Chapter 2: Get Down Your Harps

Introduction
Chapter 1 : The Cry of the Oppressed
Chapter 2: Get Down Your Harps
Rob Bell/Don Golden Jesus Wants to Save Christians cont.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this whole review thing to be done in the least snarky way possible. I may be completely wrong about this and I do not want to snipe at Bell. These are simply issues that I have difficulty resolving.

Chapt.2
While I’m going to try to focus on Chapter 2 I think I’ve pinpointed why I am struggling with this book in particular and with Bell in general. I’ve read on through to the first couple of pages in Chapter 5 which has helped identify why Bell/Golden seem to fall short of actively articulating their position. I think there’s two reasons for this. 1) The format actually has started to wear on me a bit. Most of the text is double-spaced and left justified causing the text to look like a web page or blog. On one hand this is not entirely bad as the format seems to tap into the way people are starting to read. On the other hand, for myself, it’s actually remarkably annoying as it means that this book could have been condensed by at least one-fourth. 2) Either because of the format or despite of it the author’s thoughts which are supposed to demonstrate a cohesive thought process actually come across as a series of aphorisms. There’s nothing particularly wrong with aphorisms except that the authors do not actively connect one with the other and I don't think aphorisms are a particularly good way of talking about theology. Ecclesiastes which does have a handful of aphorisms within it anchors them to the text via analogies; the aphorisms do not exist for their own sake but in support of the greater narrative. There’s a better example of this in Chapter 3 which I’ll try to highlight at that point.

Chapter 2 examines why/where Israel is in their captivity in Babylon. Here’s where the aphorism(s) kick(s) in. The authors focus in on the tears of the people in exile Psalm 137 style. Well and good. God once again hears the cries of the people from exile. Again, well and good. But then the reader arrives at this section, presented as found in the text:

“Crying out reminds us of our dependence.

Weeping leads us to reconnect with God.

Our tears are sacred. They water the ground around our feet so that new things can grow.” (P. 53)

Once agian this is an exact quote, including format. B/G seems to avoid explanations while striving for memorable, moving rhetoric. However this rhetoric falls short when the reader attempts to connect one statement to another. Does weeping really lead us to reconnect with God; if so, how? How is our weeping/reconnecting with God lead to our tears being sacred? My argument is not say that this isn’t true on some level but it lacks foundation/connection with something actually to build a system of thinking about God and his interaction with us. It’s either bad theology or bad writing or possibly both.
Moving on, just one page, “…when we’re willing to sit in our tears, that we’re ready to imagine a different kind of tomorrow.”(P. 54) Granted that change is not going to happen unless it is conceived. However, the authors fail to answer how this thinking is conceive. They also try to connect this to the Jewish people; namely “...on the heels of colossal failure, the Jewish prophets imagined the greatest picture of hope and the future anybody’s ever thought of anywhere.”(P. 54) Imagined? Because this raises a question of what prophesy, and its role, is. Is prophesy the wise sayings of an individual that is eventually codified by God’s grace and has present/future implications or is it a message given to an individual by God with a present purpose and future implications where the future implications are only known looking back into history. The authors seem to think, at least by their writings, that the prophets are able to independently generate these thoughts. I.e. “the prophets of Israel came to the realization that what they needed was another exodus.” (P. 55) or “by the rivers of Babylon, the prophets began to imagine a God who is bigger than the narrow, tribal religion of their Jewish heritage” (P. 57) and/or “by the rivers of Babylon, the prophets began to reimagine grace.”(P. 60) This focus on these prophet’s ability seems to be divorced from any input from God. (It's possible that B/G have an audience of unbelievers in mind or , as insinuated elsewhere in Bell's presentations such as the NOOMA video Breathe [Part 1 Part 2] that everyone already has God in them which is in itself problematic and requires a different venue than this post.)
In reading the accounts of Isaiah and Jeremiah have this continual motif of “The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD” or “Then the LORD said to me…” I do not think it is so b/w to say that these men heard the voice of God explicitly versus that they came up with it out of their own skulls which was then used retrospectively. However, the fact that B/G attribute this idea of ‘reimagining grace’ to people is very problematic b/c it seems to contradict the point of exodus. If the people need to cry out in their exile to be released, what are they dependent on? Is necessary God’s grace necessary to release them and send them home if they can simply think it/call into being? Even more fundamental who provides us with the ability to sub-create to imagine?
On the other hand on P. 58 the authors do a really nice job of connecting Isaiah’s discussing this second exile w/ the first exile by connecting terms/images such as wilderness/desert from the first exodus to their anticipated second one.
And, in continuing the theme from the first section of this, is where I struggle deeply with the thinking evidenced in this book. Bell, again referencing the Breathe video mentioned earlier, has incredibly good moments that are completely blown by bad moments . He is a great storyteller and great creator of moving thoughts and the ability to really focus on a particular thread of a story and tease out implications from it. However, as I think is evidenced by, even these 2.5 chapters, the implications are teased out to match thoughts/direction Bell seems to already have in mind. From the introduction the author's state the point of this book is to articulate a specific theology, this New Exodus perspective. My question is then, does the articulation of this theology arise from what's already in Scripture or are texts being plucked to serve the theology. This isn't new, there's particular parts of Scripture that different theologians seem to like to mess with i.e. dispensationalists and prophesy. From my vantage point the texts chosen are removed from their contexts and bent to serve a process.

Chapter 1: The Cry of the Oppressed Jesus Wants to Save Christians cont.

Introduction
Chapter 1 : The Cry of the Oppressed
Rob Bell/Don Golden Jesus Wants to Save Christians cont.

The authors move into Exodus at this point discussing Egypt, Sinai, Jerusalem and Babylon.
The first section is Egypt. One of the good sentences in this chapter is “…an entire civilization at odds with God.” Right on. And then following this establishment of sin, the authors puruse the idea of God’s kingdom that God’s kingdom is “… the peace, the shalom, the good that God intends for all things.” Thusly, “Egypt is what happens when sin builds up a head of steam…when sin becomes structured and embedded in society.”
The authors are driving home the implication that people are oppressed when sin takes this preeminence in society so that “exodus is about a people…being rescued from slavery…it’s aobut liberation from occupation…the insurgent power of redemption from empire.” And this is where this book start to go east for me slightly. In this next section in dealing with Sinai, the authors suggest that the Ten Commandments are delivered to the people in “…the long process of teaching them how to be human again...” in contrast to their slavery. Also that these 10 Commandments are “…vital truths about what it means to live in authentic human community.” Well yes and most definitely no. While the 10 C’s deal with how to live with each other they first and foremost inform us how to live in relationship to God which then informs how the Israelites/we should live. Forgetting numbers 1-5, in my view, make 6-10 make a lot less sense. While the second half of the commandments deal with living together, from reading Exodus 20 the point is not just authentic human community but authentic human community.
The next section of Chpt. 1 deals with Sinai. The authors deal really well with this section in emphasizing the Israelites as a kingdom of priests and people to demonstrate to “…the world who this God is and what this God is like.” However this really excellent section leads to a really just bad statement on the bottom of page 31. Here it is: “God needs a body. God needs flesh and blood. God needs bones and skin so that Pharaoh will know just who this God is he’s dealing with and how this God acts in the world.” This idea highlights my main issue with the Rob Bell school of theology. I can’t tell sometimes if this type of thinking is designed to be hip/trendy or if it is actually trying to get to the heart of thinking about Christianity. Because while God has designated people throughout history to be ‘His’, I shudder at the idea that God needs something. Really? I’m not sure where this is supported Scripturally. What seems to lend credence to 'hip school of theology' is that this rather radical idea isn't endnoted or footnoted with additional backing.
Moving on, in B/G's exploration of the 10 Commandments they focus on, and rightly so, on the consistent reminder to treat other people well bc they were once slaves. They reference Exodus 22:21-26, this idea of being kind to those people moving through the land. However this is then extrapolated out by B/G that for the Israelites "God's desire is that they would bring exodus to the weak in the same way God brought them exodus in their weakness." (P. 35) My question is are these commands, in context, bringing exodus to these people or is it a demonstration of proper community. Not charging someone interest seems not to be a matter of exodus as it is a matter of living well together. So we move from Sinai, at this point, to Jerusalem. My question here of the authors does the leitmotif of Solomon and the temple really focus on the oppression of the people. B/G make the point that in I Kings 9:15 Solomon uses forced labor to build the temple as well as his own house and thus "...Solomon isn't maintaining justice." (p. 39) If this was wrong, would God have blessed him and covenanted with Solomon in I Kings 9. In 9:3, the Lord says "...I have consecrated this house that you have built, by putting my name there forever." (ESV) Thus is this perceived issue of oppression really that important if God consecrates the finished work. At the end of God's conversation with Solomon he says don't go after other gods. I Kings 11:9-10 indicates God's anger is because of him chasing after other gods.
The other aspect to this is that the forced labor is people outside of the Israelite nation. (I Kings 9:20-21) It is people whom they have conquered which does cause the Israelites issues. The only reason these people are alive is that these are "...the people that the people of Israel were unable to devote to destruction." (I Kings 9:21 ESV) Forget oppression, the Israelites did not bring peace, they brought a sword to the land.
I think the authors are attempting to read the NT into the Torah. Yes, Christ will bring a grace that is extended to all people but at this point in time this sytem of exodus and sacrifice is specifically for the nation of Israel. One could join the nation but the goal of the commandments does not seem to be proselyzation but rather to obey God which would result in health and correct relationship with the land.
The authors go on to deal with Babylon and the failure of Israel to obey which is pretty good for the most part. It is this focus on oppression as the main cause of downfall that raises some doubts in my mind.
On to Chpt. 2.

Jesus Wants to Save Christian-Intro.

I’m currently reading Rob Bell’s and Don Golden's book Jesus wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile. There are some fairly good reviews of the book here as well. I thought I would blog through my process of reading this book a bit. Hopefully if I write this stuff down and people can help me by critiquing it then I will hopefully be better at this process. So input is welcome. (Quiet thanks should go to Ken Schenck of Quadrilateral Thoughts as he has been blogging through several books, at once mind you, and manages to be both prolific and erudite. In that spirit we proceed.) (Disclaimer: I’m not a theologian. I’ve had quote unquote biblical training (PBU) and have tried to continue to encounter the biblical text and writings about it but am still developing.)
A note about Rob Bell and myself: We’ve never met. This is the first book of his that I’ve read. Tonight I just finished watch his video ‘The Gods ARen’t Angry’ which has really brilliant moments and some staggeringly horrific ones.Ssome of Bell’s best points seem to be in his ability to wrap theology into a story/narrative. He does this really well in the DVD and that ability continues on, and in, Jesus Wants to Save Christians. Also this idea of really brilliant moments and staggeringly bad ones also continues.
We begin. As stated in the preface the thesis of sorts is that “this book is our [Bell’s and Golden’s] attempt to articulate a specific theology, a particular way to read the Bible, referred to by some as a New Exodus theology.” (Disclaimer: I know nothing about the New Exodus theology at this present point. It’s on my list of things to do.)
Introduction: Air Puffers and Rubber Gloves
We start right off with Genesis and an examination of the relationship between Cain and Abel as farmer and shepherd. Well and good. However the authors in talking about Cain and Abel’s conflict discuss issues of land between a farmer and shepherd rather than obedience to a divine command. This struggle between these two is capstoned as “a seismic shift was occurring as hyuman society transitioned from a pastoral, nomadic orientation to an agricultural one.” Agreed that after the Lord grants Cain mercy Cain builds a city but the text in Gen. 4 does not seem to indicate the issue was one of economic issues between Cain and Abel. It was one of obedience. In fact Cain is sent into exile which will tie back into a point the authors make in Chapt 1 where “exile is when you find yourself a stranger to the purposes of God" but this point seems in odds with the original point the authors were attempting to make. B/G then focus on the leitmotif of people's movement eastward through Genesis . In making their eastward point in that Cain moves east, the tower of Babel is built as people move east, east is established as not being particularly good. Fair enough; this also allows the author to do an odd nod to pop culture with a John Steinbeck reference on p. 17. The authors use this idea of being ‘east of eden’ to then introduce their idea of the ursprache as “…the primal original language of the human family…the language of paradie that still echoes in the deepest recesses of our consciousness, telling us things are out of whack deep in our bones, deep in the soul of humanity.” (p. 17) this is pretty close to Romans 1; fairly acceptable. The idea that we are east of eden means that we are not where we are supposed to be. We are out of sync; we are not in our correct places. So next sentence: “Something about how we relate to one another has been lost. Something is not right with the world.” This is a difficult sentence because while it’s true I don’t think that’s quite the point.
If, at the beginning, the problem was simply how we relate to one another, why does the storyteller indicate that God asks Adam “Where are you?” to which Adam responds that he heard God in the garden and he was afraid. Also, Adam now talks about Eve differently. After the fruit eating, the woman is “…the woman you gave me…”Gen. 3:10 But in Gen 2:23 the woman is referred to as “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…”
This sin of disobedience causes a rift between God and man in conjunction with our rift between ourselves as humanity. It is because our relationship with God is incorrect that we are not sure how to relate to one another. I’m making a big deal about this because I think the authors in setting this premise attempt to drive home a social premise to this idea of Christianity. (Granted, the authors refer back to the separation between God/man bc of sin on p. 25 but it would have been nice here.)

MLIS Degree-Complete!

This blog was started as part of an assignment for my first class two years ago and now it is something real, at least to me.
I got my final grades back from this semester and I'm done with the FastTrack program at UPitt. Boo-yah!! I am now officially a librarian or at least have the official credentials.
Soli deo gloria!

More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops

This article is worth noting simply for this statement "...nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause, like environmentalism or muscular dystrophy." There's two reasons for this. The first is that atheism or humanism as they have called it have moved from carrying the idea of atheism as a private matter into a public arena. In an era of Twitter/Facebook where we are encouraged to post our innermost thoughts and many do, it is the logical conclusion that what an individual thinks/believes about the world can be converted into a cause and shared with other people. The second is that causes are currently sexy, arguements are not. You can market a cause, create t-shirts for it and make it cupcakes. A cause has an arguement for a particular view of the world at its core and giving an arguement a cause allows that arguement to move from a disparate, extremely peripheral idea that, in terms of atheism, has seemed to linger at the edges of Western culture, to, by the vehicle of its now hip cause, to gather force and move from a extreme peripheral element closer to a core element of Western culture. Causes currently seem to be 'the thing' and if the people in the cause that you are attracted to are of a similar mind and friendly it substitutes nicely for religion/church.

The death of something like print

“Print journals are to today’s students what microfiche was to the previous generation."
I'm pretty sure this is true.

Read it here.