Is it time to rewrite Genesis?

What sort of writing is Genesis?

The first three chapters of the book of Genesis – the Judeo-Christian* creation myth commonly called the story of Adam and Eve – is associated today with a disregard for facts. That disregard for facts may take a heavy form in which the overwhelming evidence of modern biology and geology is denied in order to maintain a literal reading of these chapters (hereafter just referred to Genesis). Alternatively it may take a lighter form in which the facts are deemed less important than the moral truths of Genesis as if higher truth and mundane fact could be held as mutually exclusive fields.

I don’t think either the heavy or light kind of disregard for the facts honours the original authors because I think Genesis was an attempt to observe the facts of its own time. Then Genesis aims to do something quite excellent with these observations. Genesis tries to organize them in a way that gives meaning to its reader's present life. The greatness of that task is not recognized today if we simply say that Genesis can contradict the facts and stand.

This post was inspired by reading a defense of Genesis based on the argument that literalism wasn't a necessary position. That's correct; a totally literal reading of Genesis with days pre-existing the sky is just silly. It is a minority position in Judaism and Christianity. But neither does Genesis belong to an entirely different dimension of truth. Even a metaphor needs to be translatable – days can mean epochs for example, taking a fruit from a tree could even mean gaining religion. The Roman Catholic position is that we don't need to accept Genesis as science but we should accept it as history nonetheless - just in poetic language. If that was a solution with the Genesis account we could stop there, but its problems with modern observable reality are more qualitative.

So why bother replacing Genesis? Some people may with a shrug suggest we simply move on to the scientific account as if the age of creation stories can be considered behind us. But a purely scientific account would include all the data in the universe. For all the time it would take to tell it, such a perfectly scientific account would fail to address the key question of any creation story – who we are and what that means. Its story would be bereft of beginning, end and any plot.

The scientific account as it stands therefore needs to be woven into a narrative. Its facts need organization around us – the audience of its tale. For that to happen “us” needs to be defined. That’s what would turn it into a history.

Finally there are the moral truths of Genesis – the values which are implied from the story. Again these values rest on facts and can't be explained in the same way when the facts aren't there. However a purely factual account is not going to deliver these values – or any values – without a lot of narrative work (distancing it from a purely factual work).

Genesis is a story. It's a story about observable facts – which makes it more than those facts but also reliant on them.


How is Genesis broken?

By facts I mean observable reality that you and I can show each other. That “showing” may not be easy – it might require a demonstration of erosion or evolution on a smaller scale to prove a larger case but it can be done. It might also involve seeing ourselves or other animals in a certain light. Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall have shown us a side to the great apes that obliges us to recognise our similarities (while not ignoring real differences). Nuclear bombs and global warming show us our world is finite and fragile. Whatever the reasons (and science should not take all the credit for changes in ideas like animal rights or gender equality) we do not see exactly what the authors of Genesis see.

Firstly lets consider, what “facts” Genesis attempts to deal with;

• Humans are different to other animals but also the same in many ways. We uniquely have religion and language (we name animals) – allowing us to create the eternal spaces of ritual. Our minds definitely feel eternal. Yet we die like other animals – no matter what rituals we perform.
  
• Life is basically good (generally preferable to the alternative) – but also full of sorrow and death. The greatest sufferings are caused by inter-human strife. We also carry the burden of shame about our bodies unlike any other animal.
  
  
• All humans despite differences seem to be related – we are one species. Women are different to “us men” (Genesis was probably written by and largely for men) but still the same animal. We share the same flesh so to speak. No other creature can be company to “us” like a woman.
  

To an extent we don’t continue to observe these truths today. At the very least we observe them differently;

• Increasingly it’s harder to argue that humans are especially different to other animals. We are at least not the only personalities on the planet. Elephants mourn, monkeys use tools, mice sing and so on. We may even be only presuming that other animals have no “religion”. It therefore seems purely self-referential to put our species into a unique position.
  
  
• A part of the above is the recognition that “we” in reference to our species has not always been our species. If there are two categories – human and animal – then we were animal once. And we might evolve differently in the future. This undermines our special status as a species which is deeply assumed in Genesis. In Christian theology it is called the special creation of humans.
  
  
• Goodness and evil aren’t possible to separate in the natural world. What Genesis treats as something outside perfection – death in particular – has never been absent from life. Instead death and violence is observably part of the state of things, in the fossil record, well before any proto-human comes on the scene. This is where the scientific account differs from Genesis' with the greatest impact for Christian theology. In many forms of Christianity this idea that humans ruined creation through the introduction of sin is profoundly fundamental to their understanding of salvation (and justification for hell). However it no longer matches our observations.
  
  
• Genesis' treatment of gender has been used to claim patriarchy as part of a natural design – Adam is made first and Eve as his “help-mate.” Yet few people now doubt that any “first human” had both a mother and father. There was no boy's world first. We also now understand patriarchy to be a typical but not universal development in human societies and not grounded in the nature of men and women.
  

This last point is possibly the most contentious. Some people still hold that women belong in a position of submission to men’s leadership. Sometimes this belonging is described in a way that has no correspondence to any observable information – such as whether anyone is happier with that type of organization. For such people the rightness of patriarchy is just a condition of life we should accept on faith with no assessment of the outcomes. That’s a statement made entirely on faith and it’s on faith that I reject it entirely.

Note: I think there’s plenty of evidence that patriarchy doesn’t work well. The outcomes of organizations with the highest degrees of patriarchy are usually the worst for children, women and even men. I just have to resort to faith to reject a “spiritual” patriarchy which doesn’t need any evidence to argue its case precisely because evidence is irrelevant to its merit.

Other people reject that Genesis supports patriarchy. In fact they locate patriarchy in the consequences of our expulsion from paradise (although even there it can be used to oblige us to accept it). For them patriarchy is not a part of ideal life in Genesis but in fact repudiated by it. I think they should accept that Genesis contains an unnecessary potential to say that men are the image of God while women are the image of men. That’s a reading which has plagued society with the oppression of women and the unhelpful elevation of men. While it might be a misreading, its not an insane misreading. Genesis could easily be written better to preclude this conclusion.

Genesis also doesn't need to have it be a woman to be the one who tempts Adam to eat the fruit after having a chat with a deceiving serpent. No less a church father than the Apostle Paul used this special guilt to justify women being subservient to men;

1 Timothy 2: 11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

To be fair to Paul it's not an idiotic conclusion to draw if you hold that Genesis is true. The chain of fault behind the eating of the fruit reads like it should have meaning but it hasn't added anything but woe to gender relations.



While we're at it: A wish list for any creation story.

Entrenched patriarchy isn't the only problem to come from Genesis. “Green” readings of Genesis are entirely possible but have to do some complicated gymnastics around certain passages;

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them,“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Genesis was written too early for people to appreciate that the globe has limits. “Fill the earth” was also never imagined as a network of superhighways and boxstores with no room for subsistence farming. Something which acknowledged our earth's finitude in the face of human exploitation would be ideal in any new creation myth.

That's possibly going to be an even greater challenge for a story reflecting the scientific account. In a long world history in which countless species have become extinct how do we value the preservation of biodiversity today? How do we describe the loss of the White Rhino without reference to it's special creation? Should our current ecosystem be especially valued if such an ecosystem is not what any God intended but merely one iteration of the environment? Tough questions.

I definitely want to include something that checks our human destructive potential. We have the ability to be like terrible Gods and we need something that gives our finger pause over that button. In Genesis we are humbled beneath our creator. Gratitude is supposed to balance entitlement. That's something for other stories to consider how to include; gratitude and balance with or without a divine Creator.

Lastly we should recognise that the notion that we all bear the image of God has been used historically to defend human rights for all. Characters like Bishop Desmond Tutu have used this idea to challenge racism and homophobia. Although our Catholic Prime Minister fails to see it, this language argues for an equality between any asylum seeker and Gina Rhineheart. Without a special status for the human species will we undermine arguments for human equality and dignity? What can we write that matches the facts to make a case for human rights?

We shouldn't underestimate the task of replacing Genesis. In fact engaging in the task gives me fresh respect for the story. It does some hard philosophical work.

Also just superficially, that seven days thing, from a writers perspective, is gold. It has marvelous rhythm. Its not easy to write a creation story that has adequate gravitas without sounding overblown. My partner is currently sitting on her own opening paragraph in case I steal it.

More seriously mirroring the daily life of the community – the seven day week – in the form of creation allows audiences to ritually re-experience their origins in ordinary life. That's magnificent writing and I challenge anyone today to achieve something even remotely similar.

That wasn't rhetorical. I'm actually inviting submissions. Send me links to stories of our creation which you feel are up to scratch or if you don't know any then write your own. I'll publish them here or link to them if I feel they can do the job.

In a little while I'll even publish my own.



________________________________________________________________________

*Rabbinical Judaism divides the Torah into weekly readings. The first reading called Bereshit covers the first verse to halfway through chaper six of Genesis. I've chosen the first three chapters of Genesis to focus on due to my perception of their emphasis in Christianity and subsequently Western culture.

Christian readings of this story are also informed by first century theology in ways that aren't obviously in Genesis and not shared by Judaism. The Apostle Paul teaches the idea of Jesus as a second Adam correcting the error of the first which makes an actual Adam and Eve more crucial.  

Sermons I would like to hear: On the priesthood of women.

I’ve written a series of posts under the heading “Sermons I would like to hear”. I use this format to give me license to riff with the language sets of religious faith more freely. Under this heading I allow myself to be both a little more poetic and a little more merciless than I might be in a balanced critical essay. This is the most fire and brimstone of the bunch but like the others its definitely a sermon I would love to be surprised by in church.

I always advice reading these pieces in a Desmond Tutu accent.

_____________________________________________________________________

Anna, the Prophetess, Luke 2:36-38

Some organisations only permit men to hold leadership positions. Sometimes these organisations claim a mystical religious basis for their discrimination. Churches in particular claim that their organisation represents the truth about the infinite relationship of God to the world. Then some of them claim that this truth insists such representation can only be under mens’ leadership.

I want to preach against this, particularly in regard to Christianity, because there’s a Christian blasphemy occurring here. It’s a declaration that the image of God in woman’s image is not fully there and fully active. That’s the very definition of blasphemy; the disregard and denial of something of God.

In addition there is an idolatry being committed. There is a declaration that men, as clergy and elders, are especially necessary to interpret the truth about God. When we and particularly women are in the shadow of the valleys of our ignorance, we are supposed to accept that men and only men can provide the mirror to bring the light of the infinite to us.

That’s not a pedestal Jesus put men on. It’s something men keep replacing for themselves but it’s a pedestal Jesus kicked over in his teachings:

While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” – Luke 20:45-47

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”

- Mathew 23: 8-15

In case there was any uncertainty;

• (Luke 1:39-55) Mary and her sister Elizabeth are the first two human voices to herald Jesus and the new covenant with Israel. They lead our response to the incarnation.
• (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) A woman is the only person who beats Jesus in an argument. He listens to her and she changes his mind with her words. No man ever obtains this result despite several attempts by scholarly men to debate Jesus.
• (Matt 26: 6-13)  It is a woman who first acknowledges when Jesus is due to die and accepts this. Although the male disciples criticized her, remembering her public worship is to be a mark of the gospel for all time.
• (Math 28: 5-7) Jesus’ resurrection is first revealed to two women. They lead our response to the promise of new life.

It is clear that, for Christianity at least, male only leadership is not the mirror that shines the light of God into dark places. Male only leadership is the mirror we have inserted between God and ourselves to see what we wish to see.

People opposed to women’s leadership in the church are sinning. Some are allowing the seductions of tradition, privilege, a desire for self-importance or fear of their own importance to affect their discernment of God’s gifts, and thus also their discernment of God. More of them are just fitting in to their churches and not rocking the boat. They are participating in blasphemy and idolatry so as not to cause a fuss. That’s normal human behaviour but hey, sin is still sin. It is normal to sin, even in church, maybe especially in church.

There is a feeling that we can’t be sinning when we are making religious rules for all to follow. There is a feeling that sin has to be loutish and born of laxity, rather than of strictness and self-discipline. This feeling says that imposing strictures and erring on the side of “no” to possibility, is only ever a defence against sin. If we make laws that are more than necessary then sin is merely better prevented than it needed to be, says this feeling.

This feeling is deeply incorrect. Some people’s demons are booze and porn but others people’s demons are the book of Deuteronomy and a pulpit. The false belief that severity and austerity equal greater moral safety is the deceit of those demons. It is perfectly possible to sin whilst paying close attention in church with scriptures and highlighter in hand. Jesus saw this when he appealed to the Pharisees to change their ways. You can hold tight to the words of scripture and find ways to sin grievously via those words.

Let us look closely at the parts of the bible that those opposed to women’s ordination cling tightly to. There are no words from Jesus. There are only two direct proof texts from the letters of Paul.

 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 New International Version (NIV)

Paul of Tarsus, how dare you teach that women hold a special responsibility for the fallen nature of the world and carry any greater burden for their redemption than men? How dare you on this matter contradict what you have elsewhere preached, that the grace and grace alone of Christ (Romans 3 :21-31), not childbearing, not gender roles, not acting with propriety is what women will be saved through?

I don’t know what purpose these lies achieved for you. We can’t know. We only know that today these lies serve both idolatry and blasphemy in the church. We thank God that we are required to treat you as human, not a god, in your authority as a preacher. This is bad theology on many levels and it’s childish. Men must stop blaming Eve.

Let’s remember it was a male disciple who betrayed Christ, a male disciple who denied him, and men in authority who crucified him. Do we really want to tally up historical wrongs against God by gender here?

Then there is this passage:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.  
-1 Corinthians 14:34-35 New International Version (NIV)

Paul, what could you have meant here by “disgraceful”? I can only feel sad for you that at this time it seems, you couldn’t hear a women publicly ask about God and delight in her desire to know. I wonder, what did women challenge for you? Did women take God too far for you?

You have forgotten or perhaps you never knew what Jesus had to say to Mary and Martha. ("Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Luke 10: 38- 42) But how have you forgotten something so central to your own gospel; It is better to be disgraced for God than concerned about the law? (Galatians 2:15) I hope God forgives you, Paul, and anyone else who makes your sin their own.

Let us pray for the forgiveness of those who argue for male only leadership in the church. Let us pray that God takes from them their appetite for sin, that we humbly recognize takes different forms in us all.

Dear God, help all to see the image of God in our daughters and nothing more than the image of God in our sons.

Magic Books

Certain books are magic. That is to say, their words are unchallengeable. If a statement is made in a magic book it can be absolutely relied upon to be truth, by virtue of its inclusion in the book – there is no need for further substantiation. That’s the book’s magic.

Books that claim to be magic are usually channeled. Their author is not the mook whose name is on the cover but an other-worldly source, like an alien or angel, who writes through the author. There are many modern forms of this type of book. “Seth Speaks” and “A Course in Miracles” are the only ones I’ve held in my hand but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list.  An older example of this would be the Qur’an which was technically written by Mohammed but has classically been understood by Muslims as being dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel. Sometimes a magic book is found intact and merely translated under divine guidance as in the Book of Mormon but the principle is the same – the author, however forensics might identify them, is not the real author.

Older magic books also need to base their authority on a miraculous preservation of their text. There must be a force usually unidentifiable to science or historical investigation that ensures that only the right translation, the correct editing and even the only legitimate formation of a canon of texts from a broad selection occurs. If certain portions are lost then this is usually not permitted to create a gap in a magic book – those losses are equally meant to be. At least I can’t think of a magic book which is considered incomplete. When a new book that could be placed in the Jewish Bible/Old Testament was found.it did not make it into either. What we have of the Apostle Paul’s letters is generally considered sufficient although we only have silence from those he wrote to. There are no gaps.

I should be very careful however before I label the Christian Bible, The Qur’an or Jewish Scriptures as magic books. Not everybody who holds these texts in high respect consider them in that fashion. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews recognize the humanity of their scripture’s authorship and accept its errancy. Others view them like incomplete poetry meant to inspire rather than clearly instruct – sort of magical but not in the exact sense I mean here.

But many do believe they possess the qualities of a magic book. They believe that any statement of their holy book is true, by virtue of its inclusion in their book. These people would accept that the real author of their scripture is God (or an Angel of God at least) and merely published via channeling through human hands.  These people would also believe that some type of magical preservation ensures that the copy of their scripture in their hand (possibly even a translation) is absolutely how it is meant to be.

For these people scripture is the unchallengeable last word in any discussion. There is no getting behind it or around it because its credibility is unassailable. These people are not necessarily literalists or fundamentalists. Literalists believe there is only one obvious interpretation of scripture – all scripture is considered to be like the history channel ought to be, factual and concrete. Literalists believe their magic book only includes the genre of straight reportage.

Christians, Jews and Muslims who believe they possess a magic book also include non-literalists who would tolerate a lot of discussion about the correct interpretation of their scriptures. They would accept that creation accounts may not be scientific accounts and even that later events may not be all historical (the book of Jonah for example). However they would maintain that this doesn’t change the moral authority of scripture. In what sometimes seems to be an act of double-think they hold that while some scriptural accounts are metaphorical stories they can still be used as the absolute final word in any argument. They are believed to tell a “deep truth” that is more important than their surface untruth.

Having a magic book whether of the literal kind or the kind that takes a bit of interpretation is obviously quite handy. With it many arguments can be quickly or at least ultimately resolved. However how do we know if a book is really magic? Having the wrong magic book could be quite dangerous. Who can say what might come out of following the Seth Material if it isn’t sound advice “The fact remains that there are probable past events that can "still happen" within your personal previous experience. A new event can literally be born in the past -- "now.".” Time paradoxes abound.

Some people are inclined to dismiss all magic books out of hand. Postmodernists don’t believe that there is a fundamental moral truth that any author or editor (even a magical one) could write down. Postmodernists would hold that the Seth Material even if it is channeled from Seth could only ever contain Seth’s opinions about absolute truth– not absolute truth itself. Similarly an Existentialist might argue that no magic book allows us to abdicate our moral responsibility to make our own decisions. Even if the Universes’ Creator has pruned the Christian Bible to perfection, blindly following its text commits the moral horror of rendering ourselves automatons.

For those of us who don’t consider a magic book an impossibility or an irrelevance it’s worth giving the question “How can we tell if a book is magic or not?” serious consideration. We want to be sure we have the right one. I think there are three tests we can apply. The first two are fairly logical, however the third is not and yet it’s the one I most use.

Firstly we generally consider that truth is consistent with itself. That’s an interesting assumption that I’ve yet to properly investigate. What it would mean, if we accept this assumption, is that if a book contradicts itself it is not able to be a magic book; all of its statements can’t be true. This can be a first test. However when applying this test we need to be careful. Some statements seem contradictory when they’re not i.e. My pants are red and my pants are black are not contradictory if my pants are red and black striped.

Uncovering contradictions in the Christian Bible for example is definitely not a straightforward task. Literalists face a contradiction in the two accounts in Genesis of creation, however non-literalists are not at all confounded by that because the “deep truth” that we are created by God is consistent with both. The Bible is also full of contradictory moral messages such as the commandment that thou shall not kill and then commandments to kill whole peoples or one’s disrespectful children or two adulterers or some sodomites. However such moral instruction can be allowed to be situational. It’s not really contradictory to say Go and then Stop to a child crossing the road is it? It depends on if a car is coming. While I find it a terrible stretch it isn’t impossible to excuse the diverse moral values communicated in the text in something like this way. Obeying God is at least consistent.

The Gospels contain numerous small inconsistencies however for me there is a glaring theological contradiction in the Christian bible that overwhelms them. In the Old Testament it is important that the Jews have no other God other than Yahweh but in the New Testament we are introduced to a Son of God whom Jews should worship. Although this Son of God is supposed to have been present from creation they never rated a mention whenever the Old Testament God specifically demanded exclusive worship. This contradiction was apparent to early Christians, who through the theology of the trinity knitted it into a workable synthesis – God is one and three. Taking the Christian bible as an example, self-contradiction isn’t a great test of a magic book because it can clearly be defeated by new interpretations that resolve what seem like irreconcilable differences.

Secondly we can investigate what a magic book claims about the world. Even non-literalists will usually accept that certain statements made by their magic books are factual and historic. If clear evidence from the world contradicts those statements then this can be a failed test of a books magic status.

The objection to a books magic status on the basis of inconsistency with what we know of the world however can be defeated in one of three ways:

1. The historical record is so long ago that we can’t be totally sure of what we think we know about the world in that case. Archaeologists mostly don’t believe that the first born child of every Egyptian family was killed and all the Hebrew slaves escaped by drowning the Pharaoh in a river as depicted in Exodus. They believe that an Isreali identity evolved in Cannan (the Promised Land) over a longer period of settlement than this would allow. However we can only say the events of Exodus are unlikely not impossible. Defenders of Biblical inerrancy stress how the incompleteness of archaeology means we can’t be sure of a contradiction even when the biblical details seem very wrong..
2. Exactly what is considered to be historical and what is metaphorical in a magic book is able to shift quite radically to defeat any critique based on its inaccuracy. Something like the story of Noah’s ark is considered preposterous by any zoologist. The diversity of species in just the primate family means that the only way all primates could come from two apes on the ark would be if a process of super evolution occurred after disembarking. The alternative that many different primate species were represented on the ark requires an insane amount of food, space and so on. This can be disregarded by allowing Noah’s ark to be understood as a purely allegorical story.
3. Claims made about the world by magic books include prophecies; however unfulfilled prophecies can be shifted to a later time perpetually even when they appear to be given an expiry date. Jesus reportedly told his disciples he would return before the current generation would pass away. If we think he meant the life span of the apostles then he hasn’t but then generation could mean an epoch or even all of time. The Revelation of St. John contains specific references to churches which no longer exist. However The Revelation of St. John contains a lot of evocative imagery that was never supposed to be taken literally. Anytime can therefore be made to fit it, if you squint a little. Nobody ever has to consider these prophecies unfulfilled.

These three methods of escape mean that there really isn’t any workable test of a holy book’s claims to be found in the events of the world.

Thirdly we can come to a magic book with certain moral convictions and if we find them to be contradicted by the magic book we can reject it. This is the easiest test to use - there’s no need to keep abreast of archaeological research or scriptural interpretation – but it’s also based on a large assumption. We are assuming that our own moral convictions are sound.

The hadiths (a collection of sayings) of Mohammed (though not the Qur’an itself) demand death for an apostate. An apostate is someone who changes their religion – in this case from Islam. For me that is not only wrong but boringly wrong. I can barely muster up the energy to argue against it. If I had to I would point out that killing people for leaving your religion effectively means that some people stay in your religion purely for fear of death. That’s a sorry outcome for the individual but also for the integrity of your religion. On that basis I conclude Mohammed's hadiths are not magically true.

In the Jewish sacred Book of Deuteronomy there are instructions to stone your child to death if they are rebellious (and don’t respond to other punishments). Once again that’s so wrong to me I have no heart to argue about it. That’s a case closed example of why this is not a magic book for me. Even as I write this I am just shrugging my shoulders and thinking, “I’m done,” in terms of evaluating the absolute moral authority of this text at such a point.

In 1 Corinthians 14: 35, the Christian Apostle Paul writes that “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”. Again for me a statement like that is the end of any discussion that the Christian Bible including Paul’s letters is a magic book with the power to be right all the time. That doesn’t mean that I have to consider the Christian Bible useless or even Paul a bad guy on balance. There is a context for his words that we are missing. However the idea that every word in the Bible is magically preserved and arranged to be able to correctly end any argument has ceased to be possible for me.

Of course this third test has no power at all to convince someone that their magic book isn’t actually magic. What is my certain basis for condemning murdering people who leave your faith, stoning your rebellious offspring or shutting women up as a rule? I may have arguments but no certain basis. To have an absolutely certain basis I probably would need a magic book of my own – which I lack.

That’s a logical conclusion however. Emotively I feel certain of these moral convictions. They are how I have decided to live my life. I don’t anticipate them changing. Genocide is never going to be justified to me although it is justified in the Jewish Bible. Similarly the sexual expression of love between two men or two women is a beautiful thing to me even as it is condemned in a few magic books. For all intents and purposes I use these opinions as facts. I have to concede though they are not facts. Not really.

In conclusion then I don’t think there is any really effective way to test the validity of any magic book claim. Or rather any test we have can be evaded and defeated by someone convinced they have a magic book. Consequently I don’t know how to properly respond to people who use their magic books in arguments. This is sad for me and perhaps for them too.

If you do have a magic book I ask you, “What test have you used to establish your books magic status? Is there any test it could fail that would cause you to change your opinion?”

The Prodigal Pursuit

A father had two sons. The youngest of these came to him and asked for his inheritance.

“What, would you wish me dead?” he asked him in return.

The youngest replied, “I merely wish to make my own way in this world. Give me my inheritance so that I can be my own man.”

Although it broke his heart the father divided his estate and gave his younger son his portion. The son immediately sold the land for cash and left with the proceeds.

The older brother returned at the end of the day to find their Father depressed. “What has been done to you?”

The Father relayed what had happened and the older brother was filled with bitter rage. “Father, give me my portion of the estate too and I will sell it to raise enough money to pursue my brother and punish him for his crime.”

“But that is not what I wish.”

“Father, If I do not do this then no-one will respect you,” stated the older brother.

“Not even you, my son? Will you not respect me either?” pleaded his father.

“Not even I.”

With a truly heavy heart the father granted the older brother their wish. And this is how it has been since then. One “good” brother searches the globe to punish his “bad” brother. He maintains the cold honour of his father.

Meanwhile the father mourns alone.

 ________________________________________________________

Note: If you aren't familiar with it this is an adaption (corruption?) of a parable commonly titled the Prodigal Son. (Luke15:11-32)

I toyed with the idea of changing the father to a mother. To do would make more sense because we would more easily forgive the disrespect of the older brother and be appalled at the disrespect of the younger brother in that situation. Try it and see. It’s easier in our culture to justify as protection, disrespect of a matriarchs wishes, particularly for male sons.

I've also always wondered where the mother is in the original story. I know its a parable but I still think its a legitimate question.

I didn’t change it in the end in order to keep the obvious connection with Luke15:11-32. The piece was after all inspired by this young persons youtube vid.  I think she beats up on herself too harshly but I really appreciated her sentiment.

The Forces of Light and Darkness

This is part of a series on the roots of Christian Violence. You can find the other parts here. Reading the previous part (A House Divided) should be enough to put this post in context.

Introduction

The Folly of Appraising Christianity
The Unpayable Debt of Salvation

A House Divided and The Fuel for the Fire

and following on from this piece Protecting the Weak

The Forces of Light and Darkness

“Now this is the message that we have heard from his Son and announce to you: God is light and there is no darkness at all in him. If then we say that we are in fellowship with him, yet at the same time live in the darkness, we are lying both in our words and in our actions. But if we live in the light – just as he is in the light – then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son makes us clean from every sin.

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and make us clean from all our wrongdoing. If we say that we have not sinned, we make a liar out of God, and his word is not in us.”

-Today’s English Version, 1 John 1: 5-10

“Children these are the last days: You were told that an Antichrist must come and now several antichrists have already appeared; We know from this that these are the last days.
Those rivals of Christ came out from our own number, but they had never really belonged. If they had belonged, they would have stayed with us.”
 -New Jerusalem Bible 1 John 2:18-20

Consider the usefulness of the above verses to an inquisitor. Take note that there is no grey. You are either with the light or the dark. Take note as well that Johns anti-christs “claim fellowship with Christ” and are “from our own number.” These are the classic reds under the bed, not a clearly separate enemy.

John, the author of the above letters also wrote the Revelation of St. John. This final book in the Christian canon expands these themes of light and dark to illustrate a final conflict between an army of darkness led by an anti-christ and Christ’s true and persecuted church. God’s intervention routs the forces of the anti-christ and through the unleashing of terrors over the earth (plagues and more) makes a final testament to their power before humanity.

Although there are specific messages to historical churches in The Revelation Christians tend to see this book as prophecy yet to be fulfilled. The ambiguity of who Revelations addresses means Christians have regularly understood their immediate situation and their doctrinal conflicts in the light of this prophecy. There is an army of darkness full of false promises and a few who stand in the light of God’s truth.

Now 1 John and Revelations can be interpreted in all manner of ways. The light can even mean the light of compassion. However for the inquisition (as it would for the later reformers) being in the light meant sharing the doctrines of the true church without doubt. The same dichotomy was also celebrated by the other side as well who saw themselves as the forces of light. The effect has been to exaggerate difference and attribute a sinister agenda to ones opponents. They are not part of the work of the true church like us but serve Satan (wittingly or unwittingly). John supports this interpretation in referring to the earliest Christian heresy of Gnosticism;

“There are many deceivers about in the world, refusing to admit that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. They are the Deceiver, they are the Antichrist.”
–        New Jerusalem Bible 2 John 2: 7

The first crusade refers to an intra-Christian war with the losers remembered by the name Cathars. The Cathars (they just called themselves good Christians) took some biblical passages literally and treated other passages as metaphorical but not the same ones as the Roman Catholic Church. Chiefly they felt that no-one should be called Father but God and they considered the transubstantiation of the Catholic eucharist into Gods actual body and blood as blasphemous. The Cathars also had extreme renunciative practices – they fasted and avoided most meats. They held that our souls belonged to God but that our flesh had been crafted by the devil and they rejected the authority of the Old Testament. None of these views made them anything other than model members of their towns and villages according to the French nobles with Cathars on their lands.

What the Catholic Church said about them was something quite different. The Cathars were accused of worshipping a black cat and kissing its bottom as well as that of the devil in human form. They were accused of participating in sexual orgies and keeping several wives. Most bizarrely they were accused of suicide. This was an odd charge given that they were hunted down and put to the death for it. One very early case collapsed when a witness was to say they had seen a noble riding to an orgy on a giant crab. The noble refuted it and the witness recanted leading to the inquisitor being driven out of town.

This was nothing new. The Cathars were related ideologically to the Bogomils. Of them we have an eleventh century description of incestuous orgies, the offspring of which were supposedly drained and burnt and their ashes turned into a drink.

Ultimately if no actual heresy existed then it was possible to create one. Historians now believe that the Heresy of the Free Spirit was an invention of the inquisition. This groups chief doctrine was that having been saved we could do whatever we wanted to sexually. Such rampancy of sexual licentiousness in the churches enemies is no mistake. While the celibacy of the Inquisitors may have contributed to their fantasies of sexual depravity this is also a reflection of a vision in Revelations, a woman drunk on the blood of God’s people, titled “the Great Babylon, mother of all prostitutes and perverts of the world.” (Revelations 17)

Although this vision is strongly indicated as referring to a city other meanings come to mind when we read “Every one of her shows and orgies are to be matched by a torture or grief” (Rev.18:7) She is to be “burned right up” and the kings who fornicated with her will watch “the smoke of her burning”.

Johns’ was the language that enabled men who had devoted their lives to God to burn hundreds of Cathars at a time - approximately four hundred Cathars died in 1211 in the largest mass burning. One Abbot who later was to become an arch-bishop destroyed a whole walled city of at least seven thousand people in order to get to about two hundred Cathars. He famously proclaimed “Kill them all, the Lord knows those who are his own.”

Believing that our side is completely in the light and our opponents are completely of the dark is not something we have left in the past. The similarity between the Salem Witch Trials and the 1950's House of Unamerican Activities is the point made by The Crucible. The suspension of basic rights for suspected terrorists in The United States, and the permission of torture shows this kind of thinking is still alive and well. There’s also no way that Christianity began this type of thinking. It was used against them before they gained power.

However this thinking also springs from the last book of the Christian Bible, The Revelation of St. John and his other writings. This author continues to speak to modern Christians. For two thousand years he urges them to watch out for a great and evil worldwide conspiracy in service to the devil. John writes beautifully on the importance of love in Christian communities but he suspends that love when it comes to those “bearing different doctrines.”

“If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him in your house or even give him a greeting. To greet him would make him a partner in your work.”

- New Jerusalem Bible 2 John 2: 9-11

They are in league with the forces of darkness after all.

_______________________________________________________________

My partner in her wisdom pointed out that I should acknowledge my debt to one source in particular "The Grand Inquisitors Manual, A History of Terror in the Name of God" by Jonathon Kirsch. In fairness to him I should also say Kirsh doesn't come to the same conclusions as I do (nor involve Johns' writings), not necessarily because we disagree but because we are asking different questions.

The Massacre of the Innocents

This Christmas there will be many parts of the biblical Christmas story shared and remembered. Church sermons will reflect on Mary being told that she’s to bear the Messiah. School pageants will recall the visitation of the angel to the shepherds at Jesus birth. Nativity scenes will depict the attendance of the three wise men. One event though will probably not be getting a lot of airplay. It occurs after the birth although it is predictable beforehand. It is a huge downer and certainly not child friendly. It has traditionally been called “The Massacre of the Innocents.”

In the Gospel of Mathew, Herod, the king of the Jews, hears from the wise men of the star in the sky they are following. Such a star they tell him heralds the coming of a great king. Herod asks them to return and tell him where they find this future king so he can pay homage too. However an angel warns the wise men that Herods’ real plan is to kill his rival so they should go back to their homes another way. When Herod realises he won’t be able to locate the specific child he wants to destroy he has all male children under the age of two from around Bethlehem killed. Joseph is warned by an angel and Jesus escapes.  

Herods’ killing of the male children is “The Massacre of the Innocents”. In the medieval era this was a significant event in the church calender. These children were considered the first Christian martyrs and in some traditions their numbers were estimated as far more than 100,000. Contemporary historians don’t all agree that The Massacre of the Innocents actually happened. There are many symbolic reasons why it might have been included in Mathews Gospel instead. Those who believe it happened now suppose its victims number closer to dozens than thousands. However there is no dispute that this event actually fits into the range of viable actions for government in the first century. Specifically no-one believes it’s out of character for Herod. In the first century Middle East these sorts of things happened.

Jesus grows up to deliver his message to this world of terrible violence. His primary audience are a Jewish people under the antagonising rule of Rome. Even if the Massacre of the Innocents is not true Jesus spoke to people who had lost family to the whims of a government intent on breaking their spirit. Jerusalem was a trouble spot for the Romans and administrators who brought peace by any bloody means could hope to be promoted out of there. To complete the insult there was never any chance for official justice against a roman soldier who had killed a member your family. You could join a resistance movement which had no real chance of success or you could redirect your rage towards elements of your own community or yourself.

There are parts of our world today that bear a terrible resemblance to first century Jerusalem. In fact Palestinian areas around Israel are one. Israeli missiles and tanks have led to many massacred children. The response as in Jesus’ time has been ineffectual revolutions epitomised by rocks thrown at tanks but also tragically by bombs on school buses and in cafes. More children die.

My own life however is nothing like this and I’ve been pondering lately how this means I am apt to miss the point of Christianity. When I translate something like the Sermon on the Mount to my own life I don’t have very real enemies to love. Does Jesus mean the guy hooning down my street at two am? If so I think I can overcome my hate fairly easily. It’s not like I was going to kill them anyway. I’ll just think of their troubled youth and fragile ego issues and feel a sort of benevolent pity for them. Instead of shouting out words of hate and waking up my partner to boot or holding on to a malevolent disdain through the next day I’ll just let it go with nice thoughts. Wow, this Christianity is actually kinda good for me. It’s like a positive mood reinforcer.

What this means however is when something genuinely terrible happens Christianity of the “don’t sweat the small stuff” variety just doesn’t seem to apply. If Christianity is about just feeling nicely disposed towards people who play loud music on the bus then it’s insulting to suggest it speaks to rape victims for example. If Christianity is about just not holding on to mean thoughts then trying to paint it over a conflict such as the Israel -Palestinian one is ludicrous.

That’s why I think we should remember the massacre of the innocents – not necessarily because it actually happened as depicted – but because it gives us a measure of the depth of pain Jesus directly spoke to. Imagine having your child killed by the government and then hearing a survivor of their generation talk about “turning the other cheek.” I think I would want to crucify him.

This also sheds some light on the hostility Jesus copped from the Pharisees of his time. The Pharisees have become a kind of Christian joke. They stand against what has been reinterpreted as a plea for us to have a general warm regard towards others. Of course this makes them look foolish as well as petty and bitter unlike the balanced healthy-outlook Jesus. The Pharisees are people who seem to be pathologically attached to judging and hating. Until we remember the massacre of the innocents.

As I wrote in my post “The Prodigal God” when Jesus embraced sinners he was embracing collaborators with the Romans amongst others. This is akin to Palestinians embracing collaborators with a modern Israel or Irish Catholics embracing collaborators with Protestant rule in the mid twentieth century. It’s an insane idea, it’s insulting and its first century Christianity. By comparison the Pharisees are the balanced ones.

This Christmas many of us will be rushing around, dodging new p-plate drivers and frantic shoppers. Some of us will be sitting in nursing homes getting our Christmas presents stolen by the patient down the hall. Others of us will have to negotiate access and custody over our children with people we can’t stand. Some of us might just be seated next to a grumpy relative for lunch. Some of us may even get our house robbed. Maybe we will use the Christmas spirit to help us take these small and not so small sufferings a little better. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

Still I think we should remember the Massacre of the Innocents and be aware that many of us in safe countries only taste a small bitter sip of what love your enemy originally meant. If we don’t be so mindful we risk missing how marvellously outrageously insane Jesus was in his time. Even as a non-Christian I think that would be a shame.

Worshipping a small god.

It was recently put to me that my picture of God is too small. On the one hand I can deny that charge quite easily. My God as a non-theist is nothing. The only people who have a God as large as mine are the pantheists who worship everything. After all every Buddhist knows that the only thing as large as everything is nothing –the two being complimentary sides of the same concept. I’m not being facetious here. Both Buddhists (and Daoists even more so) make a lot of the smallness of particular Gods in comparison to emptiness or the dao.

The accusation however was not about the non-God (no-thing) I profess to actually believe in. What was being referred to by the smallness of my God was the smallness of my imagined Divine being. I actually consider it a very valid (though incorrect) criticism. It’s a fair question as to whether it’s true that my picture of God is too small even though I don’t believe in them. I agree that any answer as to whether or not you think God exists is less important than who would you worship as God if you believed they existed. Whether you believe God exists is after all a matter of your experience (hopefully). What you consider God is a matter of your values and to me much more interesting.

I’m also more than happy to respond to the question as I particularly find the idea of worshipping a small god fascinating. I’ve been wondering a lot about it lately. What if your God couldn’t kick all the other Gods arses? What if they didn’t control the universe and everything that went down? What if they couldn’t make people believe in them, or decide who didn’t? But they were still your God.

Is that even possible? Can we imagine size (which I equate, perhaps foolishly, with power and majesty) ever not being a defining characteristic of God? I sometimes feel that I labour under a version of God largely determined by the Christian Reformation. This God can’t be assessed morally by mere humanity. This God is good but they aren’t known by that Goodness because humanity in its depravity can’t recognize Goodness reliably enough to find God by it. Instead this God is known by their might and by might I’m talking off-the-charts might; omnipotence, complete control over everything, absolute sovereignty. In brief this is a God known by their power whose goodness is a matter of faith. They are God only because of their size.

What if we reversed that? What if we had a God who was known by their goodness but whose power was a matter of faith. This is our small god. They are what we might consider God if we were content with small. What would such a God look like?

Firstly let’s consider the following prayer,

Dear God,

I know you cannot prevent my enemies from harming me.

I accept that bad things will still happen despite you.

God, I hope I can bear when bad things happens to those I love as well

And you cannot save them

I shall remain faithful to you

I shall not turn to other Gods who can protect me.

I shall not even turn to other Gods who can protect those I love.

Although you cannot make me I will worship you, my God,

Amen

This prayer gives a picture of what the worship of a small god might look like. For me the comparison with a commitment to non-violence is obvious though every attempt I have made to write out the connection has been clunky and insuccinct. The connection for me is obvious because I instinctively imagine “turning to a god” to mean putting one’s faith in a method or approach. I think of worshipping a God as a gangster worships his gun or an investor his business acumen or a politician his charm.

When we turn to a God of “size” the method we trust in is violence because violence is essentially about making things happen, about control and about the virtue of power. If we worshipped a small god (deliberate small-g) then we would instead be putting our faith in powerlessness. We would be turning to non-violence.

Now it is possible to be non-violent precisely because you believe in a large God who makes things happen. It is quite possible to repeat “Vengeance is Mine” sayeth the Lord. Here we hand our violent duties up. We refuse violence because to engage in it is to (attempt to) usurp God’s role and we wait patiently for God to kick ass instead.

Similarly we can be non-violent because violence isn’t tactically effective in a particular situation. Consider a discussion about tactics before an anti-logging action. One person may argue against using aggressive tactics because the break-up of peaceful protests on the news will look so bad that public support will swing to their cause and force the logging to stop (whereas aggression would do the opposite). That is an argument which both anti-violence and pro-violence protestors can appreciate.

Both of these essentially strategic rejections of personal violence are not worshipping a small God. I consider them important to mention so that we can put them to one side. There is a deeper commitment to non-violence. This is an active and complete rejection of violence in principle. Sometimes this is thought of in terms of non-action. The Daoists who reject violence take this path. Others have replaced violence with love. This would include Buddhists and of course Christianity.

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5: 9)

“You have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, don’t resist him that is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

If any man would go to law with you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.

Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Give to him who asks you and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

 You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy; But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

(Mathew 5:38-45)

Then Jesus said to him, “Put up your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword” (Mathew 26:52)

A common soundbite is how deeply confusing Jesus as God was to the 1^st century. Here was a weak God who couldn’t stop his own arrest, couldn’t overthrow the Roman oppressors, or protect his temple, got hungry, tired and hurt. Heck, they got dead. What kind of God was that? 

The soundbite continues that the Jews failed to recognise their messiah because they were looking for a militaristic God who would change the world forcefully. The idea that a God wouldn’t or couldn’t kick arse was insane – size effectively equalling Godhood.

Strangely evangelical Christianity seems to be back in the same place it places 1^st century Judaism. The evangelical Christian looks forward to the strong image of the returning God presented by Revelation rather than backwards to a Gospel God who didn’t make Empire. This Revelation Jesus is the fantastic God who kicks arse. They are the same hopefully militaristic, world changing messiah that the soundbite above attributes to the hopes of first century Jews. Basically if we understand The Revelation of John even semi-literally we have a very different attitude to violence, to power and to making things happen than the Gospels give us.

Jack Caputo is a theologian who illustrates this point brilliantly. He describes the Christian Gospel with Revelation as “violence deferred”; The cross is not God rejecting violence but God suspending its use until the end times. In fact the only way to avoid the violence of our eventual punishment is to enter into the symbolic rescue of the cross. This in effect makes the cross violent. We are being invited to be grateful to Jesus for saving us but at the same time the invitation is written on a baseball bat (or a horse’s head in our bed). And we can rest assured that Jesus is only sparing Roman rule (indeed any alternative rule) for a little while.

It would be cute for me to conclude that the evangelicals have got it wrong and that Christianity is indeed the worship of a small or weak god. It would make a neat rejoinder to the accusation that began this piece (which came from a Christian). When discussing this idea with non-christians they have often jumped to this conclusion without my mentioning Christianity at all.  Tolstoy, whose The Law of Love and the Law of Violence I am currently reading would agree with them. He makes a great case that Christianity is love in the place of violence without exception.

I’m not sure I agree though. I think God’s powerful return is deeply imbedded in Christianity. I think you can make a case that Christianity should evolve into something non-apocalyptic (it’s been two thousand years after all) and that it must go beyond understanding the atonement inside first century concepts of justice. I just don’t know if it’s fair to say that’s what Christianity is just because that’s what I might think it should be. I think that kind of claim is a type of linguistic violence.

So what about me though. Do I worship a small god? My own attitude to violence is an ambivalent one. I have received violence from the state and it was both the uncivilised boot to the head and the civilised false charges and a court date. I know that violence can occur explosively particularly if your skin is darker and your accent thicker or you mess with people’s ideas about gender but also even when those things don’t apply. I know it can make no sense.

I also know we live in a world where violence lurks at the end of many conversations. Certainly I have been a resource gate-keeper and a key-twirler in my employment in social services. Sometimes it’s been my call that’s led to someone being evicted from a housing or detox program. Ultimately I’ve called the cops to do my violence for me if conversation doesn’t work. Only by kidding myself that I am only what my own hands and feet do can I pretend this is non-violent. The possibility of that phone call and my relative power in making it permeate my interactions with “clients” or “residents” at all times. Honestly the threat of violence is distant but still present in every conversation about cleaning up your own mess or attending a group meeting that I’ve had.

Lastly I’m aware that I am fairly articulate and that this articulation can be experienced as violence to people without it. There are definitely rhetorical “tricks” that are deceptive. Equally definitely there are rhetorical “sledgehammers” which are a kind of violence. Sure they don’t threaten life and limb but they try and make things happen conceptually that are inescapable. I narrowly avoided one when I refused to say Christianity is what I think it should be.

I certainly didn’t enjoy receiving violence and I feel uncomfortable wielding it (directly, via the state or even in language). However I am not prepared to completely reject it. I am scared for my family almost every day. I get angry at bullies and would rather get between them and their next victim with all the force I need to stop them. On the conversational level I am tired of tolerating homophobic and sexist drivel that hides behind claims of “separate but equal”. I want to slap it down. Really, really honestly I want and feel I need violence. I care about results too much in some regards to throw away the certainty of outcome that violence offers.

Quite frankly I am too frightened to really say the prayer in this blog. I can see myself turning from a God who can’t help me to methods which can. I admire those who are braver – people like Ghandi and Tolstoy and Oscar Romero who remained with non-violence no matter what. Maybe I will get there one day but I’m not there yet. I am just not brave enough to worship a small god.