STRUGGLING THROUGH DAVID'S PSALMS

Does anybody else struggle with reading David's Psalms? I recently decided to read through Psalms after reading an article where Bono, the lead singer of U2, was being critical of Christian music for being perpetually happy and that this was a mask for not looking at the realities in our world.  Moreover, he talked about the Psalms and observed that the spectrum of emotions there is broad and included much darker emotions than what we hear in our Christian music today.

For me however, when I read the Psalms I often find myself offended and aghast.  Many of David’s Psalms are written from an exclusive, imperialistic perspective and I cannot help but think that is why David is held with such high esteem in our Western evangelistic world—David protected empire so we protect Empire--being able to point to David gives us justification.

I have often heard Jesus called the new Adam, but I don’t think I have ever heard Jesus called the new David.  David was the king of an kingdom and Jesus talked often of his kingdom and when you juxtapose the two I do not see where they have anything in common other than being able to refer to them both as a “kingdom.”  Perhaps it is time that we start looking at David and his kingdom through the lens of Jesus and his kingdom.

For an example contrast Psalm 18:36 with Matthew 5:44.

NOTES FROM BRANT ROSEN'S WRESTLING IN THE DAYLIGHT: NOTE ONE

I am currently reading Brant Rosen’s Wrestling in the Daylight.  Respecting that I have decided to resurrect my dormant blog to capture some of my longer Facebook thoughts and quotes.  What is below seemed like a good place to begin the resurrection.

The following quote is from American Jewish Rabbi Brandt Rosen on June 15, 2009.  It demonstrates that not much has changed with Israeli government’s policies and Netanyahu’s ideology in the last seven years.  Just this past Sunday the Israeli government approved $20 million in financing for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank; Settlements that are illegal under international law.  Why doesn’t the US stand up to these illegal actions?  One potential reason is that it is political suicide.  In 1992 George H.W. Bush stated that US Aid to Israel would be contingent upon Israel discontinuing settlement expansion. Later that year he would lose the presidential election to Bill Clinton. 

We are more than 20 years removed from that event and I believe the winds are shifting.  Bernie Sanders recently ran a very competitive campaign being open and honest about the oppression that Palestinians live under and being very critical of the disproportionate damage the IDF caused in the last Gaza War.  However, while the winds may be shifting toward justice and a recognition of international law here in the U.S.  I remain skeptical with respect to Israel: Brant’s quote:

“I’m in agreement with the pundits who conclude that there was absolutely nothing new for consideration offered in Netanyahu’s speech.  Perhaps he achieved a personal milestone by finally uttering the words ‘Palestinian state,’ but beyond this, it was a tune we’ve all heard before.  He offered ‘peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions,’ then proceeded to spell out the all-too-familiar prior conditions that everyone knows are nonstarters for the Palestinians (i.e. Jerusalem remains the united capital of Israel,’ 

BEAUTY AND MORE FOUND IN THIS BEAUTIFUL MESS

This is a book review that I completely dropped the ball on.  I am humbled that Waterbrook Multnomah rather than castigate and criticize me for failing on our agreement of receiving free books for reviews actually asked me to return.  So with that, I am finally sitting down to write a review of This Beautiful Mess.

In the first chapter of the book McKinley writes, “…messy.  Why would his kingdom be messy?”

“Christians don’t like mess much, not in our world and especially not in ourselves or our churches” (Pg. 4). 

I have the privilege of serving once a month at a place called Joseph's House in Washington, DC--a hospice home for homeless people dying of AIDS and Cancer.  Yesterday was that day and while serving there I was having a conversation with another person volunteering about how messy relationships are.  I have a comfortable, secure government job and trying to develop relationships across racial and economic barriers is a challenge and takes great intentionality.  I think McKinley is absolutely correct in his assessment that we Christians don’t like mess. We make the “…assumption that following Jesus and pursuing the American Dream are in complete harmony and will take is in pretty much the same direction.  They won’t.  The reality of the kingdom is dangerous and beautiful and life altering” (Pg. 29).

McKinley also points out that far too many of us live with a destination paradigm rather than a journey paradigm—we are biding our time here until the dessert finally arrives in heaven.  In McKinley’s words, “…I realized that most of Jesus’ followers lived pretty much like everyone else—except we hoped for heaven.  This is a sad depiction of much of Christianity today and it has little to nothing to do with what it means to be a disciple!” (Pg. 69).

Personally, for me, living in the West with all of the comforts and freedoms that I have, I find it incredibly difficult to grasp what it truly means to be a follower of Christ.  “When we read the stories of Acts of the first disciples, words like suffering, persecution, and martyrdom quickly come to mind…The American church doesn’t produce martyrs; we produce celebrities” (Pg. 131, 133).

There is much truth found in the second appendix to McKinley’s book, truth that I think the Church in the West would be wise to embrace and pursue, namely, “…we must choose to be proclaimers of God’s love over being protectors of morality…Our failure to love the world is our sin to own… Christ’s life is a physical proclamation of the love of God—full of risk, sacrifice and rejection” (Pg. 162, 164).

I remember my wife reading this book more than a year before me and sharing that I should read it as well.  I had forgotten about it until it should up as an available option for review with Waterbrook.   Am so glad it did.  McKinley has a relevant and needed message for the church today.  This is a book that I would recommend to anyone looking to serve and follow the Servant Savior Jesus of Nazareth!

CONFESSIONS OF BIBLE THUMPER PROVIDES WISDOM (A BOOK REVIEW)

I was recently perusing my Facebook page, like so many of us seem to do these days, when I was tagged in a post by, would you believe it, a Facebook friend that I have never met in person?  The post was about an author who was giving books away free with the stipulation that you do a review of the book.  The book title caught my attention: Confessions of a Bible Thumper.  This sounded like a book that I might actually write at some point and with me being too lazy to actually write a book of my own it sounded like an opportunity that I could not pass up—I mean really, if you are too lazy to write a book of your own why not criticize those with a better work ethic than yourself?  My thanks go out to Michael Camp for the giveaway and the better work ethic.

I am at a quandary as to refer to the book as Camp’s book or Michael’s book.  Using his last name seems more polite; however, since the story of the book centers on a conversation among friends at a pub in the Seattle area, it seems natural to stay with the relationally friendly narrative and moreover think that Michael might actually take offense if I referred to his book as Camp’s book so Michael it is.

Michael shares twelve confessions in his book and alternates his story-telling between a present-day conversation in a pub and reflections on his past experiences with Evangelicalism. He touches on topics such as pre-marital sex, the inerrancy of scripture, abortion, Christian Universalism, evolution, homosexuality, evangelism as well as other topics with a rather impressive amount of research and integrity.

I have read a number of books written from the perspective of having become frustrated with the Evangelical movement in the West.  By and large, I have found little that I disagree with in those books.   Michael’s book, however, was a roller-coaster of emotions for me.  There were things that I wholeheartedly agreed with, things that I disagreed with and other things that were paradigm shifters for me.  In other words, Michael raises some things that I had never really considered.  All of this made for what I would consider my most enjoyable read of the summer.  So with that lets share a bit of the meat or perhaps better stated let’s sit down to a micro-brew sampler.

Michael’s fourth confession is his investigation of the inerrancy of Scripture. Michael writes: “To a ‘real Christian,’ the Bible was more than a human book.  It was the inspired word of God; it spoke individually to people; it was a guide for daily living.  We were to look to the Bible to develop a grid for decision-making” (Pg. 70).  Of course Michael is critical of this assertion.  We find a quote in the epigraph to this chapter from L. William Countryman: “The Bible says not a word about its supposed infallibility” (Pg. 69).  This happens to be one of the points that Michael makes that I really related to in my own spiritual journey.  One thing that he shared that was new to me was “If the Bible were entirely free from historical errors, it would actually harm the cause for historicity, not help it.  Historians and legal experts will tell you that when eyewitness accounts are identical, that is evidence that there was collaboration. In other words, minor discrepancies in the accounts of the gospels could be evidence that the writers are not guilty of collusion.  People see things from variant perspectives and recall things differently, including getting factual details wrong” (Pg. 80-81).

There was one chapter/confession in particular that I really struggled with.  This was Confession 9: The Sex God.  I should start this criticism with my own confession that my wife and I actually share our sexual story regularly with a marital preparation group with our church where we encourage folks to wait for marriage for sex.  I was rather surprised to hear that Michael would tend to disagree with this approach and I was also surprised at some of the interpretations he has taken with Scripture regarding sex.  That said, Michael makes some really excellent points with Scripture regarding sex.  For example, polygamy is an accepted practice, Sarah actually encourages one of their servants, Hagai, to sleep with Isaac so that they can have offspring and this is not condemned.  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and this is not frowned upon.  While Leviticus states that men should not have sexual relations with other men it says nothing about women having sexual relations with other women.  Moreover, it was expected that women be virgins at birth but there is no mention that this is a requirement for men.  Promiscuity is viewed from a supportive stance in the book of Esther.  On Pg. 211: Camp mentions many of these practices and while I will not deny that this exists in the Bible I would contend that just because these practices are accepted in Biblical culture it did not make them right then and it does not make them right now.  No rational person today would contend that slavery is acceptable in our society and culture yet slavery is often mentioned in the Bible and yet it is never condemned in the Bible.

On pages 211-212 Michael writes: “When I completed reading the whole Bible, the overall impression I got was that the regulations for sexual practices are confusing, complicated, and often overkill…There was the obvious and disconcerting double standard against women, especially in the Old Testament.  Men had more freedom than women in sex.  On the other hand, Jesus openly promoted women’s rights and generally treated women as equals.”  I agree with this.  However, Michael would also go on to deconstruct Jesus statement that “If you look at a woman with lust you have already committed adultery in your heart.”  Michael states that the Greek for woman here can mean wife and therefore allows one to turn this verse into the sin of envy since woman were considered property in Jesus day.”  While the word in Greek for the word woman here can be defined as wife and also can clearly be defined as woman--Gune (woman): short definition: a woman, wife, my lady (which does show possession)—it is more generally defined: universally, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow and I would contend that this is the definition that Christ intends.  And here is why: In Michael’s words:  “…in the Old Testament, a man only committed adultery if he had sex with another man’s wife.  If he had sex with a slave, prostitute, concubine, or one of his other wives…oh, or a divorced or widowed woman, it was not considered adultery.  This was the case because those relationships didn’t jeopardize family lineage.  However, a woman committed adultery when she had sex with anyone outside of marriage, because a man’s and a family’s lineage was at stake.  This was why the woman was considered property of the husband and the husband’s family” (Pg. 231).  Going once again to Jesus’ quote that “if a man who looks at a woman with lust…” I ask Michael, since Jesus treated women as equals, couldn’t this statement be a searing criticism of the double standard that existed for men and women at the time and that the word used for lust is exactly the intention of the original Greek and the Greek used for woman is exactly that, a woman and not wife? I see Jesus completely leveling the playing field here putting women on the same level as man! If Jesus treated women as equals I find it doubtful that he would continue to work in the paradigm of a woman as property.

While it may be a bit of hyperbole to state that the Creation/Evolution debate continues to rage in our society it also far from extinct.  Creation versus Intelligent Design is perhaps the more up-to-date term.  Michael spends another confession discussing his take on another hot-button issue with Evangelicalism.  Michael writes, “…the Bible was never meant to be the source of precise scientific assertions” (Pg. 266).  That is an observation that I could not agree with more.  However, beyond this Michael makes the observation that there is fundamentalist thought on both sides of this divide—atheists are also not immune from rigid closed-minded dogma.  Furthermore, there is bridge-building also taking place within the idea of intelligent design, that is, it has its supporters from both the Evangelical side as well as the Agnostic side.  Michael demonstrates with tact and grace that living in gray areas can be fruitful and that goes for the book as the whole not just this chapter.

Besides my disagreement on matters sexual, and that is not so much a matter of criticism but a difference of opinion that could make for great conversation over a beer, my one criticism of the book is that Michael goes a bit overboard in throwing stones at Evangelicals without giving us much of an alternative Christ that is worthy to follow.  There are shades of a Christ worthy to be followed in the last several chapters but I really would have liked to read more about the carpenter who became a revolutionary without the use of weapons.  Still, that would not hold me back from handing this book off to friends—it is worthy of being read!