Tuesday, September 24, 2013

New Blog

Thank you for reading "Content, Never Satisfied." However, due to some account change stuff, I had to change to a new blog. Please continue reading at barefootrevandy.blogspot.com

Why Didn't God Just...?

On Saturday morning, I was facilitating a conversation into Acts 14. Specifically, our Bible study was addressing the story of Paul and Barnabas being mistaken for incarnate Hermes and Zeus, respectively. The folks of Lystra watch Paul heal somebody, then offer sacrifices to him, saying, "The gods have come down in human form!"

At this point, I would have said "We are not gods come down in human form, but let me tell you about the God who did come down in human form..." Theological commentaries even addressed the incarnation in this story, and on a meta level, I believe the narrative is written in such a way to make the reader think about the incarnation. However, Paul goes in a different way. He never even addresses Jesus by name. He talks about the Creator as good and the one who brings seasons and joy. It seemed like such a simple place to go.

And yet, it is where the Lystran people were. They worshiped the Greek gods as the arbitrary and morally questionable keepers of the seasons, even though polytheistic worship was out of vogue in the Roman Empire. Paul addressed them where they were.

I led a class on addressing faith and science a month ago. In this class, I received this question: "Why would God give scientifically inaccurate information in the Bible?" The earth is not built on pillars, it is not flat, etc. And to many, the notion that there would be scientifically inaccurate information in the Bible is tantamount to God lying. Then God would not be God.

Or is there another way? Perhaps God truly does speak to us as we are. In Lystra, Paul knew that the prime concern of the people was to keep the cycles of fertility and harvest going. In Genesis/Proverbs/Job/Psalms, God seems more interested in talking about who created and for what purpose than the mechanics of creation (in a modern scientific sense). In this, the very act of revelation is an act of grace- God speaking to us in a way we can understand, in language which makes sense.

Now here's the tricky part. I think we are meant to emulate this behavior. So often, discipleship is reduced to the efficient transfer of information. This model of discipleship is often void of relationship, void of patience and can be done with a large stack of books and no other mentor. Jesus called people into relationship, transmitted information in inefficient stories and parables without a lesson plan, and sent them out to do ministry before they were ready. If God listens and understands before speaking, perhaps discipleship is far more about the relationship and the time than it is about the information being transmitted.

Somehow, a model of discipleship that listens first, loves first, and speaks second seems both more human and more divine.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Living at the End of the World, Old Testament-Style

No genre intrigues me like the post-apocalyptic genre. TV Shows like Falling Skies, Walking Dead and even Revolution keep calling me back to see how the world would end and what would happen afterward. Damon Lindelof, one of the creators of Lost, is back on TV with a show about the time after the Rapture (an event I don't believe in, but still intrigued by). In the aftermath of apocalypse, the rules are changed and the world is reset with an opportunity to rebuild and recreate... maybe even to avoid the mistakes which have gone on before.

And yet it never works. People are still people. Tyrants rise up, slavery happens and people turn on one another. Civilizations fall apart just as easily after the apocalypse than before.

My fascination with post-apocalyptic resonates with my fascination with the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a series of end-of-the-world stories. Adam and Eve, Flood, Babel, Abraham, Exodus, Judges, Assyrian exile, Babylonian exile, Return and Restoration of the Temple, are all stories where there is an apocalyptic event and people have to respond to a changing set of circumstances. When you consider the apocalyptic imagery of the prophets, it isn't too difficult to view the Old Testament happening in the same world as the Walking Dead. Substitute the Babylonians for "Walkers" or "Skitters," and you understand the Old Testament pretty well.

Perhaps this is partially why folks in the United States have such a hard time understanding the depth of the Old Testament. The church has responded to the modern age by valuing certainty and comfort, whereas the Old Testament is honest about doubt and pain. The modern US church loves to talk about safety, whereas the Old Testament skips over the safe times and emphasizes the unsafe times. The modern US church refers to God in quiet deference, whereas the Old Testament interacts with God through raw nerves and unflinching commitment to what is.

The Old Testament shows us that disaster and catastrophe is part of the landscape of life in this world. The Old Testament also shows us that those who insulate themselves from catastrophe are either a) powerless to do anything about it, or b) part of the catastrophe. But ultimately, the Old Testament reveals a God who is willing to step into catastrophe time and time again to take it on and heal the deep wounds. It makes perfect sense, then, that the complete depiction of God in Scripture is a guy who stepped into catastrophe and took it on, even to the cross and beyond.