A Ship Called Dignity

In what ways might we be able to protect the dignity of the poor and stand with the oppressed in their struggle to be free of what oppresses them? Who, do you think, are some of the ‘prophets’ of today? Explain why you see them as prophets.

We can protect the dignity of the poor by encouraging generosity to the poor through appropriate channels. Perpetuating a handout culture does not empower the poor, but creating meaningful work can. In Cape Town, projects like Men at the Side of the Road and The Carpenter’s Yard are geared towards finding manageable jobs for relatively unskilled poor.

In order to effectively protect the dignity of the poor, and stand with the oppressed in their struggle to be free of what oppresses them, we need to engage in social analysis: exactly who are the poor and oppressed, why do they find themselves in the situation they’re in, are there systems that perpetuate the problems that keep these people locked into poverty and oppression? And what can be done about all of this? And once we’ve done that, then we would have to actively lobby government and whoever is in authority in the various systems that are involved.

Some of the prophets of today are those who are involved in advocacy and lobbying, and empowering the poor and oppressed by giving voice to their concerns. There are a great many of these organisations, and they do important work. The Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office (CPLO) and Catholic Welfare and Development (CWD) are at the forefront of this work in Cape Town. There is also the Justice and Peace Commission, Rape Crisis, the Gender Advocacy Programme, the Cape Town Refugee Centre, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA).

Internationally there are countless organisations. Some of these are:

CARE tackles underlying causes of poverty so that people can become self-sufficient. Recognizing that women and children suffer disproportionately from poverty, CARE places special emphasis on working with women to create permanent social change. Women are at the heart of CARE's community-based efforts to improve basic education, prevent the spread of HIV, increase access to clean water and sanitation, expand economic opportunity and protect natural resources. CARE also delivers emergency aid to survivors of war and natural disasters, and helps people rebuild their lives.

Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world. By requiring companies to pay sustainable prices (which must never fall lower than the market price), Fairtrade addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers.

The Child Rights Information Network envisions a world in which every child enjoys all of the human rights promised by the United Nations, regional organisations, and national governments alike. Guided by their passion for social and legal change, CRIN is building a global network for children's rights. They press for rights, not charity, and advocate for a genuine systemic shift in how governments and societies view children.

Preda is a Philippine human rights and social development organization working to help the most vulnerable people in society to overcome injustice and poverty. Their aim is to win freedom and a new life for children in jails, in brothels, in hunger, on the street, abandoned youth and those mired in poverty. Helping abused women, indigenous people, protecting the environment and alleviating poverty through micro-credit and fair trade initiatives.

Having listed all of these, and realising how much hard work is being done by so many good people, and being aware that I am only one small voice amongst many, I am given to thinking that there are still gaps that need to be filled. In parallel to the biblical laws pertaining to agriculture that were implemented to protect the poor, I wonder if South Africa (or any other country) has laws that govern the redistribution of excess produce to the poor? I’ve heard of many instances where excess produce is dumped in the sea to keep the markets from becoming flooded and prices from dropping. This is supposedly to protect the farmers and the economy. But surely those thousands of oranges or whatever could be given to people who have no food and no means of buying food, and who would consequently not have any impact on the market because it’s irrelevant to them? I think that companies who disregard the needs of the poor and dump excess produce should be severely fined, because what they are doing is even worse than colluding to fix the price of bread.

I see the people who drive the advocacy and lobbying organisations I’ve mentioned as prophets because they play the role of calling society to act justly, the way the Biblical prophets did in ancient times. While many of these organisations are not strictly faith-based, I agree with the idea that people don’t necessarily have to claim that they know God or express belief in God before God can use them to do good work. These people ask society to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do: if morality was the sole preserve of people of faith, the world would be worse off than it is.

In my personal view, if a person responds to an inner impulse to be merciful and just, then they are responding to God’s call, whether they realise it or not, and whether they are able to articulate their instinct as faith in a supreme being or not. So many people have had bad experiences of religion, where they have been oppressed by religious people who have used the fear of God to subject others to their own will. People who have endured this kind of injustice will vociferously reject anything that carries the name of religion, but the ethics and moral values that are valid in true religion still speak to them, and they will uphold these values at great personal cost. For me, these people are far godlier than people who claim to be Christian and go to church on Sundays but otherwise live in ways that dishonour God’s name.

Maybe I should start advocating in religious circles for the dignity of people who reject religion! Richard Dawkins makes some very good points about the evils of religion as a tool of oppression.

Interpreting Historical Events

Recall the way in which ancient Israel interpreted historical events. Now reflect on any events in your own life, or in the world today, that are or could be interpreted in a similar way. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of this kind of interpretation? What are some of the implications?

Ancient Israel saw God as good and just. When evil befell Israel it was because YHWH was angry with them; but when they triumphed over their enemies it showed that YHWH was pleased with them. If they escaped defeat, they attributed this to YHWH’s help. He was the God of their history, directing political events to redeem his captive people. If they were obedient to the covenant laws, YHWH rewarded them; if they were disobedient, YHWH punished them. If a punishment was over then the people were forgiven and granted freedom. YHWH’s agents didn’t need to know him, he could still use them as instruments of change, restoring the Israelite community and rebuilding the temple. Victory was always attributed to YHWH.

This kind of interpretation was immediately applied by some fundamentalist Christians to the 7.0 magnitude earthquake on 12 January 2010 in Haiti, and the multiple aftershocks exceeding 4.5 that happened thereafter, until 24 January 2010. It was estimated that 230,000 people had died, 300,000 had been injured, 1,000,000 made homeless, 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings had collapsed or were seriously damaged. Evangelical pastor Pat Robertson’s best estimation was that all of this was surely the result of the Haitian people making a pact with the devil when they were trying to get themselves out from under French oppression in the 1800s. Pat Robertson was also the one who said that Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 was God’s punishment on America for legalizing abortion: he appealed to the Old Testament to support his hypothesis (Lv 18:28).

The strengths of interpreting historical events in terms of obedience equals blessing and disobedience equals punishment are that:

• it supports an image of a God who is omnipotent and always in control, and the world is consequently a secure place to live;
• God is always given the glory for success and achievements;
• fear of punishment can be a very effective motivator in achieving obedience; and
• it acknowledges that God can work in and through all people, regardless of whether they know him.

The weaknesses of interpreting historical events in these terms are that:

• it promotes the notion that all suffering is the fault of the individual: if they are suffering it is because they are being punished for their own disobedience; and
• it perpetuates an image of a mercilessly just God.

Some of the implications of adhering to this principle are that religion and society can too easily become the judges of people’s relationship to God: it is very easy to interpret the circumstances of a person’s life as an indicator of how obedient or disobedient they have been to the will of God. It also relieves believers of the duty of compassion: if someone is suffering as a result of what can only be their own wilful disobedience, then I have no business interfering with “God’s punishment of them”. If I am supportive and kind towards someone who is “being chastised by God”, and if I express sympathy with their plight and regret for their suffering, or if I try to give them any kind of material help, then I align myself with their “sinfulness” and make myself God’s judge. My attempts at corporal and spiritual works of mercy in this instance would actually be the ultimate blasphemy.

From my personal experience, I can say that I am not partial to this way of interpreting events. There was a time in my life when I seemed to have it all, but I was not living a relationship with God. And once my relationship with God came alive and I started doing what I believed God was asking me to do, I suffered some really difficult consequences! I was “retrenched” from a job that paid very well and gave me social status – because I had the temerity to stand up to some very powerful people who were quite corrupt and argue for what I believed was good and right, and I refused to collude and find creative ways of taking advantage of my staff and suppliers alike, in the name of giving our client bang for his buck.

And just when I was trying to figure out how God would let me take this kind of fall when all I was doing was being obedient to what I believed was his will, there were people around me who were very quick to interpret my come-uppance (ironic terminology!) as a sign that I must have done something seriously wrong to deserve my punishment: why else would God take my grand job in advertising away from me?

Total Myth

Write a letter to a friend who is disturbed because he/she heard someone claim that there are mythical elements in the Old Testament. Reassure your friend by explaining what is meant by myth, how they come to be there, and how to interpret them. Include a couple of examples.

Yo yo yo, Miss Britney Simone Linder, xxx

I heard you were freaked out by what Mr Hattingh said in RE, about there being mythical elements in the Old Testament, and that it didn’t actually take God seven days to create the world. Don’t panic, and don’t tell your mom it’s time to leave this too-weird Catholic school, ok?! Well, not just yet, anyway, first lemme try to clarify!

I know you go to the Assemblies of God – and I know that your church teaches that it’s important to be a Bible believer and that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. completely right and true). Well, in a way I fully agree that it’s hugely important to believe the Bible, because it IS completely right and true… HOWEVER: the way I see it, the challenge is in how one interprets the Bible, and the amount of focus and importance we attach to literal meaning when we read the Bible. Does a thing have to be literally true to the letter in order to be true, or can a thing still be true even though it uses metaphor and other figures of speech to explain itself?

A kind of imaginative story that uses symbols to speak about reality beyond people’s general understanding is called a myth. Yes, I know, we usually say something is a myth if we mean that thing is totally untrue or just plain rubbish. But when we’re working with scripture it’s important that we are clear about the words we use and what they mean in their context. So for us, a myth is a colourful and creative way of explaining something that is actually true. Strange but true, I tell you!

So whose idea was it to include myths in the Bible anyway? Well, myths got there because the Biblical writers were trying to find ways to explain and explore the profound nature and reality of God’s relationship with human beings. Have you ever just been at a loss for words when you’re trying to explain something about yourself and your Mom and your sister and how you guys fit together and love each other enormously even though you constantly bicker and fight over shoes and who does or doesn’t get to sit in the front passenger seat of the car? (And no, we’re not going to digress and get onto the topic of that brick someone hurled through the windscreen that time your mom and your sister were in the car taking a back-road detour, and we’re definitely not going to talk about your sister’s scar… but yowzer, your sister is my hero! Your family sure does churn its women out strong; you guys are all survivors of note!!) Anyway, after that non-diversion… getting right back to the subject at hand: at a loss for words? Yup, well so were the Biblical writers at a bit of a loss for words when they wanted to write about God! And at the time they were writing, in the ancient Near East, myths were a form of storytelling that people understood and could relate to – so the Biblical writers borrowed this recognisable way of communicating deep truths and applied it to the stories they were writing to try and communicate deep truths about God. And because these stories do indeed communicate profound truth, they were included in the Bible when believers sat down to decide what counted as part of the Bible and what should be left out. So a lot of thought has gone into the truth that is contained in scripture, and you can be sure that if it’s in scripture, then it has most definitely been accepted as true.

(It’s a part of the canon: so can I get a BOOM! BOOM!?? … Ok, that was a lame sound effect joke­pun, I know! Forgive me! I should be working the Saturday Surgery with Roger Goode on 5FM! Yeah baby!! Hey, did I tell you that I used to work with Roger before he was a DJ? Seriously, I kid you not: 2001, but it was not a Space Odyssey. I was a new media producer at a company called Tinderbox Interactive and he was my studio runner. I used to give him all kinds of jobs to do for me, sourcing sound effects and doing voice clips. I also gave him a lift to work when he still lived with his uncle. The thing I liked most about Roger is that even though he wasn’t at all religious, he was sincerely interested in hearing about why I had Hillsongs Simply Worship tapes in my car. He’s the kind of guy who grovels through your glove box looking for clues about what you listen to, because he says a person’s choice in music tells you a lot about who they really are. He was right: nobody else at work knew I was a Christian because I kept that bit of information very quiet back then; I was only just beginning to explore my faith and I was in no way ready to defend my allegiance to a belief system that many of my colleagues considered to be narrow-minded, rigid and judgemental.)

Right. Ok. So now this letter is turning into an epic! But that’s just because I am such a legend.

This brings me to my next point:

The seven-day creation story is a myth. That doesn’t mean God didn’t create the world, it means that the way the story has been told is for the express purpose of teaching us something about God! We don’t know for sure how the world came into being or exactly how long it took. I like to think that faith and science are not mutually exclusive: if scientists are discovering that the world works or evolved differently from what we understood previously, this new information doesn’t negate everything we believe about God; just the opposite, it usually magnifies God’s glory and shows us how awesome God’s creation really is, and makes us realise how little we know about the universe! But as far as the creation story in the Bible is concerned, the narrative is not unlike ancient Near Eastern tradition and echoes elements of the Enuma Elish. The main difference between the ancient writing and the way the Genesis account is written, is that the Bible story shows us that there is one God who is good and loving, who created all things (including human beings – in the image of said loving God), and that all of creation is good, because God made it with goodness and good intentions. I think it’s quite cool that the six working days are divided up into three days of separation (light/dark, water above/below, water/dry land… all very holistically yin-yang) and three days of population or integration (the universe, birds and fish, animals and people… again very holistic in that it leaves nothing out and shows that human beings are as much a part of creation as all other living things are). The seventh day rest or Sabbath holds it all together: everything belongs to and in the loving God who created it, and this amazing reality deserves to be observed and celebrated. Plus it’s a great basis for a day of rest once a week! Can you imagine school for five days running, then a sports day and then back to school again for another five days?! Hayibo!

The story about the flood and Noah’s ark is a myth. Again, this doesn’t mean it’s just a fat lie; the story has been included to express something about God. In this case, I’m not entirely sure what the flood was supposed to teach us… but I will get back to you on this one in a couple of weeks! It’s coming up soon in my Bible correspondence course.

The story about Moses parting the Red Sea is a myth. Or is it? I was reading in this morning’s Cape Times about a study that shows it’s quite possible that the wind could have parted the waters. Some of the anti-religion lobby are crowing that this study is proof that Moses didn’t do it, the wind did it, and therefore the Bible is a lie and God is irrelevant. From my reading of the story, the wind was very definitely involved when Moses parted the sea, so depending on how you read it, this just confirms the Exodus 14 account, instead of the other way around. Anyway, the study explains some interesting fluid dynamics, regardless of whether the Exodus story is myth or hard fact. Read this online: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012481

You’d think the awesome image of Charlton Heston as Moses in Cecil B DeMille’s epic 1956 film The Ten Commandments would have been more than enough to sway the most cynical sceptics and would have wiped out the need for any studies… the way the water wiped out the Egyptians!!

Anyway, proving something possible is not the same thing as proving something true. It’s just proven to be … possible. I think that whatever science discovers, all of the myths are there to invite us to consider the possibilities, and to believe in a God for whom all things are possible, and to remain hopeful that love abides through all things and will always win out in the end.

And that’s where I’m going to end this letter: leaving you to ponder all of this in your heart.

xoxoxo

Introduction to the Old Testament

Describe anything in Study Unit 1 that has surprised or challenged you. What relevance does the material in the Unit have for your understanding of the Old Testament? Do you know of any situations where an appeal to the Biblical text has led to an unjust situation?

It has been good to learn about the parallels in the Bible and the Ugaritic texts, and about the way in which Hebrew theologians adopted titles of Canaanite gods to better name and describe YHWH. It is fascinating to think that El Shaddai was originally a deity worshipped at Ugarit: that name for God has always struck me as beautifully mysterious, yet somehow wrong. When I first heard that name sung in a Christian church by a lone reedy voice, I was somewhat confused by it: nowhere in my prior experience of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had I heard him called by that name (not surprising: children’s Bibles tend to avoid the complexity of six billion names for God), and on some inexplicable level it just didn’t seem to fit the picture I had of God; the name felt quite alien to me. The feeling of alienation was amplified by posters I saw in the local Christian bookstore featuring a pure white dove with an olive branch in its beak, flapping away from baby blue El Shaddai lettering: it all seemed to say “This is a fragile God, handle Him with care”. But I let my cynicism about it go and came to accept it as one of God’s names. And now I find out that it’s a name that was adopted from another context and applied to God in order to demonstrate that the one true God incorporates all of the many things that the lesser deities were supposed to be. That works for me, because it validates my suspicion that God is so much more almighty than the image this particular name invokes for me.

I find the documentary hypothesis very interesting, and I quite like the idea that there were multiple sources that have been pooled and integrated to create the whole. It is interesting to see how each source has its own perspective and promotes specific areas of interest or ways of thinking about God and the people. Put together, all of these different perspectives tell a fascinating story about how our understanding of God has progressed over time, which offers hope that our understanding of God will continue to grow as time goes by.

I am intrigued by considering the structure of the Jewish and Christian canons, and how the choice of books as well as the order in which they are included is intended to convey a message, either in conclusion (for the Jewish canon) or to set the scene for what comes next (in the Christian canon). It is also helpful to be more aware of the literary form and context of the writings, and to be inspired to also look at the texts in the passages and books preceding and following any particular scripture that is being considered.

The material in this study unit is relevant in that it encourages me to interpret scripture in a wider context rather than just literally: it guides me towards becoming more aware of the social, political, cultural, religious and historical situation in which the texts were written and then to try to understand the intended message of the writer for the original audience so that I can apply the learning in my own context, by examining the current social, political, cultural and religious situation in which I am living, taking into account my own mindset, thinking and influences, as well as the thinking and influences of the society in which I live. Doing this will give me a fuller appreciation of scripture and enable me to be more comprehensive in the way I interpret and apply Biblical texts. It will also help me to avoid being unreasonably rigid or literalist in my interpretation.

There are a great many situations where appeals to isolated Biblical texts have led to unjust situations! Some parents appeal to the Bible as their justification for being unnecessarily cruel to their children and using excessive corporal punishment. Proverbs is packed full of sanctimonious counsel for these folk: Pr 13:24, 19:22, 22:15 and 23:13-14.

Other unjust situations traditionally exacerbated by appeals to Biblical texts include the treatment of women (Lv 12:2), the keeping of slaves (Gn 9:25-27), the condemnation of homosexuals (Gn 19:24), and the persecution of nonreligious persons or people of other faiths (Nm 25:12-13).

Woman's Work

Some people say that:

• because the Bible says that God made Adam before Eve,
• because the Bible says that Eve was created to be Adam’s servant (helper), and
• because the Bible shows that it was easier for the snake to tempt Eve,

it proves to us that God does not want men and women to be equal in society.

What do you say to this?

The given assertions prove no such thing. The stories in Gn 1 and 2 are about the human race, not just about the male of the species.

We know that the writer of the Gn 1 creation story was himself a priest, writing in the time of the Babylonian exile. As such, his way of thinking would have been formed within the framework of the priesthood, as well as the social, political, cultural, religious and historical situation in which he found himself. If there was any inference of male supremacy in the Gn 1 account would derive from the writer’s context. However, I don’t believe that there is such an inference from the writer’s perspective, because in Gn 1:26-27 we see that the terms man, them, male and female, are used interchangeably, and it’s clear from this treatment that the writer does not see the male as superior to the female: they are equal and in perfect partnership.

In the Gn 2 creation story, both woman and man are made from the same substance and God breathes life into both of them: explicitly in the case of the man, and implicitly in the case of the woman. Substance alone does not make a human: the breath of life is also required. The names given to man and woman mean ‘ground’ and ‘life’: they are the two elements that make a complete living, breathing human. The substance cannot fulfil its purpose without the life within it, and the life needs the substance to contain it and give it form and expression. The fact that God made Eve after he made Adam serves to highlight that Adam alone was not the full and complete expression of humanity: woman was needed as well as man.

God did not make all of creation to supply Adam’s needs and desires; rather Adam was given the job of cultivating and caring for the garden. It was God’s idea to provide a partner (not a pet or a slave or an afternoon’s entertainment) for Adam. When God created the various animals and offered them to Adam for his consideration, God clearly thought that the animals had great dignity and worth. When none of the animals was found to be suitable as a partner, then God created the woman, also with great dignity and worth. When God brought the woman to Adam, the man recognised that the woman was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh: if he were then to disrespect her or insult her dignity, he would thus disrespect himself and insult his own dignity.

When the Bible says that the woman was created as a helper, the terminology supports her respectability in that it is using the same descriptor often given to God in his relationship to Israel. A helper is in no way inferior.

Adam and Eve had a perfect, open relationship with each other: this is conveyed by the inclusion of the details about their nakedness without shame. They were partners. When the snake came to tempt Eve, Adam was with her, as her partner. He didn’t try to dissuade her from eating the fruit; neither did he reject the offer of the fruit for himself. Adam and Eve together succumbed to the temptation to do what God had forbidden them to do. The assertion that it was easier for the snake to tempt Eve holds no water: there is no reliable evidence that the snake tempted the woman and man equally in turn, separately from one another and outside of the other partner’s influence – which for me would be the only way to draw a conclusion about who was easier to tempt.

God made men and women equal, and he wants them to work together in perfect partnership.

Wow. Breathtaking!

Reflect on the wonder of the cosmos, and of our planet Earth with all its inhabitants, and compose your own psalm of praise and thanks to God for the gift of creation.

O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!
Your majesty is infinite, expanding forever like the universe!
When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and stars that you set in place;
clusters of galaxies, stars and gas;
planets and cabbages* and kings†;
dark energy, quantum vacuum, black holes,
parallel light rays, Euclidian geometry,
solar eclipses, light speed, the Milky Way,
supernovas and shooting stars,
particles blinking into and out of existence--
What are humans that you are mindful of them,
mere mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them little less than a god,
crowned them with glory and honour.
You have given them rule over the works of your hands;
put all things at their feet:
all sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, the fish of the sea
and whatever swims the paths of the seas.

When I go up Mount Kilimanjaro, you are there,
where your presence is as wide as the whole world,
great, high and unbelievably white in the sun,
where Hemingway’s snowy prose echoes your name;

When I set off to Canada’s Hudson Bay, you are there,
where the polar bears gather in hungry vigil,
waiting for the November water to freeze;
And you are there, too,
in the breathtaking beauty of multicolour lights,
spinning the aurora borealis into vision.

When I swim the Great Barrier Reef, you are there,
amidst dreamy green turtles, force 5 cyclones,
rising sea levels and colourful photosynthetic zooxanthellae-rich coral.
I cannot escape you
in the joyously reverberating harmonics
of didgeridoos dancing across the crown of Uluru in the vibrant red Outback;
nor can I hide from you in the mists of the Ugandan Virunga Mountains
where serene silverbacks play silly boys‡ in the highland forests.

What about Victoria Falls and the Grand Canyon?
Yes, you are even there:
despite crowds of tourists, Japanese cameras, loud American voices.

And in the relative ease and comfort of home, you are there,
with squawking hadedahs in the park,
a garden full of silent roses greeting gentle spring raindrops;
and Rusty the genial convent dog.

O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!
Praise and glory and thanksgiving to you, whose mercy endures forever!

NOTES:
* all of that gas had to come from somewhere!
† thanks to Lewis Carroll’s The Walrus and the Carpenter; the cabbages needed a companion
‡ the polite form of the traditional Australian expression