Heaven by Rob Bell

The first question Bell proposes is in relation to the staggering number of people who won't "make" (my emphasis) it to heaven.

I would say that is what we don't know. We don't know how God has been speaking to people and how they have responded. Whatever light he has given them can either be accepted or rejected. we don't know how many or how few will be in heaven. All we know is that the only way to the Father is through Christ, which Bell affirms. Like Bell I don't have a clue about where Ghandi is (or Martin Luther King Jr.).

He goes on to raise a multitude of questions in the first chapter. And some of those questions I do wonder about myself. Like the "personal relationship" one. What does that even mean? But I'm not going to dive into all the Christanese he exposes. I, too, think we should explain things better rather with the insider jargon.

Heaven. "It's somewhere else, or is it right here and now?" asks Bell. Bell begins with the story about the rich man who comes to Jesus asking about eternal life. Bell explains that Jesus' answers the man's concerns which is not "with how to go to heaven," but "how to have more responsibility in the age to come." I would agree with Bell in that the man is not asking how to go to heaven. I think the man is asking about eternal life and how to get it. I don't see the man asking for how to be a good citizen in the world to come. Bell suggest that this is what Jesus is getting at. Live to be a better person now earns you more responsibility later. "Jesus takes the man's questions about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he's living now" (p41). If anything Bell is at fault of being a postmillennialist. He equates the prophets' sayings with literally heaven on earth (p33). A premillennialist does not disregard the new heaven and the new earth imagery. I think most would agree how we live now is important.

Bell says that the man went away because he had not yet understood that greed could not enter into the age to come. But even still, the man went away. We don't know if he ever turned back to God. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I think Jesus left open the possibility that he didn't.

In defining "heaven," Bell goes on to say that it is just simply a substitute for "God." (p42) I will say that I'm still undecided on this. Kingdom of heaven = kingdom of God. This will need some more thought. He adds, "Heaven is that realm where things are as God intends them to be." (p42). The last one is easier for me than the first definition. The story of the Bible is when God's will will be done on earth as it currently is in heaven. Heaven then is "partnering with God to make a new and better world..." (p47) Well, as subversive as this image is of heaven, it certainly is not a new image. Therefore, many people who have held and are holding to this view, are considered orthodox. Why not Bell?

In reference to judgment, Bell states that heaven confronts us with our incompleteness and that we must have that "burned" off. I would agree. Some will be left with a lot, others a little. We have to be fitted for heaven. I would call this the judgment seat of Christ.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about how Bell defines "aion". He gives us two definitions. 1) an era of time with beginning and an end. 2) an intensity experienced that transcends time. I'll admit I've not looked at the word/concept in depth. But a quick glance at BDAG of "aion" states that the word means, "long period of time without reference to a beginning nor an end." Secondly, it means "eternal." Bell wants us to believe that eternal and forever are not the same thing. In my opinion this is the closest he comes to being a universalist. If eternity is just a period of intensity (in judgment, perhaps) then one goes through it and is then relieved from it. I don't think Bell ever goes quite that far. But I would say he comes close to advocating purgatory indirectly rather than universalism directly. And for that (i.e. advocating purgatory) we can blame him. If, in fact, he does advocate an intense judgment then release.

And I tried to ignore the Rob Bell hype

Rob Bell. A name associated with controversy. So, when people started the firestorm of blogging against him, i was curious what the fuss was all about.

Personally, I was turned off when I saw my first NOOMA video. It was the one where he is with his son and they get caught in a rain storm. I thought it was creative but just not for me. So, when I heard of Velvet Elvis I paid no attention to it.

But I did start to warm up to Bell when in Portugal. He had made more NOOMA videos, and I was invited to attend the launch of a Bible study among some pretty tough and rough athletes there. Through cursing and beer drinking, it was one of the liveliest Bible studies I've ever been apart of. These videos were excellent spiritual conversation starters. I still didn't like the videos themselves. But what I saw come from them surprised me. So from that point forward, I decided to let Rob Bell be. He was advancing the kingdom more than I was, and who was I to say anything against what God was doing. God was (is) using Bell.

He's had several other books come out of which none I've read. But when all the Reformers began denouncing him as a heretic for his latest views in Love Wins, I had to see what the fuss was about. If the Reformers didn't like him, he may be my new best friend. Well, I couldn't afford to buy the book. So, I thought I would just ignore all the fan fare. But just the other day it showed up at the local library.

It was an easy read although written like Bell was talking. When I finished I was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Bell never does explicitly say what he believes exactly about heaven and hell and judgment. He comes close but never actually admits to being a universalist.

So, as I blog about the book I will try to keep in mind that he's just trying to get dialogue started about the issue. I could try to comb out Bell's personal view of universalism, but I don't think that would be beneficial. Instead I just want to talk about what he actually says.

Book blogging is for me the hardest. You have to assume the person has not read the book, and even if they have you have to put your comments in some sort of context. And this does not make for brevity.

This book is about "...some of the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story...[A lot of people] have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better...This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy..." So, now we know what we are about to read. He wants an open discussion on the topic.

Since this is already a long post. I will stop and continue as I work my way through the major stuff of the next 200 or so pages.

The true elder brother Jesus

Besides disagreeing over the emphasis shift from the younger brother to the older brother, I disagree with the interpretation of Jesus being the true elder brother. In chapter 5 Tim Keller put forth his argument as to why Jesus is the true elder brother.

Keller does admit that the father is the one who goes out to each brother. He goes out to the wayward son coming home, and he goes out to persuade the elder brother to come into the party. I do like this quote, "It shows that even the most religious and moral people need the initiating grace of God, that they are just as lost..."

Keller also shows us his cards in how he interprets the entire parable (as if we did not already know implicitly). Keller is interpreting the parable as a sinner finding repentance. As stated before, I believe this is a valid interpretation. But Keller adds, "This, however, only brings us to the brink of Jesus's message, not to its heart." It's what follows that I am not sure I accept.

Here is the argument. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who have accused him of eating with sinners (Lk 15:2). Thus, he told the 3 parables. Keller points out that in all three something is lost and then gotten again. But a big difference between the first two and the last one is that in the first two someone "goes out" to find what was lost. In the third one, no one goes out. This is the shock Keller attributes to the last parable. We are expecting someone to go out and no one does.

But wait. I thought the point was the elder brother. Didn't we say that the father went out to him to try to convince him to come into the party?

Next, Keller appeals to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is assumed that Cain was supposed to be his brother's keeper and therefore every other elder brother has the responsibility of looking after his wild younger brother. The elder brother is to spend his money to bring back the younger brother. Keller's lesson is that it costs someone to bring about restoration. But sadly this younger brother doesn't get a responsible older brother.

"But we do..." Keller says.

Keller is forced to put Jesus in this speculative role. Since the main thrust of the parable is the wayward elder brother, we need the means of his salvation. His means of salvation is no different than anyone else; Jesus. Otherwise, we already have the salvation part, that of the younger brother being accepted back into the family by the father.

We don't need to make up an application from the Prodigal Son parable. The elder brother is angry because of how kind the father has treated his brother. As stated above, Jesus is telling the parable in defense of why he is eating with sinners. He's eating with sinners because they need saving. Salvation from the Heavenly Father comes to sinners who accept the grace of the Father. The reaction of the elder brother is exactly the same as the Pharisee's reaction. They can't believe lost people can be saved. Jesus is not the so called true elder brother. He's the father (not the Father, although they work together for salvation's sake). Just like he's the shepherd and the woman. This makes more sense since now we have harmony among the three parables. Something dear is lost and something dear is found.

I disagree with him

It seems I am always critical of the newest and latest trends of Christian writers. Just getting started with Prodigal God by Tim Keller. It's his interpretation of the what has been previously known as the Prodigal Son.

I don't want to give too much away, but unfortunately my comments here may. Nevertheless, he puts the emphasis of the story on the older brother, the one who stayed home rather than the one who went away and was welcomed back by the father. Keller is making the point that Jesus was preaching against the righteousness of the Pharisees.

For what it is worth, Keller does have some good points. I do think we often forget to compare the two brothers as they were meant to be compared. But I am not convinced that the point of the story is the older brother.

This parable can be taught in two ways. It could be either about the "lost" being "saved," or it could be about the "saved" loosing their way. The parable can't be interpreted in isolation though. Two others preceded it. The first was about the one lost sheep that the shepard goes to find leaving the 99 behind. The second was about the lost coin the woman finds and rejoices over finding it. The last parable is the one about the younger brother who leaves and comes back to the chagrin of the older brother.

In the first the one the lost sheep was still a sheep and a part of the shephard's flock. In the second the lost coin was still owned by the woman even though lost. And in the last one, the younger brother was still the father's son before and after his run away. So, in all three the wandering lost items were still a part of the unit. Therefore, I would lean more to say that these parables are about righteous people going away and God's grace accepting them back. if we were to take these parables to mean "soul salvation," then we would have to say one can "lose their salvation."

But this distinction of how to interpret this parable is not about splitting hairs. I've heard great sermons preached from this passage calling lost sinners to trust Christ as their Savior.

Again, the main problem I have is switching the emphasis from the younger brother to the older brother. I don't see it. While I agree the church-goer needs the salvation of Christ as much as the drunkard, I can't see that Jesus focused exclusively on that here. It's possible that he did elsewhere though. If we say that this parable is about the older brother, then we must also conclude the first parable is about the 99 sheep left behind, and the second parable is about the all the coins tucked away safely in the woman's purse. We would then have to conclude also that the main point of the Good Samaritan is the two men who passed by the man on the road. And every other parable spoken by Jesus would be flipped on it's head especially those that refer to the religious leaders of the day.

In conclusion, I like some of the points brought out by Keller. But I can't buy his main thesis. Jesus is not the "true" elder brother who has the responsibility to find the wayward sinful brother. This parable is still about a God who goes out of his way to bring back his backslidden children.

Part 2: Why SH is my second favorite atheist/agnostic

I decided to split these two posts because I felt they may be too long as one post. Also, if you read the first and had no desire to continue, then you could skip this one. =) How nice!

As a way of transition I thought I'd give a brief summary of the previous post. Stephen Hawking, the eminent British physicist, has come out with a new book stating that physics does not need a God to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I, on the other hand, found the newspaper article from The Times written by Hannah Devlin, and excerpts from the accompanying free magazine, Eureka, to be an exhilarating testimony to God as Creator.

When I saw how the magazine had headlined the Hawking book (i.e. "The End of the Universe by Stephen Hawking."), I knew this was going to have something to do with multiverse vs. universe. Now from the beginning I do not claim to understand even most of this stuff. Maybe that discredits my opinion. And maybe that accounts for my perceived "naive" continued faith in God as Creator. If so, I hope to always remain a simpleton.

The idea that there are possible innumerable universes out there is a profound and awesome idea. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it shows me how incredible the creative power of my God is. I mean, he created this universe and then some?!!! WOW. We do not even know all there is to know about this universe, much less what is going on way out there somewhere in space. How then can we know the mind of God? We can't even know what we know exists in our own universe, let alone know things outside our reality. If there is anything I like about postmodern philosophy, it's this. The idea of multiverse instead of a universe. At first I thought this was where Hawking was going with his support of the M-theory. I thought he was going to be the poster child of postmodern science. However, I can't decide if he is or not.

"Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology,... [SH] renders redundant the role of a creator for the Universe." ("Hawking"...Devlin, here on referred to as HD) So how does he do it?

Hawking postulates that "the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics." (HD). Gravity can cause spontaneous creation. Therefore, if gravity can cause spontaneous creation, then our universe could be the product of that event. This would also explain the rise of numerous other universes out there. "...M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing...Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation...Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist."(Eureka excerpt of Grand Design, afterward referred to as EGD)

Isn't that incredible!! There are possibly tons of things God has created that we have yet to even discover. Of course, SH did not say this, I did. This proves what I have long thought about God as Creator. He was creating worlds before ours and possible has been creating worlds after ours. He IS Creator, not he WAS Creator. God is creative, and it's his nature to create. He has not stopped on day 7. He may have begun something else on day 8. How marvelous!!

SH goes on to say, "Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not 'arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.' Instead, he maintained, the order in the Universe was 'created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition.'" All Newton was doing was showing the grandeur of God as Creator. For those faith filled scientists, like Newton, God will be behind everything explainable and non-explainable. They will see breakthroughs in understanding the natural and physical world as gifts of enlightenment from God to mankind. Maybe even grace. But God is not demoted when he allows the scientist to understand the world He created. In fact as we find out more about the world, universe, multiverse that we are a small part of, God becomes even more glorious.

But if you are predisposed to non-belief, as Hawking now is, God gets smaller at every discovery until He disappears or as Nietzsche put it "dies." He gets smaller because he is no longer needed. What was a mystery is now formulated. By concluding that spontaneous creation due to the laws of gravity is the reason we are here, the one with no faith convinces himself/herself that they have less of a need to continue to look for something (as a God) as the first cause of the world. They have something, in their minds, more real than a spiritual being. This being acts almost like an excuse for mankind's ignorance. (and BTW I'm not necessarily arguing for the First Cause Theory either). So, as humans begin to understand more and more they become more and more enlightened and think they can afford to "kill off" God. They believe they are emerging ever so slowly from the dark into the light. In other words, it's just the next step in proper evolutionary development of the human.

But it isn't just the non-believers. We all put ourselves on the throne as King instead of submitting to God as King.

So, why does Hawking not see spontaneous creationism as simply a means used by God to eventually create us here, as the defenders of the Intelligent Design Theory would conclude as they have in the theistic evolution debate? Hawking says that the discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the one in our Milky Way, "...makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions--the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass--far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." (EGD) First, I was unaware that God creates for our pleasure. I figured he created because he's king and wants to. Do not we exist because of his pleasure not ours? No kid ever born was asked if they wanted to exist. They exist because God wanted them to. Secondly, I'm too dull to understand how discovering other planets orbiting around other stars diminishes the idea of God as Creator. To me it only enhances it.

One great thing Hawking does for me is give credence to the idea that we are in fact situated at the perfect distance from the Sun to exist and that if nature were off by just a smidge we'd all cease to exist. "But in the case of the events resulting in the evolution of the Universe, such developments were governed by the balance of the fundamental forces of nature, and it is those whose interplay had to be just right in order for us to exist."(EDG emphasis mine)

Hawking continues, "Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the Universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago right up to the present...[This] could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer...God." (EDG)

Or I guess it could lead some us further away from God. But how? Frank Close, who does not believe Hawking's endorsement of the M-theory adds one thing pro or con to the God debate, does think that "it may raise questions about God's efficiency...[in that] God's efficiency may be called into question: if the sole aim was to create you, me, Stephen Hawking, would not one solar system have been enough?" And Hawking sees that, "if God's intention was to create mankind, then these many untouchable worlds would surely be redundant." (HD)

Again, I won't even pretend to understand this argument. But in my attempt to understand, they both seem to say that the reality of other planets orbiting other stars suggests that God wasted "space and time" (for I can't think of what else to call it). If he was so good at creating, then why are there other systems? He could have "gotten it right" with Earth. Well, I would say that maybe he got it right with Earth and got it right with every multiverse out there! I mean He is eternal and spiritual so he has a lot of time and space on his hands. Do we think God has so much to worry about here on Earth, and that he's too small to keep creating and deal with stuff on other planes too?

What would happen if one went outside and counted the stars of sky or even tried the same feat with the most powerful instrument we have? Well, God counts the number of the stars; he names all of them. (NET Psalm 147:4) To say that the discovery of planets orbiting suns somehow makes the idea of God as Creator "redundant," or "inefficient," does not seem to be a real argument. In fact, I would hope we WOULD find more stars (and what difference does it make if planets are floating around them). There is compatibility with believing in a Creator God and the science of physics, biology, and astronomy.

Since Hawking does not simply attribute the laws of physics and all that may result from their "interplay," to God, I will. His research and work makes him my second favorite atheist (agnostic) out there. And I am so thankful to God for letting Hawking discover our multiverse.

Do you expect anything less from an agnostic?

It has taken awhile for me to get to this.

And it all started with a coupon at Tescos. Lady R gets these coupons in the mail on various things at the store. She had gotten one that gives you a certain number of points on the Tesco card if you buy a magazine or newspaper. So, I was given the choice. It was September 2, 2010.

I decided on a newspaper that came with a free magazine. I figured I was getting the most for my money. The Times front cover article with the headline, "Hawking: God did not create Universe," was about the new book by the renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking. The article summarized his theories, his agreement with the M-theory, and his conclusion that it is unnecessary for "God," to be Creator.

Was this it? Had science actually proven the non-existence of God? I mean this is Stephen Hawking, who previously had suggested that religion and science were compatible in the sense of God as Creator ("Hawking: God did not create Universe" by Hannah Devlin). And now he has changed his mind and is convinced that "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing." (Hawking, Grand Design, as quoted in Eureka magazine)

I read the newspaper article and the magazine excerpts from the book. When I got through, I actually felt I had just read about God. Have you ever read Phillip Yancey's Finding God in Unexpected Places? For me it was just that. And what was really good and serendipitous was that morning before I started in on the Hawking reading I had read Psalm 95 and Isaiah 40. So for me, no, SH had not discredited my belief in God. He enhanced it.

(As a parenthesis as I was reading my mind kept going back to the two above mentioned passages. "In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care." Awe inspiring. And then, "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?" From the deepest depths to the highest peaks, it all is in his anthropomorphic hands. He made it all!! And consulted no one and was taught by no one. He is the Creator of all that is or ever will be. This is my God. Let us worship him and him alone!)

However, if you are already predisposed to non-belief, Hawking brings an electron microscopic peace (oops piece) to you. You can bank on his intelligence to satisfy your soul and mind that there is no God and no consequence for such "belief." Nothing I can say from this point forward will convince you otherwise. And frankly, if it is left to me to convince you, you will never be convinced. But even though I'll never be as intelligent as SH, I know that God will say something to you one day, if he has not already, and if you have ears to hear, you will hear his voice. What harm would it do to listen?

Naked God

I did something even I can't believe I did.

I gave a book away.

I came across this book, Naked God by Martin Ayers, from a friend. He had received a leaflet about it being distributed for free in their area by a local church plant within the next few weeks. As he waited to receive his copy, I decided to visit the church and get my own copy. I didn't read it right off. I figured if it was free, it probably was not going to be that great. haha My friend got his copy in the mail and had it read before I even started. He loved it and had good things to say about it and was hoping his son would pick up the book and read it too.

Fast forward a little. Since we had visited the church on and off we knew the author attended there. But we had never met him. Then, he spoke one Sunday on the parable of the wedding feast. It was one of the best sermons I had ever heard on heaven. (I think it would be worth it to listen to the mp3 file. Scroll down to the sermon by Martin Ayers). That Sunday I met a church member who asked me if I had read his book, since we had been talking about how much we enjoyed the sermon. She said he talked about the parable in the book and thought it was so good that she was hoping her daughter would read the book. She then introduced me to him.

Then, Lady R read the book and recommended it to me. So, with three people who had read the book, and all had spoken highly of it, I thought I'd pick it up.

All the hype was legit. I read it and felt refreshed and was reminded of the general mentality of atheistic or naturalistic thinking in this country. A lot of food for thought to help those who are still undecided about the existence of God. A breathe of fresh air for the believer who has been affected by the smog of the culture of relativism and pluralism and postmodernism.

With a title like Naked God I was expecting a reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel scene of God's backside on the cover. But I guess a burning match head will be OK. =) Especially since the book is not about God being naked but "...strip[ping] away any false ideas we've developed...to reveal the truth." Ayers asks a basic question, "Is there a God?" Nothing new there, but he follows up with, "If there is NOT a God then what is the consequence, if there is a God what is the consequence, and what are you going to do about it?"

Ayers tackles head on the philosophy of naturalism, which he defines as existence without God. The consequence is a life without much purpose and machine like. For me though it brought me back to 11th grade and my own experience with naturalism in Ms. Kelly's class. We talked about the philosophy behind Jack London's works and how it was realism, an American form of European naturalism (see also here to confirm my teacher's teaching). I tried to read Emile Zola's work but it was too philosophical and above my intelligence. Nonetheless, I considered myself a naturalist who believed in God. Little did I know I was actually a Calvinist, another French deterministic philosophy with similar consequences as naturalism save only with a hope of and in God. I believed that every minutiae was planned and ordered by God. If someone fell down the steps, they were ordained to or at best there was nothing they could have ever done to have prevented it. I didn't really do much with this information. In other words I didn't develop any theology from this. I just had it in the back of my head. But my freshman year in college I saw the huge error of being a "naturalist." It really did mean denying the existence of God and accepting that all that exists is the natural world. And since I didn't know about Calvinism, I rejected naturalism and through C.S. Lewis' Miracles, I re-considered myself a super-naturalist.

I digress a bit. Ayers states it like this "...every decision we will ever make has been caused...We can't influence the world by our choices, because we're just part of the world ourselves. The naked truth is that we're not free in the way we think we are." (pg 26-7) This is the outcome of a naturalistic viewpoint.

The next section, Ayers deals with Jesus and relativism. This was encouraging to me. In a day when many have an all-roads-lead-to-Rome attitude, it is a balm to hear the exclusiveness of Jesus still being talked about. In this section Ayers also references Lewis' Miracles, but in a different way than I had. Ayers uses a quote from Lewis to show how people in Jesus' day were no more gullible to the supernatural miracles than we are in the "modern" world. (see pg 102)

And it's in chapter 14 where Ayers talks about the parable of the wedding feast. But I think the sermon is better.

When I finished the book, I was in the central part of the city on the underground transportation system. I felt like it was a book worth passing on. So, I laid the book in the seat next beside me. I prayed that it wouldn't simply be put in the trash but that someone who needed to read it would pick it up and read it. It was hard for me to give away a book. I really wanted to bring it home and put it on my bookshelf. But I kept thinking, "Freely you have received freely give."

Also, Ayers has given me permission to include a link to the first part of the book. Take a look and let me know what you think.

El Shaddai, El Shaddai El-elyon Adonai

I appreciate the attempt of the author of this hymn to worship God using one of the many Hebrew names for him in the Bible.

If you were to examine the long and sometimes controversial history of the event where God was being called "El," and Amy Grant's live version, you might be intrigued by the results. It is not my purpose to go into all that story here. But I do find the name "El" (and it's derivatives) fascinating. And here's why...

When God is talking to Moses in Exodus 6:2-3, he says that he is revealing himself as YHWH but that he had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as "El Shadday." (orאֵל־שַׁדַּי)

Many have sought to find out exactly what El Shaddai means, and they have come up with "God of the mountain," "God of many breasts," "God Almighty," and a few others. Mettinger follows the path of "the one of the mountain," and like most who do go down that path offers the similarity between the Hebrew word and an Akkadian word (shadu) as evidence. I am not arguing either for or against this view. I am simply exploring it along side Mettinger.

Mettinger makes note of the study of Albrecht Alt which challenged the conclusions made by another German OT scholar Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen had assumed that the text of the patriarchs was a description of the faith of Israel during the monarchy. Alt investigated the term "God of the Fathers" (Der Gott der Väter) and noticed that this designation treats God as "nameless,(he's just the God of so-and-so)" and "site less." The deity is not defined by a certain geographical location. Therefore, wherever so-and-so goes so does his God. This lead Alt to assume that the term "God of the Fathers" was used for a nomadic people. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a term defining the one (the deity) that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i.e. the fathers) had put their faith in. Mettinger adds, "If this presumption is correct, then we would have in 'the God of the fathers' an example of interplay between way of life and understanding of God, evidence to the effect that the understanding of God evolves in conjunction with the challenges presented by life itself." (Mettinger, 55)

Is it not true that we write worship songs to reflect our personal understanding of God in our personal life experience?

The Context

Lady R is always telling me "Life is Context." She's pretty good at reading a situation accurately because she's a great at determining meaning from the context.

I think we could take a similar approach when reading the Bible.

I've just finished one of my favorite books, In Search of God by Tryggve N.D. Mettinger. This is the first time I've read it all the way through although I was first introduced to the book in seminary. Our Hebrew professor had us read a portion of it about Job, and I was intrigued by the concept of God fighting chaos monsters (namely Leviathan and Behemoth). This started my journey towards my thesis.

Mettinger offers some thought provoking ideas of how to interpret the names of God throughout the history of the Hebrews in a Ancient Near East context. I'd like to share some his ideas on this. So, look out for those posts in the future.

Michener's God

James Michener was a writer who did extensive research on whatever topic he was writing. I was introduced to Michener during a summer class I took in Israel, and I picked up his The Source to see through his eyes how archeology can inform us about the past.

If you have read his Hawaii, you know Michener does not treat "Christians" with great kindness. Still, he has a lot to teach us about his view of God.

I present to you the theory of the evolution of God (religion) with special relation to the evolution of the Hebrew religion (or monotheism) to which he as well as many other scholars hold. My source is his Source.

I guess we start with "apelike man from Africa...looking for water...in a time when gods have not yet been called forth by hunger of man." This could have been about 12 000 years ago. Eventually, "man" began to walk upright (already having developed the capacity for language) and hunt for food. While the males were hunting the women were gathering wheat from away and learning to plant it closer to their primitive lodging.

Humans have moved into the arena of naming spirits and forces but have yet to develop "placating ceremonies." Crops depend on the sun and rain. There is an "I-It" relationship to the natural world and spirit world. There is "an impersonal spirit but inanimate."

Later, we've moved into an "I-You" (is there any influence from Martin Buber's I-Thou ?)relationship. The human thanks the flood by giving "him" an offering. Therefore, the elements have become personified.

The storm, the wind, the wild boar, and the water will know we mean them no harm if we put a high stone on a rock. They can then see we are not out to hurt them.

A lot more time passes, and we have the Canaanites and their fertility deities like Astarte (Ashtart) called Ashtoreth by the Hebrews, Ishtar by the Babylonians, and Aphrodite by the Greeks. Basically, we go from 1. self-awareness to 2. awareness of the natural world to 3. seeing the need for showing the elements that we are nice people to 4. personifying the elements to 5. placating the evil spirits who may cause us harm to 6. pleasing the fertile spirits/gods for the continuation of our self (both reproducing our own kind and the reproduction of the Earth).

Our monoliths are now established, considered dropped down from the sky by the gods. These stones became special and among the many monoliths erected, certain ones became holy. Trash collected around them and eventually covered most of the rock leaving just the top. This symbol becomes the "father of all gods" or "El," the source of all power.

The rise of monotheism is an attempt to pull all the gods together into one.

I realize that this is a pretty oversimplified explanation of the rise of monotheism. I sort of wanted it that way. To start, I, myself, need a simple way of understanding this process.

But why couldn't there have just been "God?"

Spirituality outside the Church

"This ["positive"secularism] means nothing of the sort that the Churches have to dominate society, to impose on it their rules, to attach to it a moral code and even a calender. First, because the religious fact can be independent of Churches. One can "believe" without belonging to any "organization." p16. (emphasis his)

So, if I have translated this correctly and if I understand Mr. Sarkozy's words, he is saying there exists a "spirituality" (emphasis mine) outside the institution of the Church.

While this concept is not new, we've seen it in America during the 19th century Romantic literary movement, I am surprised to hear it every time it is said. And I partly believe it. Sarkozy used the plural, Churches, when he spoke about spirituality. This is to say there is spirituality not only outside the Roman Church, but also outside any institutional church, which would have to included every flavor of Protestantism in France.

So what does this mean in regards to our own spiritual life outside the Church (to whichever one we may prescribe ourselves)? I think it means that no institution has the right to impose itself on society as a whole. And I would agree to a point. Having the Church as a political force is a super bad idea. But I also want the Church(es) to be able to practice its religion as it sees fit. However, if anyone wishes to practice religion differently, they should be given the freedom.

Besides, I think many would agree that we have our own spiritual life outside the congregation that we visit on Sundays. But what happens on Sunday is that we come together with similarly liked minded folks. Granted, some people get "spiritual" on Sunday, then forget about it for the rest of the week. But there are others who are truly trying to live their faith daily.

On the other hand, I ask, "Is there a such thing as 'church' authority? If so, how much influence does it or should it have over the people?" Most of us would agree, it shouldn't run the State. But outside the political realm, how much do I conform to it, as imperfect as it is? I am not a Transcendentalists, in the strict sense, but I also believe I can connect with God and other believers outside Sunday worship.