Saturday, December 27, 2008

Locating Our Language - Economics (Part One)

Earlier the question was whether the faithful have lost our language. I'm not sure I am at the point of being able to suggest an answer, because a preliminary question to be asked is what language do we speak.  If we listen, I think we will hear a lot of economic speak. That is economic metaphors are sprinkled throughout our daily use of language.  So the questions I was asking: do we really speak that way? Why do we speak that way?  And of course, so what if we do speak that way.

I was reading a great little book by Donald Miller called Blue Like Jazz.  He recalls attending a social at Westmont College in Santa Barbara CA (by the way, this is a great college from which my oldest daughter will graduate this Spring).  Miller recounts the lecture, Greatest Hits volume at 224, "Mr. Spencer (the professor giving the lecture) asked us to consider relationships. What metaphors do we use when we think of relationships?  We value people, I shouted out.  Yes, he said and wrote it on his little white board.  We invest in people, another person added.  And soon enough we had listed an entire white board of economic metaphor.  Relationships could be bankrupt, we said. People are priceless, we said.  All economic metaphor."

Okay I thought maybe that was Don Miller being a little quirky and subversive - two descriptions I'm sure he readily accept.  Then I was listening to a local Christian radio station and heard an interview of an author named David Nour, who had just published his book called Relationship Economics. Wow, the echo with Don Miller was now deafening.  In his preface, a IX, Nour claims "the practical notion of relationship economics isn't about networking. It's about learning how to invest in people for an extraordinary return.  It's about exchanging relationship currency, accumulating reputation capital, and building professional net worth.  It's about learning the art and science of transforming your most valuable relationships into execution, performance and results."

Nour comes right out and uses what I presume he believes underlies this theory - that economic metaphors are embedded in our everyday speak so thoroughly that he can develop an entire system for manipulation of a very non-economic aspect of our lives, our relationships, using economic language and it would be readily understood by readers.  What I found shocking was that Nour argues his system applies across the board - both our personal and our professionahip relationships, in the preface at X.

So I guess Don Miller wasn't being all that quirky and subversive but rather pretty observant. So the question now turns to why we speak in economic metaphors.  That's next.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all.

John 1:14 - The Word became flesh and moved into our neighborhood.  He came not only to atone for the sins of humanity, as awesome as that was and is, but also to teach us, guide us and show us that narrow path and He gave us a new commandment - love one another as He has loved us.  Let that be a truth, a fact, that fills each of us today and each day we are given on this side.

God's Blessings

Friday, December 19, 2008

A Rabbit Trail - Violence in the Old Testament

Have you been somewhat concerned with the seemingly excessive violence in the Old Testament narratives on the conquest of Canaan? That was a question raised in a recent discussion at Church. As I understand the situation, the standard Evangelical response is that God exercised His sovereign will and executed judgment on an evil people. We moderns then have an objection to the killing of the children. To the objection, the standard Evangelical response has been to refer to the age of accountability doctrine. This response, in my humble opinion, has a sense of incompleteness and intuitively is unsatisfactory. We can, of course, acknowledge God is sovereign and not accountable to His creation, but leaving the response to these points renders Evangelicals open to the secular charge that God is arbitrary and self-contradictory (love and holy war in the same breath). On the one hand Evangelicals can simply ignore the charge as those making the claim are without faith and therefore without understanding. Yet there remains a lingering sense of dissatisfaction as the charge has a rationality about it that must be addressed. Obviously, without response efforts at evangelism become severely undermined.

John Howard Yoder offers a view that appears compelling (his essay "If Abraham is Our Father" in his The Original Revolution) but again that sense of dissatisfaction lingers. Yoder suggests the point of killing or not killing isn't the issue to be taken away from the text, and should not therefore be a focus. Rather as the narrative is part of the grand sweep of God's formation of a people - that is a people who have a deep and abiding trust in God for their survival. I gather this may mean that God took the Hebrews as they were (now isn't that a standard lesson in much of Evangelicalism?), began a process of formation that was ultimately culminating in the fulness of time by Jesus of Nazareth. Within the Hebrew culture, it was either war or slavery (recall of course the Egyptian narrative). The key command was the Hebrew word herem - devoted wholly to Yahweh - the violence of war was inevitable in that culture and for that time, but war now becomes a ritual event, a sacrifice to God if you will, attesting to the power of God and in accordance with His promise to Abraham. So God takes the people as they were then and there and uses the mundate but quite concrete to form them in His direction.

Of course, that charge by those without faith remains as the claim may be extended by the argument that God, in his sovereignty and power could have delivered up Canaan to the Hebrews without wholesale slaughter of the enemies of the Hebrews. There is an underlying truth to that claim as it appears to have been closer to the truth, if the findings of Gordon von Rad are accepted - the conquest was in fact gradual and that large pockets of aliens remained within the Israelite community. And if we read Joshua and Judges closely a gradual, and non-violent, conquest appears most likely. Now this leaves open the question of the veracity of Joshua, however, going back to Yoder - that the focus of these narratives were formation of a people and presenting the message to the people that faithfulness to God results in deliverance - the fact that there seems to be a divergence in the historical record is not of critical concern. That is, the focus of Scripture is not necessarily a historically accurate recitation rather it is the story of God's interaction with His creation as told from the perspective of that creation. I understand this as the various references to God in human form or having human characteristics, but the truth is of course God is not human but spirit. So that tells me the authors sought to relate the story in a manner that was understandable to them and therefore forming story/pictures in the minds of the hearers/readers for their understanding.

I have a sense that the Word, while inspired, was written by men caught within the forces of their particular times and particular culture. So the command of herem may very well have been understood by them, at that time, as including the command to kill all people, livestock, etc., as the only sensible option available to them. But that specific command did not necessarily have to exist for herem to be made. Now this raises a spector of the validity of the text and its inspired status. If we read the Word as a narrative, a bunch of wiki stories if you will, told by people acting under the guidance of the Spirit of God the fact the authors may not have communicated the story clearly is not necessarily destructive of the truthfulness of the text. After all, the Sermon on the Mount goes a long way toward the notion that the commands of God were not understood completely or practiced appropriately by earlier generations. As well Scripture is replete with references to treatment to be given to the aliens among the Hebrews. Thus we may ask how is is possible that the command of herem must have meant wholesale slaughter. I have been told, though I haven't verified it in full as of yet, that there is no express command by God for wholesale slaughter. In reading the Jericho narrative, we see in the vision of Joshua, chapter 5, that no such command was given in the rather precise steps to be taken for Jericho to fall into the hands of the Hebrews. I do see the command made by Joshua to the people after the walls had fallen though readings in Exodus and Deuteronomy are somewhat more problematic on this issue. But once again, it is a matter of how we read the words. The terms death and destruction do not have to result in physical killing. Back to Genesis, the fact that Adam and Eve would die by eating the fruit isn't simply or merely a statement that they would physically die, rather, its key reference is the spiritual death of separation from God.

So is a conclusion possible that God took the Hebrews and progressively formed them - bumps and warts and all that was included in humans - and brought them along a path, filled with a significant number of detours, grumblings and poor judgments by those peoples? Isn't that a truth that remains valid today?

Have We Lost Our Language?

A question to be asked concerns whether we, the chosen people and royal priesthood, 1 Peter 1:9, NRSV, have forgotten our language and therefore our identities. William Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination at 84, argues Christians have ceded their ability to speak their distinctive language when entering the public arena. Stanley Hauerwas, in a great essay called "A Story-Formed Community: Reflections on Watership Down" in Community of Character, devotes a fuller treatment of the devastating damage done when one's language is lost both as to foundational traditions and community structure.


Scripture seems abundantly clear as to what the Lord demands from humanity. The Old Testament prophet Micah pronounced the demands of God: "The Lord God has told us what is right and what he demands: see that justice is done, let mercy be your first concern, and humbly obey your God." Micah, 6:8, CEV.


This inquiry will seek to locate Micah's words for today, the 21st Century, and ask anew, as did God in that trial, "O my people, what have I done to you? In what way have I wearied you? Answer me!" Micah, 6:3, NRSV. The response is surprisingly similar to that given by the Israelites in that trial when they protested their faithful adherence to the law in offering sacrifices for their sins. For we who believe, and by nature of this project and this writer's location focus will be limited to American Christianity, may likely respond but Lord we have confessed your name, we faithfully attend worship services, say our prayers, at least before our meals, and do good works, or least provide support for a variety of social justice projects.


Philip Yancey, in What's So Amazing About Grace at 15, recounts a conversation with Gordon MacDonald, pastor and former spiritual advisor to President Bill Clinton, wherein MacDonald observed: "The world can do almost anything as well as or better than the church. You need not be a Christian to build houses, feed the poor or heal the sick. There is only thing the world cannot do. It cannot offer grace."


Thus, if in fact the church and the world have merged identifies, and now speak the same language, then a most serious concern exists as to the state of the faith today and for the future. This inquiry will therefore investigate whether indeed church and world are indistinguishable, and whether our languages have conflated. One intuitive conclusion is that the social and cultural structures of the United States, in essence the language we use to define ourselves, militates against the faithful embodiment of biblical Christianity.


Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Imago Dei

Previously in this blog I suggested that Adam, being made in the image of God, reflected, albeit only in a shadowy sense, the creative power of God.  When we speak of the Imago Dei, too often it deals with concerns such as mental acuity – ability to reason – or dominance (what a terrible word in a sense as  to dominate something seems to have such negative connotations).  I would like to focus more on the issue of creative or formative authority.  We have seen that God gave Adam the authority to name the animals.  Throughout the Old Testament we see that names are often reflective of the person – again looking at Genesis and the names for the sons of Jacob.  Recall, Merton’s observations in the prior post – how there is something of the divine in the naming so there is a reflection of the essence through the name.  As well, this idea of names as reflective of essence carries through to the New Testament – the names of John the Baptizer (Luke 1:13) and of course, the names for Jesus (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:31 as well as the Isaiah 7:14 verse)

If we understand Jesus as the second Adam, may we also assume that Adam was a reflection of God in the same sense (1 Cor 15:45 and Romans 4:14), although clearly to a different degree, as Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father?  We see Jesus as exercising authority through the spoken word – witness the numerous episodes where the evil spirits are commanded to leave a person.  As well Jesus gave Peter his name – the Rock (John 1:42 and Matt 16:18).  Recall, in addition to naming the animals, Adam gave Eve her name (Gen 2:23).

The key point to be taken away from this is the power of language – not simply for communication, as important a function as that may be , rather the power of formation and shaping thinking and thereby directly impacting action.  We see this on a concrete though mundane level by watching parents with their young child.  Presumably, though unfortunately not always, parents admonish, guide, etc. their child for the purposes not only for the immediate situation but for development of thinking skills.  If the Father acts through formative speech, is it not a truth that in the creation of humanity such formative speech authority was likewise given?  Eugene Peterson notes, “Jesus also used language to teach.  Unlike the teaching we are accustomed to in our schools, lectures designed to do our thinking for us, Jesus’ teaching sparkled with scintillating aphorisms.  He wasn’t so much handing out information as reshaping our imaginations….”  Tell It Slant at 12.  The narrative comes full circle does it not?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Adam's Naming to Babel

A thought - is it possible that Adam, being made in the image of God, reflects some of the creative power of God? If the idea argued for in the previous post has any merit, then God by allowing Adam to name the animals evidences that Adam has a shadow of the creative power of God - recall He spoke and it came to be in the earlier Genesis passages. Again referencing Merton, who suggests the words chosen by Adam for the animals were drawn from his soul by God. Adam's utterances were in essence tying the physical reality with the spiritual source for that particular physical reality.

As well, the Babel story fits into this idea. Recall, the people wanted to make a "name" for themselves. (Gen 11:1-9). Again this strikes me as going back to the question of the power of language to be formative. The people wanted to create themselves as free from the strictures of God while acknowledging a necessary relationship to God. By confusing their language God limits that creative power instilled in humanity. He cannot change the fundamental nature of humanity that He had already created, but rather make it difficult by frustrating the then current ability to use the language to form consensus and seek that which is beyond them. Unfortunately a lesson that has not yet been fully understood.

Language of Relationships

For some of us growing up maybe with the color of our skin somewhat different than those around us or our eyes had a shape that slanted more than most, we were taught a silly little ditty - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. But those of us on the receiving end of those words knew better, that the little incantation against the pain was really meaningless. Words could and did sting and worse than those sticks and stones, the sting from words did not fade away into a yellowish bruise but sometimes could last days and weeks at a time.

That words, and more broadly language, are powerful, if not defining, should not be underestimated - particularly for those who profess Christ as Lord. On one level, as noted by missiologist Lesslie Newbigin, to learn about a culture, first learn its language. For believers much of the beginning of the book of Genesis should be sufficient to dispel any notion that words are indeed formative. As God created, He did not simply will into being Heaven and earth, he did not merely wave His mighty hand to separate the land from the water or create the Sun and the Moon. The text informs us God spoke. "Then God said, “Let there be light;” and there was light.” (Gen 1:3), “And God said, Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters… And it was so.” (Gen 1:6) and so on for each of the six days of creation. A key verse reads “And God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness… So God created humankind in his image.” (Gen 1:26-27). This verse informs us that we likewise have the power of formation through our use of language, but those thoughts are for another day.

That wonderful Trappist monk, Thomas Merton, continues this theme of Genesis. Beginning with verse 18 in Chapter 2, in the second creation account, God has formed the animals and brings them to Adam to name them. In this account, no other human had yet been created. Merton notes, “Adam had named the animals before he had anyone to talk to. This suggests that words are considered, by the authors of Genesis, to have a function other than that of simple communication – and it would seem this other function is primary.” The New Man at 88. As an evangelical, we often consider these verses to be a signal statement of human dominance over the animal life on the earth, however, as Merton suggests, this is not entirely accurate. The words of Adam identify and complete that which was spoken into existence. More on this soon.

The Babel story, to follow, completes the idea.

Coming to Grips with what Relationship Means

A.W. Tozer observed a while ago: "Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshippers meeting together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become "unity" conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship. Social religion is perfected when private religion is purified." The Pursuit of God at 84. So this idea isn't original from me of course. Note the emphasis on relationship there.

Grace and Relationships

Is it possible the evangelical idea of substitutionary atonement has been truncated by Western Christianity? Now I am not necessarily arguing that Eastern Orthodoxy has it right, or that any particular denomination has it right, rather, that urging the view that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins which therefore entitles us to entrance in to Heaven at some point in the future radically undervalues and limits the meaning of that Cross. One of the more powerful verses in Scripture may be found in the little book Micah, at 6:8. The LORD God has told us what is right and what he demands: "See that justice is done, let mercy be your first concern, and humbly obey your God." This is from the CEV. It translates a powerful Hebrew word “hesed” as mercy. Many start with the term “lovingkindness” which is very difficult to put into contemporary English. But unlocking this term, its use throughout the Old Testament, and thereby unpacking Micah’s utterance may shed some light on the forthcoming event of the Cross

Hopefully I, and we, will be working out way through this in the days to come.

God’s Blessings to you.