Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Playing "My Way" At Funerals A Sign Of Hyper-Individualism Or Loneliness.

Yet another A Churchless Faith post addressing topical issues way too long after they have happened. I have a family that comes first blog comes way down the list. Sorry. Anyway...

A couple of weeks ago the Sydney Anglican Arch Bishop was in the news speaking out against the playing of Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at funerals and the way he felt that it embodied a culture of individualism. My first thought was that I don't think he understands why people would want to play this song at a funeral. I was further surprised when I heard a large panel of people on Radio National discussion generally agree with Peter Jensen's sentiments.

I do not think playing "My Way" at a funeral comes about as either a celebration of or a cause of individualism. Rather, it is a symptom of the loneliness and isolation that people experience.

For better or worse gone are the days of extended family support, inheriting a trade from your father, a high school or university qualification guaranteeing long term stable employment, marriage as a life long commitment, your neighbours not only people who lived beside you but also worked played and went to school with you.

Certainly all of the above has a dark side. But theses things have gone leaving many people isolated and lonely. I believe many people play "My Way" simply because there was not a community with whom they could do it "Our Way". I suspect that for many "My Way" is more of a celebration of survival rather than individualism.



Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Wiping The Dust Off Our Feet Means Ignore People Who Don't Like You. Huh?

This week I heard a church talk where it was suggested that we should “wipe the dust off our feet” or forget about or ignore those neighbours who don't like you. The idea comes from Luke 9:5 (and similar passages) “Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them”

I've got two kinds of neighbours those who hide behind their roller doors (I could sit next to them on the train and never know) and those whose kids play at my house. This second group of neighbours are hard drinking footy loving pot smoking folk with “F*** off we're full” stickers on their car. That's not to say they are not nice people but we don't have any natural points of connection. I’m pretty sure they like having us as neighbours, appreciate the occasional free carton of eggs but that's it. We're never going to be drinking bourbon together listening to ACDC and talking cars and footy.

By the logic of the talk these are the sorts of people I should be "wiping the dust of my feet off" at because, as the speaker said, they aren't "people of peace". That just doesn't seem right to me. It’d mean wiping my feet of my entire suburb. Each night I thank God that despite what I do, how much I scream “God where are you? And, why don’t you do something” that God has not wiped the dust off God’s sandals and decided to walk away from me. If God does that for me and God asks me to be God’s ambassador I’m not sure I can leave these people and metaphorically shake the dust off my feet as a testimony against them.

A Reflection On "The Authority Of Scripture"

I recently had a conversation with an old friend on Facebook about wifely submission. I was trying to ask him how would explain wifely submission to a non Xn person or what the intrinsic benefits of being a submissive wife are. He kept going back to "this is what I think Ephesians 5 is saying". The exchange probably says more about my inability to communicate via social networks than it does about my friends ability to understand what I was trying to ask. Which was what are the benefits to following this idea aside from "it's in the Bible".

None the less, it got me think about how "The Authority Of Scripture" functions. For more evangelically minded people this means once you've decided to follow Jesus you decide to follow everything in the Bible too. For more liberally minded people reason and tradition may play a bigger role and you kind of get a two against one get out of jail free card if they both go against something they believe is being said in the Bible.

I'm wondering if, for me, the Bible has authority because of what it says rather than because of what it is. That is the Bible, for me, is more like Martin Luther King rather than the Pope. If you don't like what the Pope says, and you have a "what the Pope says goes" kind of Catholicism, you're just stuck with what ever has been decreed. MLK on the other hand only maintained authority when what he said continued to ring true in some sense.

If I found something MLK said that sounded offensive or uncharacteristic. I would neither believe it nor dismiss that one thing or everything that he ever said. I'd ask
1) Is this really what he said? Was it transcribed incorrectly?
2) What was the context he was talking in? Was he talking metaphorically or sarcastically rather than literally?
3) Is it something he later went on to regret saying?
4) If I don't get a satisfactory answer I'll mentally file it away in the don't quite understand what's going on here corner of my brain.

If I'm honest with myself I suspect this is exactly how I've treated the Bible. I believe God is loving, Jesus is God's demonstration to us of what God is like, and the Bible is our window to understanding that more fully.

If I find something in the Bible that seems to go against this I have to ask.  Do I change my idea of what or who God is or do I wrestle with the text until I understand it differently. I tend to ask these questions of myself.

1) Is this really what was said in the original text? Is how I understand this today how the original hearers / reader would have understood it?
2) What was the context the author was writing in? Was the author talking in some other form rather than literally?
3) Is it something (particularly if it's something from the Hebrew Bible) something that the prophets, Jesus or a New Testament writer would challenge?
4) If I don't get a satisfactory answer I'll mentally file it away in the don't quite understand what's going on here corner of my brain.

Over my life at different times I have filed away the issues of gender roles, sexuality and Joshua's conquest (to name but a few) and then revisited them when I found a satisfactory understanding of them. There are still things filed away in the doesn't make sense yet compartment in my brain. Maybe I'll get to then maybe I won't.

Either way I won't be throwing away the bible or submitting to any one's particular understanding of what the Bible means.

Friday, October 05, 2012

Understanding The John 14:6 Trump Text

The dudes at Homebrewed Christianity are about to do a podcast on John 14:6. The "I am the way the truth and the life" text. This passage often gets used against more peace love and mung bean Xns when they are doing their "God love everyone man" thing. Kind of like a trump card to discount of God being overly inclusive. When someone pulls this trump card what they usually mean is not "Jesus is the way the truth and the life" but, if you haven't said a prayer to invite Jesus into your heart and then followed that up by attending a church whose theology roughly coincides with that big selling books at that persons favourite cheesy Xn bookshop, then you are not in with God.

Here are my thoughts on this verse. Following Jesus would have been theologically confusing for the disciples. Tax collectors and prostitutes were in but the Pharisees were out. The first were made last and the last, first. In Jesus' Sheep an Goats parable even those who call Jesus lord don't even get in.

At the beginning of John 14 Jesus announces that he will be leaving the disciples and they want some assurance. In John 14:6 Jesus tells them that he is the gate keeper it is he who decides who is in and out. There is no magic prayer to get Jesus in your heart. There is no ritual or sacrifice to be made to make sure that you are in with God, just the assurance that Jesus is the way and that he will continue to declare the tax collector, the prostitute and people like the sheep in the sheep and goats parable who don't even know Jesus as part of the kingdom of God.

So, yes I fully embrace John 14:6. But, any theological ideas that come from what we think John 14:6 means must concur with Matthew 25:31-46 (the sheep and the goats parable) and not from our own desire to be the gatekeepers of who is in and out with God. That we are not that gate keep is precisely what we learn in both passages.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Experiencing God Or Not

This week I read a post by theologian Tony Jones where he expresses a profound lack of experiencing or hearing from God. I also heard the story of someone on their death bed who had a profound experience of God. I feel an urge to embrace and affirm both experiences. I know you are supposed to fall down on one side or the other as to what should be the "normal" Xn experience but right now I'm trying to formulate something that embraces both experiences. Something that does not say that one is correct and the other means either you're not really a Xn or you are somewhat delusional. 

Personally I can relate most with the silent nothing (Tony Jones) experience of God. Perhaps other people have a different make up. An imaginative (not imaginary) make up where they are able to experience the reality of God through a far more imaginative or mystical experience. This is not to say the experience is not real just because it might not be able to be recorded on a video camera. Like the often very visceral experience of falling in love the revelation of God may also be very real. But for those of us with a different make up, it doesn't make our experience less real (perhaps like the love of a couple who've stuck at loving each other decades after the giddy excitement of first meeting has died down). For people like me it only seems less real or less "normal" if I have enough people telling me this is not the normal Xn experience or that I'm missing out. For people who experience God differently perhaps it's all about what sort of a person they are and how they experience the world rather than that God has arbitrarily chosen to speak to some people in one way and other people in another. 

To be honest I love how I experience life, love and God in all it's complex vagueness and I wouldn't change it for the world.

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Importance Of Alain de Botton

I've just listened to the NPR interview with Alain De Botton and it struck me how important Alain and his brand of atheism might be for Xns. 

More popular atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris tend to have grown up in explicitly Xn environments. Whether that be home, school or community. They have had Xy foisted upon them and unsurprisingly they have aggressively rejected it. 

De Botton is different. Raised in an athiest household he grew up outside of any Xn influences (much like many under 30s are doing today) and, approaches Xy with sense of curiosity rather than any sense of certainty and conviction. He has no interest in debating Xns but would rather just pick and choose the bits he likes from Xy. The way he treats Xy is much like the way most of us treat political parties or indigenous spiritualities. We rarely agree with the whole package a political presents to us, we pick the bits we like from each and then, because we have to, we vote on one. Similarly we might have a great quote from an American Indian cheif on our wall or a beautiful Aboriginal dot painting but, we have no interest in signing up for all their respective religous practices. 

I predict this is exactly how the vast majority of Australians will treat Xy (if they are not quietly doing this already). They might like our weddings and funerals, or like our stance on looking after the homeless, or like the schools we run and it will rarely cross their mind that someone should completely commit to the faith or be completely against the faith. They could believe in a God or not (like De Botton) but that will have little bearing how much of the Xn faith and it's practices that they pick and choose from. 

This will be a great challenge to Xns. We generally think in terms of people who either sign up for everything or reject everything. How will we respond to people who are happy just to pick and choose? (Trying to convince them they can't pick and choose will be like trying to convince someone they can't vote for a particular political part without becoming a signed up member) And, how do we coherently show the interconnectedness of all the various aspects our faith? 

This will be a far tougher and more important challenge than how could we "beat" someone who's just read "The God Delusion" in a debate will ever be.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Backyard Missionary

For seven years or so I've been trying to work out how to connect with the people in my suburb. There are no parks that anyone actually goes to. We have a supermarket, a chemist and a bottle shop and soon we will have another bottle shop. I get on fine with the neighbours but we don't have much in common. And I can't fake a passion for footy, cars, ACDC and rum. We have a local public school and we've chosen not to send our kids there. See this post for exactly why.

Anyway, right now there are eight kids from four different houses in my backyard. Playing with our chickens, cubby house and home made swing set. I haven't seen this in any "thinking missionally" books. I have no idea where all this might go.

Apologies to this guy for stealing the post name.

My Men's Meet Talk: Agnostics Anonymous

My Father in law runs a men's get together. There's warm food a fire on a back patio and there's always a wise man who share's something honest and encouraging. Last month my father in law asked me if I could be that man who did the sharing. I said yes and after acknowledging to the men who had gathered that I couldn't come up with something honest and encouraging I shared something honest. This is what I said...

---

Welcome to AA.

My name is Chris and I'm an agnostic. This is agnostics anonymous and it's been 3 weeks since my last doubt.

Now I know what you're thinking... C’mon, it's ok to have the odd doubt every so often. Maybe you could have one with dinner. Or go out with friends after work and have one. But me, I'm more of a binge doubter, once I get started it's hard to stop.

Now I know that usually these kind of talks are supposed to start with me telling you about how I used to have all these doubts but then God did something miraculous and now I'm certain that God exists and that God has some grand plan for my life. That I no longer believe that my life is a series of random crappy events but that there is a great plan and I now know exactly what it is. Well, I’m sorry. It doesn’t.

In the past I suspect that people have thought that I don’t think God has some sort of plan for my life. That I thought my life was a series of random crappy events, and they have put arms around me and said “Chris, God has a plan for your life” and I've smiled and thought well it's a pretty friggin’ crappy plan so far.

Now, I should say, for your sake I hope you disagree with me. I think it’s probably easier going with “God has a plan for my life, and I can see God working things out to make this plan happen”. To be honest, thinking that way will probably just make your life easier all round.

So you might ask why would I think that my life is just a series of meaningless random events? Why would I think that God has no grand plan for my life?

Well here's a quick sketch…
At this point in the talk I gave a short overview of my life focusing on all the crappy things that have happened to me. About ten different main events. Some of which I'd rather not publish on a public forum like this blog. So you'll just have to imagine.
So that is why I think that life is just a series of meaningless random events. Now, by giving you this quick sketch I’m not trying to show that I’m exceptional or deserving of extra sympathy. In fact quite the opposite I suspect that many of you could sketch out your life in similarly depressing terms.

Now whilst most of the time I remain convinced that my life is just a series of random meaningless events every so often something happens. Something that makes me think "hang on, maybe God does have a grand plan for my life"

One example was about 4 or 5 years ago.

We as a family felt called to leave our suburb. We couldn't find a church, couldn't connect with our rum drinking footy loving rev head neighbours. Our kids didn't get into the local schools we wanted and, the church we found, my wife's job and the school our kids were going to were all right near my wife's family who we were increasingly relying on after my son's autism diagnosis. It felt like God was clearly telling us leave the suburb.

The other example was a couple of weeks ago.
We had chosen to take our kids out of the school they were in (mainstream education was starting to clash with my daughter) and put them in a school closer to where we lived, the bank had rejected our loan application (so we could move house and live closer to my wife's family), quite a few of the local kids had started playing in our back yard (there are no decent parks walking distance from our house and we've got some fun things in the backyard). It felt like God was clearly telling us to stay in the suburb.

When these things happen I get this warm fuzzy feeling and I wonder is this God showing me the plan for my life? Am I experiencing the divine? But then I also wonder maybe, maybe it was just the dodgy left over pizza I ate last night. I just don’t know.

A few years ago I started thinking where did the whole idea of “God has a plan for your life” come from? I’d heard many people argue that in Romans 8:29 Paul describes us as predestined and therefore that means it was God’s plan for me to marry my wife, it was God’s plan for me to have two kids, it was God’s plan for me to be a stay at home Dad. But, yet this is what that verse in Romans says. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” God’s plan is not for what I would do but what I would be like. That I would become more and more like Christ. And that is all. I might thank God every day that I met my wife and somehow convinced her to marry me, that I have beautiful kids and get to stay at home with them. I just don’t think it was part of a grand plan.  

Further more, a life littered with crappy random events is exactly what many of our Biblical heroes experienced.

• Moses: After meeting God on the mountain came down to see the golden calf

• John Baptist: After baptising Jesus ends up in prison, as his disciples recount all the things that Jesus is doing, all in line with his original calling, I can just imagine John thinking the one thing that is missing is the captives being set free. Then he is beheaded

• Paul: After preaching the gospel discovers that the razor gang has been following behind him corrupting all his work telling people they had to be circumcised.

• And Jesus famously cries “My God My God why have you forsaken me” I've heard many people downplay this as just a wink to Psalm 22, Jesus saying everything will be cool. I think it's left in Aramaic and not Hebrew or even Greek deliberately to show it is a very human cry for help. All the nightmares that he worried would happen as he prayed and sweated profusely in the Garden Of Gethsamne are coming true

Random crappy events and painful disappointment is the standard experience of our biblical heroes.

And if I'm honest with myself, my plan of a comfortable life in say Fremantle with a six figure income doing a job where I can be creative and independent and a family who unconditionally adored me. That kind of life probably would not have made me more like Christ. It would not have helped me identify with the poor, unemployed, divorced, disabled and all the people who Jesus identifies with. 

Now, you may wonder given this rather depressing sounding perspective on life what keeps me going? Simply this. The more I try to live and love as Jesus did the more I feel human. The more I try to be like Jesus (failing as I often do) the more I feel like this is who I am supposed to be. Despite prayers to the contrary God has not spared me from the storms of life instead he has taught me how to dance in the rain. God does not have a plan for my life which I can relax into and know it’s all under control. God is shaping me to become more like Christ and that does not exclude me from experiencing the painful, disappointing random events that everyone else does.

A few years ago Mother Teresa’s journals were published and it was revealed that she had doubts. To me that seemed completely unsurprising. As the levels of poverty around her, that she felt called to alleviate, would have seen insurmountable. I bet she had doubts when all the second hand shoes for her order arrived and I bet she had doubts while she we waited for everyone else to take shoes and she squeezed her feet in to the last ill-fitting remaining pair. But, I also bet as she put the ideal of last first and first last in her bones she felt like this is what it means to be like Jesus, to be fully human. I’m not the sort of person who can argue evidence that demands a verdict and convince you of the Christian faith that way. But I can tell you that there is something in my bones tells me this is what it means to be human and to live life abundantly.

The big thing I have learnt in my life is that God's plan for my life is simply to be more and more like Christ. To be like Christ means that like Moses, John and Paul to be faithful is often to follow God to a place where I too will be screaming "My God My God why have you forsaken me." Where things are random, painful and make no sense.

In my best moments I try not ask God please give me a child without autism, a better salary, a house in a suburb without a methamphetamine lab across the street and without a school with a bullying problem. Instead I try to pray “Lord fix my soul” make me more like Jesus “Lord fix my soul”.

Now, because Mike usually asks me “did you bring your guitar” we’re going to finish singing a song called “Lord fix my Soul” Would you be up for that? I love this song as it’s not a cry for God to fix everything else and make it more like my image of heaven but a confession that I am the one who needs fixing to become more like Christ. Ok, now this song comes with a warning. It’s very theologically correct. In Philippians 3:8 Paul describes the things we usually value as excrement. The message describes translates the word as “dog dung” but in the original Greek the word is the roughest colloquial term for poo? Can anyone guess what that might be?

(Then we sang this song together)


Now when you go home and your wife asks "what did you do" you can say someone told us God no plan for your life, sang a gospel song with lots of swearing and everyone was smiling by the end.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Why My Wife Should Submit To Me

It's on again. The Sydney Anglican Diocese has put "submission" in as an option for the wifely wedding vows. Battle lines are being drawn. And much of the debate I've heard seems to suggest you either believe the Bible and agree that wives should submit to husbands or you say it's culturally irrelevant and we can just forget about it.

Let's start with a pop quiz. When Jesus around was he...
A) The new Jewish King the people followed as he led them on a great victory over Caesar and the Roman Empire
B) A man who submitted himself to death on a cross to show his love for us (the church).

(if you're unsure of the answer check Philippians 2:8)

OK with that in the back of our mind of what Jesus was like let's look at Ephesians where all this submission shenanigans takes place. Ephesians 5:28 says wives submit to your husbands (or words to that affect depending on your translation). There is no getting around it. In Paul's time husbands weren't just  the head of wives they were the owners of their wives. They were their property, possibly akin to the way I might own a dog I own the dog I can be nice and loving to it but it's my property. Now given Paul had history of saying things like there is no female and male (Galatians 3:28). Paul slips in a great ironic twist he tells men, that they are to be the "head of their wife". He tells them go and be the head of the wife but, (and here's the punch) do it just like the way Christ is the head of the church. Of course, Christ as the head of the church submits himself to death on the cross for his church. It's like telling a singer "you're great a singing harmonies, like Posh Spice is great at singing harmonies" It's a complete inversion on the surface meaning. But, if you don't know who Posh Spice is you miss the joke and you could be fooled into thinking you've just received a compliment. Just in case someone has somehow missed the joke, Paul would probably assume Christians had some idea of what Christ was like, he prefaces the whole passage by saying "Submit to each other" (Ephesians 5:21).

So yes my wife should submit to me, but I should submit to her. We should be in a ever spiralling battle over who can love the other more. So I'd be more than happy for my wife to have said "submit" in her wedding vow but only if I said "submit" in mine.

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Ezra And Nehemiah – A Minority Report

Right now I feel like crap. The church I am hanging out with is looking at building a building and having a time of "hey lets pledge some money to a building". It's not as horrible as you might think, for a church that never passes an offertory plate the leaders up the front doing the asking always look far more awkward and uncomfortable than anyone in the congregation. Any way one of the things we're doing during this time is a study of Ezra and Nehemiah and whilst many people seem to be encouraged I feel like I am reading completely different books. Whilst sitting at home reading what it all might mean for us I found myself saying to the wall "but but but..." I started to write a response of sorts with some of my thoughts and below is what came out. To be honest it’s a mess. Some parts are too long, some parts to short and not referenced well. But, rather than polish it to proper essay standard I've chosen to publish it here in its very rough form.

How We Read The Old Testament:

Before reading Ezra and Nehemiah it’s important to look at how we read the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. As Christians We read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus and that colours what we read. For example, if we read that someone in the Old Testament made a sacrifice for sins we don’t necessarily go out and do that. Paul and the early church struggled over whether to let gentiles into Christianity and if they did should they be circumcised. Despite all that was written in the Old Testament and that Jesus said nothing about circumcision they decided there was no need for gentile Christians to ritually become Jewish first. When we read books like Ezra and Nehemiah we need to ask both, does this apply to us, as well as, how does this apply to us? It could be that the Christian response could be to do the exact opposite of what an Old Testament character did. This is really important for Christians to recognise as the Old Testament does not always have one consistent voice. For example 2 Kings 15 describes Uzziah as a good King but 2 Chronicles 26 describes him as a horrible King.

Some Background To Ezra and Nehemiah:
Historical:
Throughout Israel’s history the Jewish people have struggled with the various Empires that have dominated their region. Firstly with the Egyptian, then Babylonian, then Persian, then Greek, and finally Roman Empires. For a small tribal confederacy like the 12 Jewish tribes the wisest course of political action was to become a vassal (servant) state to the dominating Empire. Which meant paying tributes or taxes to the ruling Empire, being submissive to them rather than trying to stake out their own independence. This is expressly what God calls them not to do. They are called to live a very different life than those around them. Israel is told to have no King but God. On top of the Ark of the Covenant, where normally a King would seat, the people of God had an empty throne. Symbolising that they have no King, no King but God. When it came to worship, the surrounding cultures would do this in ornate temples. But, YHWH was happy to for God’s people to worship at a pile of stones. Specifically an unhewn (uncarved) pile of stones (Exodus 20). God could be met simply in nature itself. Accordingly, Moses meets God at a Burning Bush, Elijah meets God after a whirlwind, and Jesus goes out into the wilderness (rather than into the temple) before carrying out his mission. If this wasn’t hard enough in and of itself. God’s people are called to welcome the stranger and establish a Jubilee tradition that would ensure that no empire or ruling class could be established amongst themselves. No matter who had gained land and therefore the means of economic production and power, every 50 years it would all go back to square one again. 

This was a hard calling and time and time again the people of God would find themselves enmeshed with the ruling empire. During the reign of Babylonian Empire Jeremiah rallied against the ruling religious elite wearing a yoke to protest military alliances for purposes of national security (Jeremiah 27), or his purchase of land on the eve of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem to signal that hope lay not in futile resistance but in God’s power to preserve the people through exile (Jeremiah 32). In this way the prophet Jeremiah fulfilled his vocation “to pluck up and break down” kingdoms (Jeremiah 1:10). Jeremiah would go on to claim that Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians was YHWH’s punishment for the elite’s reliance on imperial politics rather than on YHWH alone.

Throughout the ages Empires have sort to co-opt the indigenous religious elite to support the imperial program. These were the most powerful political people and perhaps the only people who could retain their power whilst dropping political ideals this is what happens in Ezra and Nehemiah as it did with the Babylonian Empire and will happen with the Pharisees and Roman Empire.

At the time of Ezra and Nehemiah it was the Persian Empire dominated. Having defeated the Babylonian empire the Persians were the super power of the region but, they continued to face pressure from Egyptians from the south. Persia needed military outposts at strategic locations. Jerusalem was on the edge of the Persian Empire just above Egypt, an ideal place for a military outpost to shelter troops, goods and weapons in the event of a campaign against Egypt. A rebuilt Jerusalem with a fortified wall would serve purpose perfectly. This is why Persia wants Jerusalem restored and why at the hint of a possible resistance the reconstruction is stopped or later (in Esther) the Persians would consider wiping out the entire race at the insolence of just once person.

Ezra Nehemiah and the New Testament:

As mentioned previously how we respond to various passages in the Old Testament is shaped by and viewed through Jesus. With that in mind it is worth noting neither Ezra or Nehemiah are never quoted in the New Testament (2 of only Old Testament 5 books. Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon being the others). On the other hand Isaiah (chapters 56-66 written during the temple reconstruction) stands in stark contrast, as we will soon see, to Ezra Nehemiah and is the 2nd most quoted book in the New Testament after Psalms.

It is also worth noting is that the Roman Empire modelled there way of controlling other peoples on the Persian Empire and later we will contrast how Jesus related to the religious elite and the empire with how Ezra and Nehemiah act. Like Jeremiah was to the Babylonian Empire, Third Isaiah and Micah is to the Persian, we will see Jesus will be to the Roman Empire.

A selected overview of Ezra and Nehemiah

Christians are usually pretty good at highlighting different texts throughout a book of the Bible in order to espouse a particular theological point of view. So we could read parts of Ezra and Nehemiah focusing just on some parts and walk away with a story about how the people didn't have a temple and through faith in God they got one. On one level that's fine, but what is not fine is too assume that this is the only thing that is being said in the text or that no other ideas or competing ideas are also in the text. With that in mind below is a summary of four important things happening in Ezra and Nehemiah (which before the 3rd Century AD were treated as one book). This is a minority report if you like. During this Minority Report I will refer mostly to the Old Testament books Ruth Esther Micah and Third Isaiah as they were also written during the time of the Persian empire.

Filthy Lucre

In the first chapter of Ezra all the riches that Solomon had gained and put in the Temple start coming back to them. Firstly it’s important to remember that Solomon built the temple using slaves to do it (1 Kings 9:15). He’s was also arms dealing, trading horses and chariots (1 Kings 10:29) and he was amassing store houses of Gold. 666 talents to be exact. (1 Kings 10:14), 666 in the Bible it is usually not a good omen, and here is that gold coming back again. But it is not the Jewish people who have got this gold back. Persia has taken over all that Babylon had and now they are “giving back” all these riches. I cannot imagine that The Persian Empire is giving this newly acquires wealth over because they feel sorry for the Jewish people. As we will see in Ezra chapter four, as soon as there is even a hint or rumour that these people will not be completely compliant with the will of the Empire construction is immediately halted. And, in Esther (the sequel to Ezra and Nehemiah) the refusal to comply, by just one man, triggers an order of genocide for the entire race of people. No the Persian Empire is ruthless and want a military post where they can keep an eye on the Egyptians which is why they don’t want just a temple but a temple with a  fortified wall.

In Ezra Chapter 7 the Persian King Xercies describes himself as the "king of kings" and then later Nehemiah says may the King live for ever. Partly this is just towing the political line to get things done but they are also phrases that the Jewish people identified with God rather than some earthly King. The people are given a lot of money but it comes with conditions and compromise.

Throughout the ages Empires have sort to co-opt the indigenous religious elite to support their imperial programs. Ezra was the Persians’ man and they sent him back to Judah with royal silver and gold and imperial authority to rebuild the city in accordance with the Persian plan (Ezra 7.11-26).

Like the temple elites did with Babylon, despite Jeremiah's cries to do otherwise, they were doing again with the Persian Empire. They were getting cosy with the Empire. I can just imagine them thinking that it was the only way to “get things done”, to keep peace to keep order. Again the temple elites (Pharisees) would side with Roman Empire, if they didn't it is unlikely that they would have let them keep their temple. It is exactly these people that Jesus clashes with just like Jeremiah, Isaiah and Micah did. The Roman Empire like the Persian empire works through the religious elite, tolerates religious practices as long as they don’t infringe on the control of the Empire. The Pharisees will say we have “no king but Caesar” and like the religious elites in Nehemiah’s time they will become obsessed with cultic purity. More practical matters of justice like charging interest are not addressed in the initial reform as we will later see in Nehemiah 5.

Ethnic Cleansing

In the second chapter of Ezra, Ezra calls for an ethnic cleansing. It is as simple as that. Anyone who is a foreigner are kicked out. Anyone who does not have a pure lineage (had a foreigner somewhere amongst their ancestors) are kicked out. People without the correct documents proving their ancestries are kicked out. Refugees, widows and orphans are created. This is exactly the biblical triad of stranger/foreigner, widow and orphan that Jewish people are called on again and again to take care of. Those who refused faced forfeiture of all their property (Ezra 10.7-11). The Persian Empire found purer races easier to control. In chapter Ezra 9:1-2 the Persian leaders will complain that race not pure enough. Even people who had ancestors who had converted to worship YHWH long before they were born are excluded by order of the King (Ezra 4:3). The call from the Empire to ethnically cleanse happens again and again always by order of the King.

This is not unlike the Australian Aboriginal communities who do not have the same concept of half cast that westerners do, people are either in or not and on occasions an outsider can become part of the clan. But for the government it’s much easier to control Aboriginal once they are dived up into pure bred and not pure bred.

It is at this time in history that the story of Ruth is written down. At its heart Ruth is the story of a foreign woman who not only converted to Judaism, but would become part of the line of David and eventually Jesus. So in Ezra we have an ethnic cleansing that would have excluded King David and then Jesus. Jesus who would then go on to famously teach about the Good half-caste Jewish man (the Good Samaritan) the kind of person would of undoubtedly be excluded in Ezra’s ethnic cleansing program. But there are people who oppose. Amongst joyful shouts in Ezra chapter three there are a handful of people weeping, and in Ezra chapter ten Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed the decree.

It is also in this environment that Isaiah 56 is written.
 Thus says the LORD: Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. 2 Happy is the mortal who does this, the one who holds it fast, who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it, and refrains from doing any evil. 3 Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and do not let the eunuch say, "I am just a dry tree." 4 For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, 5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. 6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant-- 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered.
About this passage theologian Ched Myers writes “More than four centuries later, a young Jesus of Nazareth, preaching his first sermon, looked hard at his audience and proceeded to read from the heart of Third Isaiah’s oracle (Luke 4:18 parallels Isaiah 61:1). Jesus may have staked his entire ministry on a reappropriation of this prophetic tradition. He invokes it again at the culmination of his struggle with the public authorities in Jerusalem: In the midst of his dramatic “exorcism” of the temple, Jesus quotes directly from our text: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Luke 19:46 parallels Isaiah 56:7). It was this vision of radical inclusion that animated Jesus’ constant transgressions of the social boundaries of his day: eating with lepers, hanging out with women, touching the impure, teaching the excluded. More than anything else, it may have been what got him strung up.

Jesus most clearly addressed this issue in an oft-overlooked parable found in Mark’s gospel. “There is nothing which goes into you that can defile you; only that which comes out of you defiles you” (Mark 7:15). This teaching is another prophetic skirmish with the social function of the purity code. Mark’s Jesus is defending his disciples’ practice of sharing table fellowship with the “unclean” outsider (Mark 7:1-5) by insisting that “What goes into a person’s body from the outside cannot contaminate it” (7:18).” (Sojourners Magazine April 2006)

Ritual Triumphs Over Justice And Israel’s True Calling

In Ezra chapter three the sacrificial regime restored. This is in painful contrast to what has happened in the previous chapter. It clearly establishes that more important than looking after the foreigner, the widow or the orphan is ones ceremonial cleanliness. At this point Christians should be thinking “this is just like the Pharisees”. Caught up in the desire to see the temple rebuilt the religious elite have declared that what goes into your mouth is more important than what comes out. Fascinatingly for me we also have Older (and in ancient culture wiser) priests who know the history of the 1st temple weeping allowed as the temple is built. (Ezra 3:12-13). Later Jesus will cry “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matt 23:23) The overwhelming majority of people Jesus heals were those excluded from the temple, those who were ritually unclean. Those excluded in Ezra and Nehemiah.

It is in this environment that Micah is written. Chapter 6:6-12
6 "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" 8 He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? 9 The voice of the LORD cries to the city (it is sound wisdom to fear your name): Hear, O tribe and assembly of the city! 10 Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is accursed? 11 Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights? 12 Your wealthy are full of violence; your inhabitants speak lies, with tongues of deceit in their mouths.
Micah is clearly juxtaposing temple practice against acts of justice and that the Jewish people are giving away justice and mercy in order to obey the temple purity code.

In Ezra chapter 4 a subversive letter surfaces warning the King that if the Jewish people were to live to their calling of having no King but YHWH then “if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced” (Ezra 4:13) Instantly the King of Persia stops the building. This underlines that the only reason to build is that it satisfies the needs of Persian Empire and first and foremost the temple is to be an asset to be used for their domination of the region.

A Temple For The Elite Made By The Elite

Not all of the Jewish people were part of the rebuilding program. The rebuilding was done by the elites while the peasants stayed behind to till the soil in Palestine. People who returned to Jerusalem were primarily of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi (it was not the 12 tribes) the tribe of Israel is excluded in Ezra chapter 6. In Nehemiah Chapter three in the list of who repairs what we see Goldsmiths, Perfumers, Priest, Rulers and their daughters, are doing the rebuilding it is a temple being built for the elites by the elites. We also hear exploited workers cry out in Nehemiah chapter four.

One of the characteristics of Nehemiah is that he starts off life enmeshed with power. In the stories of Joseph, Daniel and Moses the characters have roles of leadership and power foisted upon them and it is obvious that this is something they are not comfortable with.

In chapter four of Nehemiah when the poor are brought in to work they are working on the wall all day standing guard all night. They are not able to tend to their crops, they have no income and therefore are not able to pay their taxes. So, in chapter five we see people having to pledge or sell their fields to pay the tax, and after that end up as slaves.

Nehemiah Chapter 5:1-5
Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish kin. For there were those who said, “With our sons and our daughters, we are many; we must get grain, so that we may eat and stay alive.” There were also those who said, “We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our houses in order to get grain during the famine.” And there were those who said, “We are having to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay the king’s tax. Now our flesh is the same as that of our kindred; our children are the same as their children; and yet we are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have been ravished; we are powerless, and our fields and vineyards now belong to others.
What is often reported as “Nehemiah’s great act of kindness” to halt the Kings tax, a tax the elites did not have to pay (Ezra 7.24), and stop charging interest on loans (taken out to pay taxes and something Nehemiah did himself 5:10 even though it was expressly forbidden under Jewish law) is more likely a tactical move to quash an impending rebellion.

Theologian Wes Howard Brooke writes “Nehemiah ordered his elite colleagues to stop charging interest on loans of money and grain. While this is sometimes interpreted as an expression of how politicians can be persuaded to “do the right thing,” it actually only served to reinforce Persia’s stranglehold on their new province of Yehud (the former Judah).4 Nehemiah’s own imperial function was to supervise the city wall-building project, a necessary component of Persia’s hope of making Jerusalem into an imperial military base (Nehemiah 2). His outrage against his elite comrades among the project’s general contractors (note that Nehemiah admits that he, too, has been charging interest, Nehemiah 5.10) is aimed not at restoring justice, but at preventing a rebellion among the poor that would bring the imperial project to a halt. This is underscored by even the deeply pro-Nehemiah text admitting that the governor said and did nothing to stop the enslavement of people and the rape of women. He provides only what relief was necessary to keep the imperial machinery moving, much like raising minimum wages or the provision of food stamps does today to provide an escape valve to dampen the outrage of the poor and working class.” (http://www.jesusradicals.com/resisting-the-religious-elite%E2%80%99s-collaboration-with-empire-part-i-jerusalem-under-the-persians/)

Of course later on Jesus goes on to clash with both the temple authorities (behaving much like the religious elite in Nehemiah) but with the temple itself. Telling the woman at the well (a half caste) that one day everyone will not worship at the temple and describing his own body as the temple.

Conclusion

Now two and a half thousand years later the question is should a Christian church, like Ezra and Nehemiah, build a building? Maybe, maybe not. Ezra, Nehemiah, Micah, Isaiah, Esther, Ruth and then of course the Gospels warn us that we can become so obsessed with what a building could mean that we might lose focus on what is really important, what our true calling is.

Ezra and Nehemiah teaches us that it is easy to get caught up in a building program and tainted money should not be used no matter how much good we think can be made from that. In Mark chapter 10 a rich young ruler approaches Jesus. He is someone with power and influence and capital. Someone who can get things done. Someone who could turn Jesus’s rag tag bunch of wilderness wanderers into a serious movement. But, Jesus knows that the rich young ruler has got this money by defrauding others and he won’t have a bar of it. The money has to all be given back to the poor. 

Part of our calling in the rich west is a call to love the poor, the widowed, the orphan and the refugee. To love the 98% of the world who don’t have things as good as we do. Our own wealth has far more to do with our place of birth than how hard we have worked. We are born into a system where our trade system defrauds others. An hour of labour from someone in the third world is worth a mere fraction of our own. With everything we individually and collectively spend our money on there is an opportunity cost, there is something else the money could have gone to. To give money to a project that will benefit those in the tiny minority who are better off than is something I cannot do. Not until the cost of building is less than the cost of renting now or in the foreseeable future and when there is no other conceivable way of being church together.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Why Australia Needs More "Queue Jumping" Refugees

In Australia the stereotype for the worst kind of unemployed person is something like this... They sit around sometimes for years, sometimes for generations waiting to hear from someone agency offering them a job. They just fill out all the necessary paper work but apart from that they just sit and wait for a job to turn up no matter how unlikely that might be. They don't think outside the box, they have no entrepreneurial spirit, they don't even think of another way of getting a job, they just trust the system alone.

By contrast...

In Australia the stereotype for the best kind of refugee is something like this... They sit around sometimes for years, sometimes for generations waiting to hear from someone agency offering them a place in Australia. They just fill out all the necessary paper work but apart from that they just sit and wait for a place to turn up no matter how unlikely that might be. They don't think outside the box, they have no entrepreneurial spirit, they don't even think of another way of getting a place, they just trust the system alone.

If you had to choose between refugees who are labelled "queue jumpers" or  those who have waited for a place to come up, it strikes me that maybe we could do with a few more "queue jumpers".

Monday, August 27, 2012

Middle Class Christian Economics Applied To Middle Class Sexual Morality

Jesus said some pretty hard things about sexual ethics (If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. Matt 5:29) and some pretty hard things about money (go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor. Mark 10:21)

When it comes to putting these into practice Xns, particularly those of us in the evangelical west, are often hard on the sexual ethics but pretty lax or money.

I was just wondering what if we applied some of the attitudes we have about money to sex?

Scenario 1.
Version 1.
Your husband goes to the shop and purchases some choclate, you usually buy fair trade, but this time regular choclate is half price so he buys that instead. You think it'd be nice if he'd bought fair trade but the budget is tight and you can't afford to not save money where ever you can. You eat the choclate together.

Version 2
Your husband goes to the DVD store to hire a movie, you ussually hire a nice hollywood movie, but this time all of the movies in the pornographic section are half price so he hires one of them instead. So, will you be thinking "it'd be nice if he'd hired a hollywood blockbuster but the budget is tight and we can't afford to not save money where ever you can"?

Scenario 2
Version 1.
Your wife admits to some friends that she has a good income and talks about giving money to people in need but just ends up spending it all on shoes, clothes, and eating out. Her friends console her, assure her that she needs to look after her needs and what is really important is her attitude to money not so much what she actually does with it.

Version 2.
Your wife admits to some friends that she has a good husband and talks about being faithful but constantly ends up cheating on him with other people. Her friends consol her assure her that she needs to look after her needs (these other men are obviously giving her something her husand can't) and what is really important is her attitude to marriage not so much how she lives it out.

"Yer but it's different"... Yes and no. The main difference is we can see how the sexual ethics can hurt someone but the money stuff is not so clear. Right now there are more slaves around the world than ever before. A couple of hundered years ago we might have had slaves making our dinner and washing our clothes now they live in another country picking our coffee, coco and making our clothes and gadgets. Responding to this is hard but surely no harder than to give up slaves when no one else around you does.