then the value of the passion story is potentially jeopardized. It is as if faith needs at least some supporting facts for some people. Thus, every time an archaeologist makes a discovery that coincides with a Biblical account of geography, some of these proponents of scriptural inerrancy claim, “See, the Bible is true! Every last bit of it.”

There are some problems with the concept of scriptural inerrancy, and the biggest problem is the absolutism of the idea. If one part of a story is factually accurate, one cannot assume that the entire tale is factually accurate. Suppose I told you that there is a Recognized Bank building on the corner of Willow Avenue and Market Street, and on the 12th floor of that bank building, there is a law office. In that law office, there works a secretary who is a vampire, and she keeps blood packets in the break room. With just my story to go on, you might think, “There’s no such thing as vampires, this story can’t possibly be true.” But, when you drive past the corner of Willow Avenue and Market Street and see the big Recognized Bank building, do you then suddenly believe the whole thing? Do you accept that there is a vampire working in a law office on the 12th floor of that building, just because you have verified one aspect of my story?

You wouldn’t have to accept it as true, of course. You could look into the matter. You could go to the 12th floor and see if there was a law office there. You could examine the secretary. You could investigate the break room. If any part of my story is false, it doesn’t erase the fact that the building is exactly where I claimed it to be. It is completely plausible that one fact in my story checks out and another detail turns out to be false. So proving one fact that was recorded in the Bible only proves that one specific fact. It does nothing to prove any other scriptural claim.

“Ah,” some might say, “but we have verified the trustworthiness of the writer. If he is right about one fact, why should we doubt the rest of what he wrote?” (Yes, I think some people may have slept right through the vampire secretary example.) Which scriptural writer are we to trust, exactly? The biblical canon was composed over a number of generations by a number of different people, and the decision about what to include or leave out of the Bible was made hundreds of years later by a completely different group of men (at the Council of Trent in the 16th century). There is no one writer for us to trust, even if it made sense to think that a person’s story is more trustworthy because they placed it in San Diego rather than Gotham City. Sure, San Diego exists, but that doesn’t mean that every story placed in San Diego is true.

Aside from the historical accuracy argument, there are really no other logical principles on which scriptural inerrancy is based. Some would say that the Bible claims to be true, and therefore it must be, because God cannot lie. This entirely self-referential argument cannot be accepted as evidence to anyone seeking any kind of proof. One cannot verify the accuracy of a written document simply by virtue of an author’s claim. In fact, every so often, a new book catches everyone’s attention because of the revealing “insider” details it contains, and everyone is equally disappointed to learn that the author made up most of the story. Anyone who needs the Bible to be infallible or inerrant in order for their faith to be bolstered would surely understand the problem of a self-referential justification.

Claiming the Bible to be absolutely and completely true based on church history and tradition isn’t any better. This is really just a self-referential argument by proxy. It would be like your friend telling you about the vampire secretary and claiming that it was true because he heard from a trustworthy source. You may trust your friend, and your friend may trust the story’s source, but if there is no way to check a source other than blind trust, then we are talking about faith, not provability.

The only claim that makes any sense with regard to Biblical inerrancy is one that does not attempt to convince anyone else. There is nothing wrong with a believer who claims, “I believe that the Bible is completely true.” If personal experience and reason have led an individual to a statement of faith—belief in something which cannot be proven—that is a matter of personal choice. No one else need accept that belief in order for it to have value, and no archeological discovery can strengthen or weaken a determined belief. Only the individual can determine the criteria by which to accept or reject the validity of spiritual writings, and those criteria don’t need to have the same meaning for anyone else.

Ultimately, a belief in scriptural inerrancy is entirely a matter of faith. If one actually looks closely enough at scriptures, one is confronted with some inconsistencies. While this may not bother someone looking for the spiritual truth underlying the words, when someone needs for the text to be completely accurate, it presents a problem. On the matter of spiritual truth, one must also deal with how to interpret what is written. One must be discerning to know when people claim to speak biblical truth that they are not actually conveying a personal interpretation. There is no “one truth” of the Bible, no absolutely correct way to interpret what is written on its pages. If it were so, then Christians would be united under one banner instead of bickering back and forth among and within various denominations and factions.

My perspective in writing this sequence of scriptural interpretations is not to prove or disprove anything, although I will state clearly that I do not believe that the Bible is entirely accurate or trustworthy. I approach it with a skeptical lens, to be sure, and at the same time I want to see what is spiritually valid and appropriate for our time. The Bible provides a spiritual jumping off point, because it is familiar to me and to so many other people. What I write is what I see as truth, in the hopes that I will inspire other people to think for themselves and discover or claim a deeper truth for their lives, even if their truth is different from mine.

Natural Disasters and Wickedness: Viewing the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as the Wrath of God

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah suggests some very interesting and disturbing ideas about natural disasters, or really any sort of disaster in life. For the mind that wants to see the universe as ordered under the control of some higher authority, stories like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah help to make sense of events that seem chaotic, with a footnote that cleverly insults certain groups of people. Briefly: God (for whatever reason) mentions to Abraham that he’s going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, because the people there are wicked beyond redemption. Abraham pleads with him and says, “You can’t kill innocent people! Spare the cities if there are at least 10 righteous men.” God promises to look into the matter, and swears that he’ll spare the cities if even a handful of people are worth saving. As it turns out, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, is the only one worth saving, so God just warns Lot to get out of town with his family. In a striking reflection of Orpheus and Eurydice, Lot’s wife looks back at the city as they are fleeing and is transformed into a pillar of salt. Then, Lot’s two daughters get him drunk and sleep with him, becoming pregnant with children that would found two nations that were enemies of the very Israelites telling the story.

There are a lot of things one could latch onto in a story like this.  To our culture, it may seem odd for a "righteous" man to offer his virgin daughters to a crowd of would-be rapists.  It may also seem like a pretty low blow to make up an incestuous story about a group’s origins just to have another reason to hate or insult them, but human beings haven’t outgrown that tactic yet. There will be plenty of opportunities to explore relationships and how we see other people, though. The lesson of not focusing on or longing for the past seems fairly obvious in the story of Lot’s wife. This may be worth coming back to at a later time. For now, let’s concentrate on the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the cities.

In recent years, there have been some pretty destructive natural disasters. Just since the turn of the 21st century, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis have had devastating effects on cities, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and have disrupted the lives of millions of people. It seems natural to ask, “Why?” Some people even claim to know why these events have occurred, and they capitalize on the emotional and psychological devastation in the wake of destructive events for a personal agenda. Many people who claim to know why natural disasters occur hearken back to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Some claim (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the wickedness of people is the reason for the destruction. There have been exhortations to turn from sinfulness, lest we continue to encourage God’s wrath. The natural disasters we see in our lifetime are even likened to warnings of a divine parent’s growing impatience with disobedient children. In other words, we still struggle to understand why these chaotic events take place, and we instinctively turn to our understanding of the world to fit natural disasters into our existing premises. If the premise is flawed, however, any understanding of the world based upon it is going to create more problems than it solves.

First, let’s have a little perspective about natural disasters. Recent events have been devastating, but to any student of history, they are likely not surprising. Throughout recorded history, there have been floods and earthquakes and storms that have wreaked devastation. Looking back across time, there has not really been a remarkable increase in catastrophic events, even though we may hear about things and see footage much more easily than ever before.

Incidentally, this goes for disease as well, although some have suggested that certain diseases exist as divine warnings against immorality. Tuberculosis, measles, small pox, and the bubonic plague claimed more lives than any disease connected with immorality in today’s society. The Spanish Flu claimed over 50,000,000 deaths in just two years between 1918 and 1920. Malaria continues to kill over 750,000 people each year, primarily the poorest people in the poorest African countries. While people may not be willing to equate poverty with immorality, dealing with that poverty and disease has not really become a worldwide concern. So, it obviously would take a lot for a disease to catch our attention enough to incite a widespread change in lifestyle.

But to some, this does not diminish the impression that someone more powerful is punishing humanity, or some sector of the population. This mindset extends to all sorts of unwanted events from car accidents to disease to lightning strikes. If something bad has happened, some people want there to be a reason, and the easiest reason of all is to believe that the person or people did something wrong to bring hardship upon themselves. Sometimes, hardship may certainly be the result of personal decisions, but in the case of natural disasters, this rationale simply cannot apply. Why is there suffering? Why would there not be?

Archaeologists don’t have any clear evidence to shed light on the story itself. Although the story was certainly written after the fact, and the specific names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not recorded in other sources, there could easily have been sites in the region destroyed by earthquakes, volcanic activity, or even a meteor. Whether or not the story is completely factual in the historical details, we can relate to such events, because we still see cities destroyed by earthquakes, floods, mudslides, avalanches, and storms. These things are part of our ecosystem. They are natural events which occur because of natural reasons. Sometimes people get caught in the destruction, but the natural events are not specifically targeting anyone. We don’t always understand why something has happened, but that doesn’t mean a rational and natural explanation doesn’t exist. There is no reason to assume that some person or community is being punished when natural disaster strikes. They are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To suggest otherwise should concern those who believe in an intelligent divine being who causes things to happen in the world. If we are truly able to change our behavior and thus avert further catastrophe, this is a kind of magic. Our actions should not be able to alter the decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent entity, since that would actually mean that the external divine being is at the mercy of believers instead of the other way around. It also ignores the fact that there are people who live wholesome lives, who even believe the things they are “supposed” to believe, who are struck down by natural disasters or disease.

Alternatively, it makes just as little sense to claim that people are simply wicked at the core of their being, and thus are deserving of whatever punishment a divine being may choose to dish out. Aside from being a very hopeless perspective that fails to acknowledge the deep beauty and value of humankind, it also doesn’t allow grounds for much to change. People cannot honestly be expected to change their immoral ways if they are intrinsically wicked, thus we would always be deserving of punishment from natural disasters at the whim of the almighty. Some would point out that this is the whole purpose of grace, which is a fine perspective, except that the application of grace would seem to contradict the concept of punishment through natural disaster. What purpose is there in extending grace and then deciding to send a tsunami or an earthquake anyway?

A simpler perspective is to assume that the natural world is neither tame nor intelligent. Natural disasters will happen, and sometimes people and communities will be within a dangerous proximity. There’s no reason to see those people as wicked or worthless, and honestly I don’t believe many people do. We have an opportunity in those moments to reassert our connection to one another, to do something to acknowledge the beauty and value of all people. It is not a divine warning message (or as powerful a fear-inducing morality lesson), but it does open an opportunity for our awareness to shift toward our ability to care for one another, an opportunity to be reminded of the things that are most important to us.

While whatever happened to those ancient cities was certainly tragic, there is no reason to attribute any more wickedness to them than any other concentration of people, and there is no reason to assume that they deserved to be destroyed. It may be simpler to see people who suffer from unexplainable catastrophe as lesser people, people deserving of what happened, wicked people. We don’t have to care as much about what happens to people like that, and we certainly don’t feel obligated to do much to help them. Perhaps it isn’t that much more difficult in times of such devastation to allow ourselves to be awakened to our commonalities as human beings, to recognize the preciousness of life and the beauty and power of human connection, and to act in accord.

Is Violence a Religious Freedom or Obligation? (or When Did "Might Makes Right" Become an Accepted Theological Claim?)

As I look at Genesis 14-15, what stands out is the matter-of-fact cultural belief that a divine being approves of and encourages violence under certain circumstances.  While many pundits decry the violence of our modern-day society, it strikes me that our current level of violence is really nothing new to the human race.  Although Plato disputed the claim long ago in The Republic, the concept that 'might makes right' still walks hand-in-hand with concepts like 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbor' in Christian circles.  It may be time to take a critical look at the way violence is condoned (and even exalted) in religious texts before we critique the violence in our current society.

“History is written by the victor,” is also a familiar proverb.  Thomas Jefferson put it this way, “A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.”  Even adult siblings who grew up in the same house often have differing memories of the events of their childhood.  Unfortunately, most stories purported to be historical come with agendas.  When one hears such a tale, it is best to dig down just a bit to determine what the agenda may be.  It’s possible that the point of a story is to illustrate a valuable lesson about life and how to treat other people, in which case it could have great merit.  Other agendas are less altruistic, attempting to denigrate a people, prove legitimacy to a claim on some property, or simply indicate why we deserve favors and others do not.

For centuries, people have made war with each other.  There may have even been good and wholesome intentions behind participation in war at some points in history.  In the end, though, the side that “wins” gets to decide why they won, and it always seems to go beyond superior military might.  Victors have a propensity for claiming a religious right to have won, stating that the favoritism of a god must be behind their success.  Now, it’s one thing for an ancient Greek to make a statement like, “Ares smiled upon us this day,” as a euphemism to indicate that they won a battle.  In modern society, any hint of symbolic reference has disappeared when a claim is made that, “God is on our side.”  This can lead to all sorts of trouble, since belief in divine approval for one’s actions can override all interest in open-minded discourse or even moral or ethical ramifications.  If God is on our side, then we can do no wrong.

How many sides can a divine being support, though?  And why would a divine being who honored life support any side in actions that are essentially based on the premise that the lives and comfort of one group of people is more valuable than the lives and comfort of another group of people?  Rather than pin things on any sort of god, it might be more honest to take responsibility for our own violence and for the hardship that it causes.  “We bombed your country because God told us to,” just doesn’t hold water.

Whether it is street violence, domestic violence, “ethnic cleansing,” or out and out war between two countries, the choice to be violent rests with each person.  There may be cases in which violence is necessary for personal safety, but in an age that considers itself somewhat enlightened, it seems like an immature and lazy option for groups of people to choose.  Honoring the truth and the beauty and the value of every human being is a much more challenging option, but we are up to the challenge.  Likewise, it is important for us to weigh the agenda behind the stories that we hear and the stories that we tell, to determine whether they contribute toward honoring humanity or whether they contribute toward a culture of violence.

The Fear of Not Having Enough: Challenging the Scarcity Thinking of Genesis 13

I've mentioned that fear can keep us from recognizing the truth, beauty, and creativity within ourselves and other people in various ways.  It crops up again in Genesis 13, in a way that has created conflicts that have spanned generations.
 
Fear can also lead us to dig in our heels about issues of entitlement.  Whether we think we deserve something because we have worked hard for it, because someone made a promise to us, or because we deem it unfair that someone else should have something we don’t, a sense of entitlement is a sure way to work against the truth and beauty within us.  It may be a salary range, a particular car, a specific-size house, or a piece of land.  It could even be a designer purse or pair of shoes or a piece of electronic wonder.  Believing that we are entitled to it, whatever it is, can be an incredible roadblock to happiness.

One problem is that we seem never to have enough.  If we get the house we want, we need a bigger one.  If we get the land we want, we need more of it.  If we get the toys we want, we need the newer model.  And when we treat people like possessions, it works the same way.  Whatever it is that we believe we are entitled to have ultimately fails to satisfy us completely.

Here is a difficult truth, if only because it seems so harsh: Life is not fair.  Some people have more and some people have less.  Some people get sick and some people stay well.  From the outside looking in, it seems that some people have it easy and some people can’t catch a break.  There are some things we can do to improve our chances of getting what we want in life.  Insisting that our lives be different out of a sense of fairness isn’t one of them.

Not only is life not fair, life does not make any promises.  Even if parents and teachers and ministers and authors told us differently, there are no actual guarantees about what we will have or what we will lose in the course of our lives.  People who work hard often get the income they want, but not always.  People with healthier diets sometimes live longer, but not all of them.  There is no secret formula that will ensure with 100% certainty that our lives will be what we want them to be, as individuals or as a people.

There is good news in all of this, even though no one is really entitled to anything and even though there are no guarantees.  There is enough.  When we engage our innate sense of deep truth, beauty, and creativity, there is enough of whatever it is that we want.  There is enough land.  There is enough food.  There is enough money.  There is enough.  Certainly, there are some commodities that are scarce, but the things that are necessary are plentiful.  We may lack sufficient crude oil for all that we would like to do, but we do not lack sources of energy.  Recognizing opportunities and abundance simply requires a different baseline premise.

If we begin with the premise that a divine being made a promise to someone thousands of years ago, and that we are entitled to reap the benefits of that promise, immediately we run into trouble.  Other people may have just as much of a sense of entitlement as we do, and both sides may go to great lengths to defend that belief, with neither side being able to offer any real evidence toward the validity of their claim.

If, on the other hand, we begin with the premise that there is plenty, we then get to engage our creativity in an entirely different way.  We are capable of creating a multitude of solutions to any challenge of resources, but a sense of entitlement unavoidably limits what we can create.  When we start off accepting that no one is entitled to anything, no matter who they are or what promises may have been made, our true strengths as human beings have an opportunity to shine.  There is not only a way for everyone to have access to what is necessary, there is certainly a way for everyone to have access to what is desirable, if only we are willing to seek it out and engage our minds and actions in creating it.

Liars Deceive Themselves First: A Life Lesson from Genesis 12

Some of what I've been suggesting as a re-interpretation of the Bible may be difficult to accept without question, especially with the number of competing beliefs and assumptions we already have running around in our minds.  We have certain ideas about other people and about what we have to do to survive in this world.  Not all of them are accurate, but they all seem absolutely true.  One of the most common conclusions we draw is that it would be easier to deceive others than to tell the truth.  Or if not easier, then at least safer or wiser.  As many of us know from experience, lies often wind up being much more costly than the truth in the long run, even when our motivation seems on target.

Reasons for lying or bending the truth often seem quite logical, but it almost always amounts to a matter of safety.  We think that we will be somehow safer if we keep the complete truth hidden.  Through maintaining falsehoods, however, we put ourselves in a position of constant threat.  At any moment, someone may find us out, our deception will be revealed, and we will suffer the consequences of that deception, regardless of the truth we initially sought to hide.

At their core, people are not frightening or untrustworthy.  It’s true that there are some people who do frightening things, and there are some individuals who betray confidences.  That doesn’t change the value of the adage that "honesty is the best policy."  Fewer people get hurt by honesty than by deception, and after all, most deceptions spring from fear that could be entirely irrational.  When we are willing to wrestle with the possibility that people may actually embody a deep truth, beauty, and inspiration, and that our fears may be nothing more than the creations of our own imaginations, deception seems quite unnecessary.

I have largely steered clear of story-telling because of how subject to interpretation stories can be.  For now, though, recall the story in Genesis 12 of a man journeying to a foreign land with his wife.  A famine had struck their own homeland, so they were traveling to a place of greater abundance.  This man didn’t trust the people of the foreign land, however, believing that the men of the land would kill him and take his wife.  So he told them that the woman with him was his sister and not his wife, thinking that this would keep them safe.  Since she was an attractive woman, the ruler of the land desired her.  After claiming that the woman was his sister, what could our traveler say to the ruler’s proposal of marriage?

The traveler was given many gifts as a result of his deception, and he lived a life of luxury since the ruler welcomed him as a brother-in-law.  But the ruler and his court soon experienced a plague of curses which could only be traced back to the marriage born out of deception.  Calling the traveler into his presence, the ruler rebuked him for his persistent lie, and he returned the man’s wife and sent them both packing.  They had to leave behind all of the gifts and luxury, and they were no longer welcome in a place that could have provided for them while their own land was in the throes of famine.  Although it may have held some benefit in the short term, deception wound up costing the man the very security he had lied to obtain.

There are those who will conclude, "Ah, but if the traveler hadn't lied, things would have been much worse."  Such arguments have very little merit.  No one can tell the future, and no one knows what would have happened if...  For every un-manifested bad consequence a person can imagine, a more desirable outcome could likewise be conceived.  The fact is that when we deal in deception, we rob ourselves of our innate value and we create a reality for ourselves defined by suspicion and fear.

Of course, the way we choose to express the truth also makes a difference.  Angry or belligerent truth-telling can be difficult to hear.  Such tones stem from some potentially false assumptions about the willingness of other people to hear truth and the ability of ourselves to speak it clearly.  Connection and trust often requires a bit of vulnerability, and when we are willing to see the intrinsic value, beauty, and inspiration in others and ourselves, that vulnerability and truth-telling becomes easier.

The Wisdom of Acknowledging Similarities over Differences: Rewriting Genesis 11

One of the most familiar biblical tales, the story of the Tower of Babel appears in Genesis 11.  It makes sense to blame or credit a divine force for the dispersion of cultures and peoples, and from the context, it even seems like this was considered a wise thing to do.  My revision, or course, stems from a radically different perspective. 

We like to notice differences.  It’s something that our brains do well.  Differences in language, for example.  Some might say that if it weren’t for our differences, we could accomplish just about anything as a unified people.  But when we start looking for differences between people, the list is nearly unending.  Every culture has its own unique way of doing things, its own stories, its own songs, its own language.  Every family has its own unique history, its own traditions, its own inside jokes.  Every person has unique experiences, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses.  However minutely we might want to parse groups or individuals into different categories, there are innumerable differences we can use as criteria.

Like children with a healthy sense of curiosity, we may notice all of these differences and wonder why.  Why are we not all the same?  Why do we have different stories, different songs, different traditions, different strengths?  Some people think there must be a good reason for us to have so many differences.  There must be a good reason for us to have such an obstacle in the way of accomplishing the great things we could do if we shared more in common.  Some of us might conclude that a higher power must have ordained the vast differences we observe.

Of course, there’s also something within us that hates to be wrong.  If someone does something or believes something differently from us, then we slip easily into judging which is right and which is wrong.  Most of the time, we are quite insistent that our language or beliefs or traditions are right, and therefore those that are different must be wrong.  If we have the approval of a higher power supporting us, then we have even more reason to be convinced of our own rightness.

If we take a step back to the question of why all these differences exist, there’s a possibility that we don’t really need an answer.  Merely accepting that there are differences between people and families and cultures might even lead us to look for commonalities.  Not only does the list of commonalities between people extend at least as far as any tally of differences, the truth and beauty and creativity at the heart of every person certainly outweighs any differences we may perceive.  In fact, that very sense of truth and creativity is what allows us to overcome any challenges that arise because of differences.

The 21st-century world has room for a multitude of beliefs and traditions and songs and languages.  While there are ethical and moral circumstances in which right and wrong are legitimate concerns, our personal beliefs and cultural traditions are not truly threatened if we give credence to the beliefs and traditions of others.  Humanity is full of differences, but human creativity, persistence, and ingenuity have devised ways to overcome those differences time and again.  We are actually alike enough that it is essentially as though we all share a common language.  When we truly acknowledge all that we share in common with one another, nothing we plan to do in unity will be impossible for us.

Genesis Chapters 5-10

Genesis chapters 5-10 covers a lot of genealogy and the story of a global flood that has parallels in about 500 stories from diverse ancient cultures from every area of the globe.  Coming from a perspective that rejects the idea that natural disasters are punishments from on high, what I make of these chapters is a message relating to how we incorporate the lessons of the past into our lives in the present.  My re-contextualization of these six chapters boils down to one paragraph...


Leading in from my reinterpretation of Genesis 4: It is up to us to break the spiral of fear and shame which stifles connection, and to embrace the truth and beauty and creativity that can bring us back around to satisfying relationship. This requires being boldly honest with ourselves.

In part, this bold honesty requires acknowledging the past without being chained by it. This applies to our own past as individuals, and the past of our parents and lineage. When we blindly accept the mandates of our parents and ancestors, we cease to acknowledge our own truth and beauty and creativity. Many people who went before us made decisions based on fear and shame, and it is not for us to continue along that path. Many people who went before us understood and embraced the truth and beauty and creativity within themselves and others, and we can learn much from their legacies. Therefore, we must greet the past with honesty and discernment, so that our own journeys are enhanced and not impeded by those who have gone before. Their blessings and curses only mean as much as we allow.

Letting Go of Shame: Genesis 4 Revisited

In response to a great suggestion about last week's entry, here is Genesis 4, which is primarily the story of Cain and Abel.  You can read it in whatever translation you prefer.  This may help to draw some lines of comparison between the original message and my revision, should you so desire.  I hope the spiritual truth I convey here stands on its own, but I also understand the value of tracing the train of thought back to the original text. 

One of the results of the fear that keeps us from honoring the truth and beauty and creativity within ourselves and other people is envy.  It may be that we fear that we won’t be taken care of, that we’ll miss out on some important experience, or that we won’t get a satisfying amount of respect and adoration.  Our fear may even seem justified when we see other people getting what we deem to be better results than we are.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of measuring people’s value by how much they own, the car they drive, the clothing they wear, the food they eat, or the house they inhabit.  These trappings don’t impact a person’s value one iota.  People have intrinsic value because of the truth, beauty, and creativity within them, not their bank account or lifestyle.  When we have wealth, we fear losing it; when we see other people with more than we have, we fear that we will not have enough.  And of course, there are plenty of other fears about wealth and lifestyle.

The frightening thing is that we sometimes do atrocious things to one another out of fears that are based on misguided nonsense.  Our fears lead us to insult, steal, and even kill.  Our fears create conflict where none needs to exist.  Once again, shame often springs up in the wake of our fear-based actions, and instead of seeing the truth and beauty and creativity in ourselves and others, instead of being inspired by the world around us, we seal ourselves off from it and suffocate our own souls from the connection upon which we thrive.

We can recover from our misdeeds.  Other people can recover from our misdeeds (and their own).  The world can recover from our misdeeds.  It may not be pleasant, and it may take time, but the possibility always exists for true connection with the natural world, with other people, and with ourselves.  It is up to us to break the spiral of fear and shame which stifles connection, and to embrace the truth and beauty and creativity that can bring us back around to satisfying relationship.  This requires being boldly honest with ourselves.