Thursday, December 8, 2011

12/8: Konquering Koinonitas via 3)Excluded Middle 4)Missonal Shematic Trinitarianism

: FLAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

>>Original article here

>>Excluded Middle or Expanded Midle:

>>Article from Missiology:

MR #28: A Theology of Power

Missionaries and church leaders frequently emphasize power because the worldviews of the cultures in which they minister are power-focused. In many contexts the cognitive structures of the worldview is multi-layered. Formal religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism) provides perspectives about ultimate meaning and purpose in life; folk religion contributes answers to immediate problems; and science furnishes order to “human relationships and control of nature” (Hiebert, Shaw, & Tienou 1999, 74). The folk religious heritages, which emphasize animism, are based upon manipulation and coercion of spiritual powers. Spiritual beings are propitiated, coerced, and placated. Rituals are employed to influence impersonal spiritual forces and personal spiritual beings. Shamans reveal to clients the source of powers which are influencing their lives. They use various methodologies of divination to determine which powers are causing misfortune or illness and what other power(s) must be employed to counter such negative power.   Modern Westerners, and those trained by them, exclude this middle realm because it is not concurrent with their worldview (Hiebert 1982).
Many missionaries and church leaders typically respond to folk religious practices by using power methodologies to defeat the powers of Satan.   Frequently Christian ministry is reduced to spiritual warfare: The powers of God defeat the powers of Satan thus facilitating the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. Kraft says, “Power-oriented people require power proof, not simply reasoning, if they are to be convinced” (2000, 775). God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity by defeating of the gods of the land (Exod. 12:12) and the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) are examples of power encounter in the Bible. The rhetoric and tone of Christianity’s encounter with other religions is thus confrontational.
The traditional discussions about power, however, have left many questions unanswered: What is the essence of God’s power?   Is God’s power and Satan’s power identical? When a pagan practitioner becomes a Christian leader, should his perceptions and practice of power change? To what degree and in what ways should missionaries among animists focus on power? How does God use ministers as mediators of divine power?
This Monthly Missiological Reflection describes perspectives toward divine power to guide missionaries and church leaders to answer these questions.
The Nature of Divine Power
God is Our Sovereign Lord!
The Bible acknowledges that God is all-powerful. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. God is El Shaddai, “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1), “who created and sustains all things by his power, defeats the principalities and powers by the sacrifice of his Son Jesus, and brings all things into subjection to himself” (adapted from Hiebert 1999, 374). The kingdom or sovereignty of God is like a “scarlet thread” interwoven “through the biblical testimonies” (Moltmann 1981, 95).
Two central Old Testament metaphors graphically depict divine power. First, God is the Creator who made from nothing what is. From the beginning God, who created the world, is seen ruling over his creation. Humans must, consequently, see themselves as “his people, the sheep of his pasture” (Ps. 100:3). Second, God is the liberator who brought his covenant people into relationship to him. The Jewish confessional declares God’s mighty acts of deliverance: “We cried out to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous sights and wonders” (Deut. 16:7-8). The Exodus narrative testifies to God’s mighty acts of deliverance. Moses was God’s messenger who declared to both the Israelites and Pharaoh what God was about to do. The mission succeeded by the mighty hand of God, not by any human initiative.
God’s Power is Manifest in Divine Relationship
These metaphors demonstrate that God’s power is not conveyed indiscriminately but in divine relationship. God sees human lostness, listens to his people, feels their pain, and compassionately responds. God’s relationship with his creation is seen after Adam and Eve commit the first sin. Rather than merely punishing them, God, out of his great compassion, walked in the Garden searching for Adam and Eve, calling, “Where are you?” The question is not one of location. All-wise God knew their location. The question denotes a loving God calling fallen humankind back to himself. When humans sin, God does not merely exercise his power to punish. He seeks to reestablish an intimate relationship with his creation. God’s searching reveals his basic qualities: His love, holiness, and faithfulness.

God’s rescue of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity was covenant deliverance: God redeemed from oppression those with whom he had developed a relationship. God had promised Abraham that he would become a great nation and that “all peoples on earth would be blessed through [him]” (Gen. 12:1-3). When the Israelites in Egypt groaned because of their slavery and cried out to God, he “remembered” this covenant and “was concerned about them” (Exod. 2:23-25). Through ten mighty plagues, Jehovah defeated the gods of the Egyptians (Exod. 12:12) and delivered the Israelites. Moses then acknowledged God’s superiority: “Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you–majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?” (Exod. 15:11).
This mighty God of power then formed a special covenant with the people of Israel: They were to be his “treasured possession” and “kingdom of priests” to all nations (Ex. 19:5). The Ten Commandments are predicated upon the covenant deliverance: Because God brought them out of slavery, they were not to have any other gods before them, they were not to make for themselves any idol, or misuse the name of the Lord their God (Ex. 20:1-7).
God’s Power is Demonstrated in Weakness
Paradoxically God’s power is frequently manifest in weakness. For example, Joseph was sold into Egyptian captivity, was imprisoned unjustly, and was forgotten by those who promised help. Only in retrospect were God’s purposes and power evident. Joseph testified to his brothers that they “intended to harm” him, but “God intended it for good” (Gen. 45:6-7; 50:20). Likewise, Paul suffered a “thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment [him]” (2 Cor. 12:7). God allowed this so that Paul would not become overly conceited because of his many revelations (2 Cor. 12:1-7). Paul prayed that the thorn be removed. The answer, however, was not healing but the understanding that “when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). The ultimate example of strength in weakness is the incarnation of Jesus Christ, his response to Satan’s temptations for earthly power, and his sacrificial death for our sins.
God’s power is not always apparent in a world that is largely controlled by Satan (1 John 5:19).   Followers of God ask, “Why do you hide your face?” (Ps. 44) or “God, my Rock, why have you forgotten me?” (Ps. 42). Christians participating in the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter. 4:13) cry out in anguish, pleading for God to intervene (Rev. 6:9-11). During these times of suffering, however, Christians must stand in faith, acknowledging God’s ultimate sovereignty.
God’s Power is Toned by Love
From a biblical perspective there is a great difference between God’s power and the power of Satan. Not only is God’s power greater than Satan’s, its quality is vastly different. Satan’s power is debasing—corrupting those who follow the cravings of their own sinful nature (Eph. 2:3). God’s power, based on his great love, raises believers above these earthly cravings into heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4-6).
Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:14-21 interweaves God’s power and his great love. Paul prays that the Ephesian Christians, “being rooted and established inlove, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ” (3:17-18).   This four-dimensional love enables Christians to discern the unknowable: “To know the love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (3:19). Clinton Arnold writes, “Christ … roots and establishes the believer in his own love and strengthens the believer to follow the pattern of that love” (1989, 100).
Paul’s prayer does not say that Christianity is rooted and grounded in powerbut rather in love. He succinctly contrasts Christian perspectives of power and love with pagan Ephesian perspectives: “In magic, many of the recipes and spells were used for the purpose of gaining advantage over people—winning a chariot race, attracting a lover, winning at dice, etc. God’s power enables the believer to love after the pattern of Christ. The seemingly impossible demands of this kind of love require divine enablement in order for them to be fulfilled” (Arnold 1989, 100).
The world, which is “under the control of the evil one” (1 John 4:19), does not easily put together the words power and love. Only God, because he is both all-powerful and all-loving, and those who follow him can intertwine the two.
Applications to Ministry
Humans frequently misuse the power of God and contort it for their own selfish, egocentric purposes. The Willowbank Report says, “Power in human hands is always dangerous. . . . The recurring theme of Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians is that God’s power, seen in the cross of Christ, operates through human weakness (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5; 2 Cor. 4:7; 12:9, 10). Worldly people worship power; Christians who have it know its perils” (Stott and Coote, 1980, 327). The power of God must never be used to give glory to human personalities or human institutions. Ultimate power is of God, and its use in defeating Satan must give glory only to God.
Human ego stands as a formidable obstacle to effective missions. Christian ministers with immense talent and creativity flounder when they rely only on their own power. To accomplish his purposes, God generally uses less talented missionaries, who look to him to empower their ministry.   These missionaries realize that they have the light of the gospel in “jars of clay” thus illustrating that the “all-surpassing power is from God and not from [them]” (2 Cor. 4:7).
Four cautions are necessary relating to power and Christian ministry.
First, many in the Christian world have been taught to look to human personalities as the dispensers of God’s power. Some charismatic preachers, motivated by selfish, egocentric purposes, draw followers by projecting themselves as the conduit of God’s power. Christians, during the early centuries of the church, however, recognized that the common believer was able to trust in and pray to God to cast out demons (Skarsaune and Engelsviken 2000, 69). The consultation statement from the Lausaane meeting on spiritual warfare, entitled Deliver Us From Evil (DUFE), affirms the need and essence of spiritual warfare but adds this caution:

Engaging the Evil One is not the work of heroic individuals . . . . We were saddened by stories of people, emboldened by self-assured certainty and money, who come from outside, overwhelm local Christians and carry out hit-and-run ministries of spiritual conflict that (1) presume superior knowledge of the local reality, (2) treat local Christians as inferior or unaware, (3) claim credit for things that local Christians have been praying and working toward for years and (4) leave uneven results and sometimes, pain, alienation, and even persecution of the local church, while claiming great victory.
(Moreau 2000, xxiii)
Juliet Thomas of India asserts that Westerners come to her country regarding themselves as “experts in spiritual warfare” but “have only recently come in contact with this dimension of the powers of darkness. . . . Their language and approach have often been very offensive to people of other faiths. Their attitude has been arrogant and triumphalistic” (2000, 146-47). She says that intercessors from the West stand in front of temples and mosques praying that God will pull down the strongholds of the gods who are worshipped there. Multilingual Indians hearing these overtly militant prayers feel hostility because they believe that these Christian visitors are desecrating and cursing their holy places (2000, 149).
Second, God’s power cannot be reduced to power phrases or coerced by magical formulas, like “in the blood of Jesus” or “in the name of Jesus.” The phase “in the name of Jesus” connotes relationship with God in Jesus rather than being a mantra of exorcism. The DUFE Consultation concluded:

We call for discernment concerning magical uses of Christian terms and caution practitioners to avoid making spiritual conflict into Christian magic. Any suggestion that a particular technique or method or spiritual ministry ensures success is a magical, sub-Christian understanding of God’s workings.
(Moreau 2000, xxiv)
Scott Moreau cautions:

The emphasis on discerning and naming demons before we can have power over them is approaching a form of Christian animism. . . . The idea of needing the names to have power over spirits is found in magical thinking around the world. An Indian friend of mine who has long been involved in spiritual warfare on a personal and corporate level has told me that one of the most difficult problems he faces in sharing the claims of Christ with his Hindu friends has come after they see well-intentioned Christians engaging in what they believe to be simple magical practices.
(Moreau 2000, 266)
Third, animistic power should never be equated with divine power. Such a comparison was made by one presenter at Lausanne’s DUFE consultation. He suggested that when people become Christians only a change of power occurs. Although the forms and practitioners of religion may not necessarily change, the source of power does. Power that was under the dominion of Satan before conversion comes under the sovereignty of God when these people turn to God. Christian activities, such as healing, dedicating and blessing, look very much like those of animists—except that the source of the power is God’s rather than Satan’s (Kraft 2000, 295-297).   However, the reality is that this type of thinking leads to syncretism. Pagan understandings of power continue to exist in Christianity.
Such was the case of Simon of Samaria, a powerful traditional practitioner taught by Philip (Acts 8:9-11). Drawn by the demonstration of power that accompanied Philip’s message, Simon believed and was baptized (Acts 8:13). Simon, as new Christian, could not refrain from seeking power and equating God’s power with the power of his animistic heritage. Simon, therefore, approached them about buying the power of the “laying on of the apostles’ hands” (Acts 8:18). Although he probably had received apostolic gifts through the laying on the hands of Peter and John (Acts 8:14-17), he now wanted the power to dispense these gifts. Peter was straightforward in teaching this converted practitioner that seeking a relationship with God was more important than being a dispenser of power.
Four, these theological perspectives on power should guide the Christian’s understanding of both prayer and spiritual warfare. Prayer should not be viewed as a power tool but as a relating to God, the source of all power. The difference is significant. When prayer is viewed as power, certain words or rituals are necessary to access the power. However, prayer, like conversion, is a turning to God, a trusting in him to act. Thus Christians wait for God to work according to his will and timing. Moreau writes,

Prayer is not intended to be a vehicle of violence, but a means of fellowship, growth and strength. One danger of an attitude of “spiritual violence” is that we may become the very thing we are fighting against.
(2000, 267)
These understandings also help us comprehend the nature of spiritual warfare. Spiritual warfare is not about fighting Satan; he has been defeated by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death and triumphal resurrection. Spiritual warfare is standing firm in Christ’s mighty power. It is accepting by faith God’s victory through Christ and allowing God’s redemptive power to work through Christ. Using the concepts and wording of Ephesians 6:10-18, I would, therefore, define spiritual warfare as “standing in prayer with God against the principalities and powers to defeat Satan through truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and the word of God” (Van Rheenen 2003).
Conclusion

There are times when Christian ministers must speak forcefully about animistic practices as did Moses in Deuteronomy 18:9-15, as Jeremiah did in Jeremiah 10:1-11, and as Paul did in Ephesians 6:10-20. More frequently, however, the Christian message is presented in such a way that God is proclaimed with little direct mention of the powers. Paul does this when he teaches that the fullness of deity is in Christ and in Christ alone, that Christians should live in the heavenlies far above the principalities and powers, and that all Christians must “wait on the Lord.” “Our goal should be to give Satan and demons a selectively appropriate inattention. Do not let the flaw of the excluded middle become the flaw of the expanded middle; major on God and minor on demons, not the other way around” (Moreau 2000, 270). LINK, Missiology

>>see also The Flaw of the Flaw of the excluded middle here

Fuzzy Set:

We introduced the third (and final) "set" of "set theory:

-When does a mountain begin?
-Is it about predestination or free will?
-When did Peter become a believer?
-Is it natural or supernatural?
-Faith or works?
-God or us?
-Here and now or then and there (vs. heaven or hell, a bounded set)

These can be debated...as the border can be fuzzy...Thus :
"Fuzzy sets"

Here below is some help on Fuzzy Sets. These readings will help, but if you missed class today, you may want to talk to a classmate about some of the biblical and other examples.... to get a handle on this):

new nets: bounded sets, fuzzy sets, or centered-sets?

--
FUZZY SETS:

Ken Wilson's complete series on bounded/centered/fuzzy sets

sets: extrinsic/intrinsic; Greek/Hebrew

Case by Case Discernment
--
Shema Trinity and Missional:

Monoteheism:

Trinitarian monotheism
vs Henotheism

Monolatry

Trinity

Filioque:

Filioque wiki

God as Trinity, and missional in and of himself:

C.S. Lewis:
"If God was a single person,
then before the world was made,
he was not love."
-C.S.Lewis, "Mere Christianity," p. 131,,
also cited in Steve Seamands' "Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service," 163, online here

Perichoresis :

Perichoresis wiki

The Dance of God, the Dance of Life: perichoresis

---

Moltmann also pushes the idea of movement within
the divine. He argues that movement is absolutely necessary for God’s redemptive acts in history. To deny movement in the Trinity is to reject the Trinity and the entirety of the Christian faith: “Anyone who denies movement in the divine nature also denies the divine Trinity. And to deny this is really to deny the whole Christian faith. . . the lack of any creative movement would mean an imperfection in the Absolute.”

An integrative and symmetrical model requires dynamism. Static notions of God
make integrating trinitarian perichoresis and the revelation of Jesus Christ impossible.

Yet the Trinity is not trapped by a perichoretic egalitarianism that is removed and
unrelated to time and space. The Trinity is also not limited to the revelation of God in creation. The Trinity incorporates both of these notions and exists both within and beyond time and space. The Trinity exists in a dynamic perichoresis that incorporates our life into the divine life. By understanding the dynamic Trinity as the God who enters into the world in creation, redemption and sanctification, we can understand the perichoretic movement of God and the movements of God in human history as one and the same.
-link, The Egalitarian Trinity: A Descriptive Trinitarian Model that is Symmetrical, Integrative, and Dynamic
Steve Dancause

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

12/6: Konquering Koinonitis: 1)Song of Moses 2)Ear>Eye

YOu know the question. This time it's the "Dream Team" trailer:

"Devotions" from Jon Acuff with a direct Exodus connection (if you are intrigued by the, uh, provocative title..it';s explained . here.):
)

Question for today and Thursday:

How do the following Exodus/Deuteronomy themes help us steer clear of koinonitis and towards a missional communitas?:

1)Song of Moses
2)Ears>Eyes
3)Shema and Trinity
4)Excluded Middle

We did the first two today, the last two are for tomorrow.

--
We noted there are THREE sections/songs in Scripture called The Song of Moses.

We read all three and compared them, How are they all in a sense the same song?

Some nores you made:

Exodus 15                       Dueter 32                    Rev 15
Praise                               Justice                     Praise
Victory                          Warning                 Victory
Kingdom began               Kingdom threatened        Kingdom come
Earth                              Earth                             Heaven
"Rock" mentioned 7x

The first two are 4) years apart.
The same phrase shows up in the 2nd and 3rd: "Just and true"

We noted that in way siimilar to teh entire second sermon of Moses , the Deut 32 song is structured like a Hittite treaty between suzzerain and vassal (see last week), in a lawsuit form.
Such a document from an offended suzzerain coulkd take two forms:
1)a call to war
2)an invitation to restoration.
The song looks like the 2nd,

More info

Ha'azinu(Deuteronomy 32)

Ear>Eye

We watched an episode--"Ears To Hear" from Van Der Lann's series Walking with God in the Desert:

Eyes were Egypt: images
Ears are how God trained Israel in desert: through voice.
Even teh Hebrew word wilderness/desert is related to the word "Hear".

We followed up with this discussion of "ears over eyes":
Jesus: " If you have ears to HEAR then hear"
John 1: in the beginning was the WORD
2 Cor 5:7: We walk by faith not by SIGHT
Rom 10:17 Faith comes by HEARING
Hebrews 3:15 Today if you HEAR his voice, harden not your heart (Thanks, Katie E.)

And of coutse, THE Scripture of the whole Pentateuch: The SHEMA ("HEAR" "LISTEN")..of Deut 6.

String theory: Life, and the universe, at base is SOUND, better yet, a SONG!

Len Sweet ( "string theory [means] then life is at base music..For anything that vibrates gives off sound..so..you and I..are at base a song.. There is no one who isn't musical..My personal definition of Jesus is 'God's perfect Pitch.’")

Acoustemology..an exploration of sonic sensibilities, specifically of ways in which sound is central to making sense, to knowing, to experiential truth. "
-Feld

"It's time church leaders developed a philosophy of soundness, even a sound spirituality.
-Leonard Sweet, "Summoned to Lead"
Sweet:

"Voice-activated leadership moves from vision to vibration, from eye to ear "
""in the modern worked, Truth was eye-opening. In the postmodern world, where voice has replaced objectivity, truth is ear-opening."

How does sound connect to surrender?
"Sound confronts us with interiority, Craig Matson suggests,"To hear is to relinquish our place as sovereign spectators and managers in the world and to position ourselves in medias res as morally obligated and mortally vulnerable hearers of the word."
-Craig Matson

Related:

A Theology of Sound

"The Divine Voice: Christian Proclamation and the Theology of Sound.

Listen for the sound only young people can hear
Cioran on music/mysticism

God as Sound

Sound and String theory

Leonard Sweet: Summoned to Lead (click the link and type the word SOUND in the search bar once there

Several posts on spiritual hearing
Question:
So how do
1)Song of Moses
and
2)Primacy of Ear/Listening

keep us missional?

Think about it, and stay tuned>

--
Previews: next class we'll ask the same question about two more phenomena:

1)Excluded Middle:

Law of excluded middle -

Flaw of the excluded middle (or non PDF form here)

--

1)Trinitarian/Missional basis of the OT::

What do you learn from the Exodus and Deuteronomy references in Wright's article here that help you see how missonal/evangelist God was/Israel was called to be even when they could well have green tempted to be ingrown/get koinonitis/bask in their chosenness?

More? Here he is on video (see OT section 15:57ff)

More on the tab above marked "Moses and OT Missiology"
--

God as Trinity, and missional in and of himself:

Wow, am I impressed. I thought coined the term "cultural masturbation" in this 2006 post..(:

But obviously no one less than NT Wright was reading. (:
He uses the term in this new video about social networking and blogging:

NT Wright on Blogging/Social Media from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Cirties of Refuge, Holy War, Gan Gardening and the SHEMA

Opening devotional: the trailer for "The Visitor".
What does this film have to do with Exodus/Deuteronomy themes?
see( "welcoming the stranger")

-----------------

Cities of Refuge:

we noted that at two strategic places:
toward the beginning and end of the book,
chapter 4 and chapter 18
"cities of refuge" were discussed.
Kind of an inclusio to let the reader know this is a major theme.

Holy War:

We noted that at two strategic places:
toward the beginning and end of the book,

chapter 7 and chapter 20
"Holy War" as discussed...
(both times in a location adjacent to the "cities of refuge" theme, hmmm)
Kind of an inclusio to let the reader know this is a major theme

We noticed how pivotal Deut 6 is, particlarly the Shema.
(see Van Der Laan article: Shema - Follow the Rabbi)

...in a way similar to the Three Testations of Jesus function in the gospels;
The Shema must be foundational to the whole book, and revisiyed at various times throughout.

Hmm..so how does the Shema shed light on the Cities of refuge theme?

On the Holy War theme?

And wy when Jesus quotes the Shema does he add:

"Lobe your neighbor as yourself" ??

Who is my neighbor?
Who are Israel's neighbors is Exo and Deut?

--
We took a field trip..and continued on the Gan/garden theme, study guide here.

..and suggested that the idea of the "gan" would aso be helpful for getting themes in Deut. Of Isreal is a gan..
capital G gan, made up of smaller gans...whrere everyone tales care of their own gan, and sometimes repairs their neighbors gan wall,

..how are Istraelistes supposed to be missional,
treat their neighbors...people of other gans, gods, etcc..

we brought in bounded sets and centered sets;

Which is Israel called to be in Deueteronomy?

Both?

.. centered-set churches need custodians of the story, and guardians of the ethos. Inclusivity and open-ended belonging without core maintenance is unsustainable. This is why many emerging and missional groups are considering monastic patterns based on a rule of life. They are creating a bounded set within a centered set. Groups like TOM exist around a rule, as does the Northumbria Community or The Simpler Way. We really need two structures of belonging: an open community membership and a “core” membership, open to those who voluntarily accept its demands (Murray, 37). link

--

We brought in Kraybilll (remember JCC book?)

Kraybill says,

"The Kingdom of God is a collectivity--a network of persons....more than a series of

individualized email connections linking the King to each subject*...[It] infuses the web of relationships, binding King and citizens togeter" -Kraybill (p, 19 emphases mine)

Kraybill further illustrates the point of community over self by discussing the distinction between an aggregate and a collectivity.[5] He illustrates an aggregate as a group of people who occupy a time and space together but lack any true community (i.e. people at a crosswalk). The key is that they do not influence each other. A collectivity, as Kraybill defines it, has an element of interdependence. These individuals “influence each other, formulate common goals, and together decide how to reach them.”[6] The Kingdom of God functions as a collectivity. The individual lays down his life for the good of the collective. For the church to bear witness to this Kingdom, the body of Christ must exercise this practice. link

-------------------------------

Bonus, here are several article to get you thinking about the HOLY WAR issue for next time:

Timothy Archer:

Now we turn our attention to the Law. To a good Jew, of course, all of what we’ve been discussing so far is part of the Torah, what we call the Law. But I’m speaking specifically of the legal code found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
A commenter the other day suggested that arguments for pacifism are based on “Thou shalt not kill” from the Ten Commandments. I’ve yet to read a pacifist who presented that as a main argument, nor have I seen it in the discussion on this blog. It doesn’t take much reading to realize that the very next chapter in Exodus lays out situations in which the death penalty is to be applied! No, those four words from the Ten Commandments lend little to the discussion.
A better insight into the Law’s views toward war are found in Deuteronomy 20. Some interesting things in that chapter:

Priests play a major role in the army’s activities

Broad exceptions are granted to those who choose not to fight

Differences are made between battles within the Promised Land and battles outside the Promised Land

Tactics avoid harming food-bearing trees

Admittedly, that third point rocked my world recently. I had a nice little theology about war, and Deuteronomy 20:10-15 doesn’t fit! I’m still looking to find balance. I had believed (and taught) that wars in the Old Testament fell into two categories: self-defense and conquest of the Promised Land. Lo and behold, these verses don’t fit either of those categories. While I can’t think of an example of this, of the Israelites fighting merely to conquer a distant city, the Law does allow for it. Sounds like a license for “imperialism.”
So do we just write it off to the sort of things that happened before God became a Christian? Or how do we understand these verses? link

Jewish Ideas of Peace & Nonviolence

Yoder: is war l in the OT ike divorce in the NT?

--
Hetty Lalleman:

To sum up some essential features of Deuteronomy 20: Israel is not meant to be an imperialistic empire with a strong ruler. Warfare is not glorified, but the first aim is peace. The ‘ideal' king David is not allowed to build the temple because of all the blood he has shed (1 Chronicles 28:3), whereas Assyrians kings would be highly respected because of all the wars they had fought! What then can we learn for the twenty-first century?
•       The basic issue in destroying the Canaanite peoples was the fact that Israel had to get rid of everything which might lead them away from God, because this would mean the end of their very existence as the people of God. In the ongoing ‘battle' of the Christian life, Jesus says that as Christians we too should do away with everything which distracts us from God. We should clear our lives radically from everything which leads us to sin. Matthew 5:29–30; see also Matthew 18:8–9 and Mark 9:43–48.
•       Deuteronomy 20 restricts human power in battle, and in the same way Deuteronomy 17:14–20 restricts the earthly power of the king. Both these texts warn us today not to glorify human beings and human powers. The church should be brave in protesting against the deification of military, economic or political powers, because they are a form of idolatry. [5]•       There are Christians involved in warfare, because we must live in this world. Some have chosen not to be involved in the army, police force, etc. (cf. the Mennonites). For those who have and who are in leadership positions, some principles of Deuteronomy 20 might be helpful. Human power should be limited (see above). Warfare is not the ultimate purpose of a nation; peace is the goal. Imperialism and aggression should never be regarded as ‘normal'. Furthermore, captives should be treated in a humane way, and environmental warfare should be forbidden.
•       There is one warning from our investigation to be taken to heart: since the Christian church is not a political entity, it cannot be acceptable when ‘Christian' nations wage war ‘in the name of God'. We should be very cautious not to acclaim anyone as a ‘godly king' or ‘godly ruler', or our own country as ‘God's country'.
•       Do these things apply to nations with a majority of non-Christians as well? In the oracles against the nations, the Israelite prophets show us that God will judge them according to their behaviour. Thus Amos 1–2 gives a list of violent crimes perpetrated by the surrounding nations. All nations should thus listen in to what God said to his people Israel about the conduct of war in Deuteronomy 20. link

Pierre Gilbert, War in the OT:

Yahweh’s involvement in war is part of a broader domino-like cascade of events.
1. God has a project: the creation of a people composed of men and women who will love
and serve him freely.
2. God’s project made necessary the creation of a world where humanity could truly
exercise free will, and where evil and suffering were real possibilities.
3. Human disobedience resulted in the introduction of a principle of death in human
nature and in history.
4. God is committed to working in partnership with human beings.
5. God is committed to dealing with humanity within the limitations of its historical
situation.
6. In a first phase of God’s plan to redeem humanity, God chose to work through an
ethnic/political entity: Israel.
7. The creation of a political entity entails the acquisition of a territory.
8. The necessity to obtain a piece of land made it necessary for Israel to engage in
military conquest.
9. Israel’s involvement in war made it necessary to articulate specific rules of war.
10. God’s involvement in war does not sanitize war! It points, however, to God’s
profound and unconditional commitment to working with human beings in full
recognition of the destruction and evil brought about by sin,. There lies our hope!

--
Holy war, David Perry:

One of the Mosaic commandments prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13). Why is murder wrong, other than its obvious conflict with love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:17-18, 33-34)? Essentially because people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6). One might infer from that idea that no killing of persons would be allowed at all, that the concept of human beings as made in God's image would entail strict pacifism, an absolute duty not to kill people. But that is not what the ancient Hebrews concluded, since many offenses were subject to capital punishment, a form of killing (see examples in Exodus 21-22). So perhaps we might interpret the image-of-God idea to mean, All persons have a basic right not to be killed, but they can forfeit that right if they commit a serious enough crime. This would also be consistent with punishing only those guilty of crimes (Deuteronomy 24:16) and limiting the use of deadly force to the defense of innocent others or oneself. This is probably what most Jewish people would affirm today.
But collective punishment and indiscriminate war were also commanded or approved in the Hebrew Bible, especially in cases of idolatry. The first of the Mosaic commandments prohibited the Israelites from worshipping any other gods but Yahweh. God demanded purity and strict obedience, and idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death (Exodus 20:3, 5). Non-Israelites who lived within the area believed by the Hebrews to have been promised to them by God were seen to pose a great temptation to them to abandon their faith. This led them to justify the slaughter of entire communities (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). And their holy wars eventually inspired similar wars many centuries later by Christians who admired Old Testament warriors like Joshua: "[Joshua's army killed everyone in Jericho], both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.... Joshua defeated the whole land... he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 6:21 and 10:40) Link

--
A Quaker scholar:

Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 1-12
Ok, this part does horrify me. Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy lays out the principles of holy war.
At first it does not look so terrible, because the early passages either look reasonable or can be read metaphorically: Don't be afraid because God is with you. If you are in the middle of an important life transition (have just built a house but not yet dedicated it; have planted a vineyard but not yet harvested it; are engaged to be married but not yet married), or if you are just too afraid or disheartened, then you should not fight (Deut 20:5-9).
Furthermore, there is a passage that says that before attacking a town, offer terms of peace first (Deut 20:10). But there is an edge to this offer: if the inhabitants accept, then they are not to be killed, but to be forced into labor (Deut 20:11). If they don't accept, they are to be attacked, all the men killed, and the women taken "as booty" (Deut 20:12-14). Later, it turns out that this is not even an option for the towns within the promised land, but only the towns that "are very far away from you" (Deut 20:15).
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them" (Deut 20:16-17).
Joshua 1-12 then tells the story of this holy war to the west of the Jordan River.
While much happens just as stipulated in Deuteronomy 20, there are exceptions to the "total annihilation" stipulation.
The first town to be conquered is Jericho. Joshua sends spies ahead to check things out. The two men go to the house of a prostitute named Rahab. She ends up hiding and protecting them (Josh 2:14), and so she and her family are protected when the rest of Jericho is annihilated (Josh 6:22-25).
The second exception was that after the conquests of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants of Gibeon tricked Joshua into letting them live by pretending to be from far away and therefore exempt from the necessity of annihilation. Joshua made a treaty with them before discovering that in fact they were among the peoples he was supposed to annihilate, but now, having made the treaty, he had to keep his promise (Josh 9).
And, finally, in some of the battles, mention is made of survivors who escape to fortified towns (e.g., Josh 10:20); and by the time the Israelites stop fighting and divide the land, there is still land that was intended but has not yet been conquered (Josh 13:1-7).
So it seems that total annihilation was intended, to help protect the Iraelites from being tempted into worshipping the wrong gods, but this total annihilation was not quite accomplished. There are lots of hints that down the road, the Israelites do end up succumbing to such temptation, and so we'll have to read on to see if this in fact does end up happening.
But for now, the holy war has gained the Israelites (much of) their promised land.
So, how are we to read this story of war and annihilation?
One way is to read it literally: when you are obedient to God, and you fight a war and win, it proves that God is on your side. If you lose, it is because God is angry at you because of some flaw in your obedience to God (see Josh 7). So, might makes right because having superior might is a sign of God's favor. Unfortunately, I think that this is an all-too-common interpretation of war in general.
But are there metaphorical ways to read it that are less problematic? link

Von Rad offers a way ofe expaininbg all this, here

Friday, November 25, 2011

11/29: Transition to Deuteronomy

As we move into Deuteronomy (see Homework Help at bottom)...4 topics today:

1)I have posted several more ideas for ADVENTURE projects on the tab at top. One has to do with Exodus as

"seminal story"(Van Der Lann)
"foundational narrative" (Brian McLaren, chapter 6 here)
"fulcrum event" (Elmer Martens)

of the entire Bible..

Often this is specifically focused on the Exodus 15 "dance party on the beach,"

but it is also helpful to view the whole story as a prototype and microcosm of the entire message, especially of the New Testament. So I was glad to see that the leading New Testament scholar has made a case for the 7 themes of Exodus as "at the heart of the entire mission of Jesus":

The major themes of the Exodus are at the heart of Tom Wright’s new book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters. But there’s more to say than that: Exodus is at the heart of the entire mission of Jesus. Because this Exodus theme is both cut up into its seven segments (more below) and because Exodus becomes more central, it is fair to say that Simply Jesus takes us beyond Tom’s well-known Jesus and the Victory of God. He puts it all together in this book….
First the seven Exodus themes are tyrant, leader, divine victory, sacrifice, vocation, divine presence, and promised inheritance. This is at the heart of this book.
,,,: Jesus’ mission is shaped by those same themes, and so I want to quote from what I think is perhaps the crucial paragraph in this whole book. Remember: it’s Exodus, Exodus from Moses through Isaiah, through Daniel, through Zechariah, and now reshaped and reconfigured for a new day in a new way by Jesus — the three-fold storm converging: Rome, Jewish leaders, and the new message about God becoming king in and through Jesus:I am going to break the prose into sections so it’s easier to display and read (p. 175):

The tyrant would be not the Jerusalem leaders …, not even Rome …, but all the powers of the Accuser, up to and including death itself.
The leader would be, of course, Jesus himself.
The sacrifice, likewise, would be Jesus himself; that, we must assume, is why he chose to make his decisive move at Passover-time, knowing that it would lead to the death of the firstborn, the beloved son, a hint that he dropped in one of his last parables (Mark 12:6-8).
The vocation would be the vocation he had marked out for Israel in the Sermon on the Mount: going the second mile, turning the other cheek, loving enemies, and praying for them even as they nailed him to the cross.
The inheritance would not, now, be a restored holy land, but the whole world, the uttermost parts of the earth, which had been promised to the Messiah as his inheritance and then promised again to the servant as the realm to which he, through his suffering, would bring God’s justice.
And the presence of Israel’s God would be the presence of Jesus himself, coming to Jerusalem as the embodiment of Israel’s returning God, the fulfillment of Isaiah 40 and 52.
[ -Scot McKinight, full article

Elmer Martens m in "God's Design"

My claim is that the overarching theme of the Old Testament is God's design, a design that incorporates four components: deliverance, community, knowledge of God, and the abundant life (p. 3)..It is the thesis of this book that the fourfold design of Exodus 5:22-6:8 is an appropriate and also adequate grid according to which to present the whole of the Old Testament material.. link to whole book , read 19-24

Walter Bruggemann

THE EXODUS AND THE LOGIC OF LIBERATION

                Walter Brueggemann has a special way of capturing the essence of major biblical themes and movements. His little book, Hope within History, summarizes the essence of the Exodus experience for the people of Israel. He puts forward three important dimensions of the Exodus experience as foundational for the formation and renewal of Israel's faith throughout its history:

                + critique of the dominant ideology,
                + public processing of pain,
                + release of new social imagination. -link, full article

---

2)Missiology (see this, this, this)

3) Enns, 31-32 on Code of Hammurabi

4) Treaties in the Ancient Near East:
Be familiar with the idea of treaties in the Ancient Near East (especially Suzerain-Vassal realationship).

See pp. 216-217 (and chart on bottom of p. 220 of your Bible Background Commentary textbook, here/

More info:
Video here , or below :

part 2:

"Suzerain Treaties & The Covenant Documents the Bible"

On The Origin of the Suzerain-Vassal Covenant

--

We watched "The Final Test" study notes here.

This dealt with temptations Israel would face when they finally lest the desert/liminal space.

Note Moses reminded them not to forget God in the New Land...where they found "gan," walled gardens/vineyards (a metaphor for Israel), and were tempted to become be-ushim. ( stinking or worthless things wild grapes

Original Word: בְּאֻשִׁים)...especially by being spoiled/not caring for each other/the needy and oppressed.

(see notes above and this

Read

Isaiah 5 NIV - The Song of the Vineyard -

=-===============

Dueteronomy, introduction from Yale course: transcript, audio, or video here

From Biblica:

Deuteronomy

Title
The Hebrew name of the book is ‘elleh haddebarim (“These are the words”) or, more simply, debarim (“words”; see 1:1). The word “Deuteronomy” (meaning “repetition of the law”) arose from a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) and the Latin Vulgate of a phrase in Dt 17:18, which in Hebrew means “copy of this law.” The error is not serious, however, since Deuteronomy is, in a certain sense, a “repetition of the law” (see Structure and Outline).

Author and Date of Writing
The book itself ascribes most of its content to Moses (see 1:1,5; 31:24 and notes). For that reason, the OT elsewhere ascribes the bulk of Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal legislation to Moses (see, e.g., Jos 1:7–8; 23:6; 1Ki 2:3; 8:53; Mal 4:4 and notes). Similarly Jesus attributed Dt 24:1 to Moses (Mt 19:7–8; Mk 10:3–5), Peter attributed Dt 18:15,18–19 to Moses (Ac 3:22–23), as did Stephen (see Ac 7:37–38 and notes), and Paul attributed Dt 32:21 to Moses (Ro 10:19). See also Mt 22:24 and note; Mk 12:18–19; Lk 20:27–28. At the same time, it seems clear that the narrative framework within which the Mosaic material is placed (e.g., the preamble [1:1–5] and the conclusion [ch. 34]; see also 5:1; 27:1,9,11; 29:1–2; 31:1,7,9–10, 14–25,30; 32:44–46,48–52; 33:1–2) comes from another—and unknown—hand. See Introduction to Genesis: Author and Date of Writing.

Historical Setting
Deuteronomy locates Moses and the Israelites in the territory of Moab in the area where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea (1:5). As his final act at this important time of transferring leadership to Joshua, Moses delivered his farewell addresses to prepare the people for their entrance into Canaan. In them, Moses emphasized the laws that were especially needed at such a time, and he presented them in a way appropriate to the situation. In contrast to the matter-of-fact narratives of Leviticus and Numbers, here the words of Moses come to us from his heart as this servant of the Lord presses God’s claims on his people Israel.

Special Function in the Bible
The trajectory of the story that unfolds in Genesis–Numbers seems to call for an account of the conquest of Canaan as found in Joshua to bring closure to the movement from promise to fulfillment (see Introduction to Joshua: Title and Theme). But Deuteronomy intervenes as a massive interruption. Here there is very little forward movement. At the end of Numbers, Israel is “on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho” (Nu 36:33) and at the end of Deuteronomy, the people are still there (Dt 34:8) waiting to cross the Jordan (see Jos 1:2). All that has happened is the transition from the ministry of Moses as God’s spokesman and official representative to that of Joshua in his place (Dt 34:9; see Jos 1:1–2). But Moses’ final acts as the Lord’s appointed servant for dealing with Israel are so momentous that Deuteronomy’s account of them marks the conclusion to the Pentateuch, while the book of Joshua, which narrates the initial fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs and the conclusion to the mission on which Moses had been sent (see Nu 17:15–23; Jos 21:43–45), serves as the introduction to the Former Prophets.
So Deuteronomy creates a long pause in the advancement of the story of redemption:

of deliverance from bondage to a world power (Egypt) to a place in the earth where Israel can be a free people under the rule of God;

of deliverance from rootlessness in the post-Babel world (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to security and “rest” (see Dt 3:20 and note; 12:10; 25:19) in the promised land;

of deliverance from a life of banishment from God’s Garden (Ge 3) to a life in the Lord’s own land where he has pitched his tent (Jos 22:19).

But in that long pause on the threshold of the promised land Moses, in this renewal of the Sinaitic covenant, reminded Israel at length of what the Lord required of them as his people if they were to cross the Jordan, take possession of the promised land and there enjoy the promised “rest” in fellowship with him. It was a word that Israel needed to hear over and over again. Upon reading the Pentateuch, Israel was brought ever anew to the threshold of the promised land and its promised “rest” to hear again this final word from God through his servant Moses (see also Ps 95:7b–22). For this reason, all the history of Israel in Canaan as narrated in the Former Prophets is brought under the judgment of this word.

Theological Teaching and Purpose
The book of Deuteronomy was cast in the form of ancient Near Eastern suzerainty-vassal treaties of the second millennium b.c. It contained the Great King’s pledge to be Israel’s Suzerain and Protector if they would be faithful to him as their covenant Lord and obedient to the covenant stipulations as the vassal people of his kingdom. There would be blessings for such obedience, but curses for disobedience (chs. 27–30). Deuteronomy’s purpose was to prepare the new generation of the Lord’s chosen people to be his kingdom representatives in the land he had unconditionally promised them in the Abrahamic covenant (see Structure and Outline below; see also notes on 3:27; 17:14,18).
The love relationship of the Lord to his people, and that of the people to the Lord as their sovereign God, pervade the whole book. Deuteronomy’s spiritual emphasis and its call to total commitment to the Lord in worship and obedience inspired references to its message throughout the rest of Scripture. In particular, the division of the Hebrew Bible called the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) is thoroughly imbued with the style, themes and motifs of Deuteronomy. Among the Latter Prophets, Jeremiah also reflects strong influence from this book.

Structure and Outline
Deuteronomy’s literary structure supports its historical setting. By its interpretive, repetitious, reminiscent and somewhat irregular style it shows that it is a series of more or less extemporaneous addresses, sometimes describing events in nonchronological order (see, e.g., 10:3). But it also bears in its structure clear reflections of the suzerain-vassal treaties (see chart, p. 23) of the preceding and then-current Near Eastern states, a structure that lends itself to the Biblical emphasis on the covenant between the Lord and his people. In this sense Deuteronomy is a covenant renewal document, as the following outline shows:

Preamble (1:1–5)

Historical Prologue (1:6—4:43)

Stipulations of the Covenant (4:44—26:19)
The Great Commandment: The Demand for Absolute Allegiance (4:44—11:32)
God’s covenant Lordship (4:44—5:33)

The principle of consecration (ch. 6)

The program for conquering Canaan (ch. 7)

A call to commitment in the new land (ch. 8)

The lesson of the broken tablets (9:1—10:11)

Another call to commitment (10:12—11:32)

Supplementary Requirements (chs. 12–26)
Ceremonial consecration (12:1—16:17)

Human leaders in God’s righteous kingdom (16:18—21:21)

Sanctity of God’s kingdom (21:22—25:19)

Confessions of God as Redeemer-King (ch. 26)

Ratification; Curses and Blessings (chs. 27–30)

Leadership Succession under the Covenant (chs. 31–34)
Change of Leadership (31:1–29)

Song of Moses (31:30—32:47)

Moses’ Testamental Blessing on the Tribes (32:48—33:29)

Death of Moses and Succession of Joshua (ch. 34)

© Zondervan. From the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Used with Permission.

Wiki:

Structure
Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy suggests that different views of the structure of the book will lead to different views on what it is about.^[4] The structure is often described as a series of three speeches or sermons (chapters 1:1-4:43, 4:44-29:1, 29:2-30:20) followed by a number of short appendices^[5] – Miller refers to this as the "literary" structure; alternatively, it is sometimes seen as a ring-structure with a central core (chapters 12-26, the Deuteronomic code) and an inner and an outer frame (chapters 4-11/27-30 and 1-3/31-34)^[5] – Miller calls this the covenantal substructure;^[4] and finally the theological structure revealed in the theme of the exclusive worship of Yahweh established in the first of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me") and the shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One!")^[4]

Pages

Thursday, December 8, 2011

MR #28: A Theology of Power

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

More info

Song of Moses and the Lamb Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV

Flaw of the excluded middle (or non PDF form here)

--

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Friday, November 25, 2011

--

=-===============

Dueteronomy, introduction from Yale course: transcript, audio, or video here

From Biblica:

Deuteronomy

Title

Author and Date of Writing

Historical Setting

Special Function in the Bible

Theological Teaching and Purpose

Structure and Outline

Wiki:

Structure

Read/skim Deuteronomy rapidly.. Make some notes on impressions, themes, and attempt a simple chart or outline. above is a good intro to the book