A Somewhat Systematic Look at the Violence in Joshua (for more depth to Sunday's sermon on the topic)

This Sunday we will continue in our sermon series working through the major themes of The Bible, and this Sunday brings us the story of Joshua leading the Israelites into the land of Canaan (aka The Promised Land) which will become Israel, and conquering the city-states therein one by one through the deliverance of God's mighty hand.

It sounds so much more regal that way, because working through the scriptures we are told that Joshua devotes the Lord all the men, women, children and livestock of Jericho, and completely annhilates other populations of people as well.  That doesn't sound very regal...or very God-like, from our common conceptions or messages about God.

So what I aim to do below is give various interpretations of the violence in Joshua, and the implications each carries for Christian thought and Christian Practice.

1) Deuteronomy commanded it.

This is true, Deuteronomy, as recorded, Chapter 20 states that all peoples inside the borders of the Promised Land shall be annihilated, while those outside the borders should be treated as any battle goes, the warriors are killed and the women and children are kept as slaves or sent back.  

Proponents of this theory argue two things:

A) That as Deuteronomy also says, they must remove any temptation what-so-ever from their midst so that they do not fall back into their old ways (see Golden Calf in Exodus).  If the people were allowed to survive and were influencers in an Israelite converting or worshiping a false god, there is another Deuteronomy law that prescribes death for this offense anyways. 

B) The people destroyed were guilty of worshipping other gods, therefore going against the law against anyone practicing idolatry or perhaps again, influencing an Israelite towards idolatry...all punishable by death.

This interpretation holds up the idea that scripture is indeed inspired (and perhaps infallible), and works from the assumption that the Bible is not culturally conditioned at all.  It is not a book written by Hebrews, it is a book inspired by God, therefore the truth.  It holds that God is God, and can do what God wants, and we are humans and should not question...which is consistent with Job, much of what Jesus says about God, and most other scripture after Moses' bargaining with God to spare the Israelitesafter the Golden Calf incident.

Issues:

One problem this theory has is that it is inconsistent from the idea of grace and forgiveness.  Jonah tells of an angry God, but one that allows the Ninevites to at least have the chance to repent.  The Israelites themelves after Joshua break covenant with God over and over and over again, but God is faithful to them and gives them opportunities to come back into righteousness.  

There also is the issue of Rahab and the Gibeonites.  Rahab should be killed because she is a prostitute and a resident of Jericho, and the Gibeonites are another Canaanite tribe, so therefore should be eliminated for who they represent (El, Baal...name your Canaanite god).  Rahab is praised in Hebrews as being saved for her faithfulness, to which I say AMEN! as she is the only character in the entire book to claim God's supremacy over all things...however, both her and the Gibeonites are saved in reality because they make oaths with Hebrews and it angers God when you don't let your yes be yes and your no be no.  So this means that the law of oaths sworn before God is more powerful than God's command to wipe out the people of Canaan, leaving the Israelite people to potentially have infestors (even though Deuteronomy strictly says that even the Gibeonite slaves (wood cutters, etc.) must come to hear the reading of the law and mind the statutes).  The point is...they didn't annihilate these people, and we read into Judges they apparently didn't historically take care of business or else the Canaanite tribes wouldn't have caused them so much trouble.  Same can be said about all of Elijah's troubles in Kings.

The last issue (that I can see) is that this interpretation presents a God who "knows", such as God knew that the people needed to be destroyed so that they wouldn't stray or stumble.  I'll be honest, if scripture weren't so honest about the ongoing unfaithfulness of the Israelites I would buy this, because I do believe God is all-knowing, but the Isrealites are consistently unconsistent with their devotion and eventually are exiled from the land anyways.

Does this mean that God could not see far enough that the Israelites would stumble AND that the lives were invaluable enough to leave no chance for redemption even though this plan wouldn't work out in the long run?

So this questions God's omniscience a bit, or at least limits it to a very specific part of scripture.

2) God demands blood

This is similar to the last argument and flows out of the Levitical and Deuteronomy laws, that God is the source of life, and so for obedience God requires life to be given back to God.  It sounds a lot worse when you say God demands blood, when in reality it's a cultural view that you return life back to God.

Israelites were actually pretty tame compared to other cultures about their blood offerings as they were one of the few that didn't allow human sacrifices.

In the context of Joshua this would relate to a Hebrew term known as "herem", which means to devote or destroy.  While this is certainly a cultural idiom, it means that when Israel sacked Jericho and other cities the people in it were devoted to the Lord...in other words they dedicated those people to the satisfaction of God, so that God would know the Israelites were serious about keeping this land holy.  They were giving the life of the land back to God, AND not keeping any of the spoils of war for themselves, further obedience.

In this view, if the Israelites do not kill the inhabitants, they are merely seeking war for their own personal gain and glory (see the whole list of bad kings presented in Kings/Chronicles).

And while it sounds gruesome it does fit with the idea of Jesus upon the cross as a ransom sacrifice for our sins.  

Issues:

This idea has not been popular amongst more liberal Christians who do not want God to be vengeful and in need of the loss of life to  be satisfied.  While I do not want this God either, I think we are missing out on the cultural understanding of blood/life and reading scripture with too much of our modern glasses.

The real issue comes when the blood is someone from outside your circle's blood.  Deuteronomy is filled with many justice laws that protect resident aliens, but not near the protection provided to the Hebrews.  And yes, Hebrews get killed like Achon did for breaking the covenant, but none are devoted to God.  Which begs the question of God's love for the world again, instead of just God's chosen people.

3) The Culturally Bound argument

This argument suggests that the warrior imagery and desire for the loss of life is bound up in the author's own biases associated with the time and the place of the writing. 

So...the "herem" was Joshua's idea of devotion to God...not God's idea.

God conquering the other warriors...more of a retelling of the story by the victor, with the idea that God won the battle (a popular way of thinking about gods in this time).

"God commanded = it worked out, so God is given the glory."

What we gain from this is a freedom from a God that does not fit into our cultural, moral standards, and makes more apparent sense with the God presented in Jesus Christ and called "love" in 1 John.  It puts the honus of violence upon the people (which we know people tend to be a part of unfortunately) and fits with how most people view God, as someone who empowers us to live and be free change agents in the world...more of the grace than the law.

Issues:

What we lose is...

-the Bible becomes a culturally formed document, which means it is not infallible and has human elements in it...problematic for some to think of the Word of God as humanly influenced.

This also begs the question of if we can pick or choose what we want to believe in scripture or not.  I believe everyone including the most Biblical literalist picks and chooses from scripture, and some of this can be countered by the thesis of the "red letter Christian", one that sees the writings associated with Jesus as the ultimate authority, and then filters the rest through that lens.

-in this theory we also lose the two ideas of 1) absolute faith and dependence upon God, without questioning...which could be a good thing for many of us, and 2) the idea that God is intimately active in all decisions, events and happenings in our world.

If God didn't command this, then who did?  And why wouldn't God stop it if God didn't want it to happen?  And if God didn't command this, then what else in scripture did God not command?  This can be problematic if taken too far.

-in this we don't lose all of God's wrath, but we do lose the idea that when we are saved through Christ that we actually have something to be saved from.  Modern Christians would say we are saved from hell, but hell is essentially the progression of God's wrath from clearing the world to an afterlife of punishment...so it's the same anger.

I've never liked the word wrath, although I think this loss is profound for our faith.  The idea of the Law was that the chosen people could be holy like God was holy (which Jesus echoes in the Gospels), and the deaths were to eliminate non-holiness more so than avenge a wrathful God.  It's in Jesus that all non-holiness is taken upon  holy person, therefore providing the adequate sacrifice and therefore we are more free to pursue God's law with boldness and courage, without having to worry about the nuts and bolts.

So these are the three paths that I can see, and all of them have things we preserve about God and all of them have deficiencies when we look at the whole corpus of scripture...and I'm most cerain I didn't cover them as adequately as I should/could have.  

One thing that comes out of all of them, or should, is the idea that Christ either satisfied all vengeance (God satisfied God's own vengeance) or  Christ gives us the lens in which to judge all other scripture...so that we can be free, one, from salvation according to the law, but a big 2) we can be free from people who believe they are called to commit atrocities in the name of God "just like Joshua did."  

A Pastor, a Priest or a Friend?

So for the 19th time over the last 6 months (more or less), someone mentioned to me the concern, "you know, it's just weird to tell you some of the things I would tell a pastor, since you're my friend."  

Now, I've been told by a few mentors over the years that you don't make friends with people in your congregation for this reason, as well as for a few others.  Essentially, if you are the leader or the spiritual leader of someone, then being their friend is a hinderance.

But I've always found this troubling because of both the Biblical understanding of a Pastor, as well as my fear that we are an untrusting group of humans, in which friendship means simply a social reality.  

Again...this is not a dig on any of my friends...I get the pastor/friend dichotomy and respect it.  But I also think it's because of the way we've set up what a friend and what a pastor should be.

In Acts, when the apostles begin to lead people into a more organized group of believers, mainly for encouragement and celebration in difficult times, there are the apostles who are called out from others to lead the church.  Which leads to people like Stephen and others being called or "set apart" to lead the people, which then leads to some being called to lead worship and the community and others to lead people in service to the world (elders vs. deacons).  

But everyone was given the Holy Spirit.  Everyone was given gifts of the Spirit.  

The ministry transformed eventually through an understanding of the old Levite/Priest system to where Bishop/Elders became Priests, intermediaries between the people and God.  The one to whom you confess your sins to, and the one who absolves your sins. 

As though those people were perfect.

Eventually, through the Protestant Reformation, the priests were turned more into Preachers and Theologians, challenging people to be their best version of themselves, interpreting scripture and figuring out the best version of church.

And not many cared for the souls of people hurting (a broad and gross generalization).

So in America, this shifted eventually to the role of Pastor, maybe shepherd.  A combination of Priest, Nurturer, Counselor, Preacher, Challenger, Theologian and more.  And I will say it's the greatest position in the world.

But this evolution has also created the idea that you who are reading this can't be a pastor in the truest sense of the word.  That person which shepherds another through the valley of the shadow of death.  Which is funny, because generally, this is one of my gifts.  It's one of the reasons I went into the ministry, if not the primary one.  I love people, I believe God loves people and wants them to know God's love.  So, in general, I've been a pastor since high school...and am still a pastor to friends who are not in my congregation.

And so this weird dichotomy of friend/pastor creeps up again.  Would people open up to me as a friend if I weren't a pastor?  Some definitely wouldn't.  And that's where this weird notion of friend comes in?  Do we really have friends?  Are we so afraid to trust others with sensitive material about ourselves that we're willing to only give half of ourselves to those we've said we want to lean on, confide in, love and be loved by?

I would argue that a friend would do this a lot better than a Preacher.  And I would argue that for most people who come to see me, they probably have someone in their lives who would be a much better person to talk to and pray with than me...because while I'm always available and willing...I'm certainly not as present as the friend God gave you.

And chances are...I'm not the one you need to repent to and seek forgiveness from.  Those are your friends, or potential friends.

So the point is this.  You are a pastor, a shepherd, a comforter...given by God to the people around you, to trust in and be trusted by.  You are a David and Jonathan, a Ruth and Naomi, a Paul and Timothy, a Paul and Epaphroditus.  Learn to trust those around you, and learn to forgive those and be in graceful realationships with those around you.  Allow them to be unclean and made clean.  Allow them to be as imperfect as you are, and be made perfect in Christ.  Allow them to be who they are, and then maybe...maybe we'll find true friends.

As for me...I'm a pastor.  I also happen to be an elder in the church.  And I'm willing to be anyone's friend who wants to come be in community with me.

Speaking the Truth in Love (in conjunction with the sermon for 2/3)

If you're reading this, there's a good chance you were in worship Sunday morning on Feb. 3rd and I mentioned it.  Otherwise, thanks for stopping by :)

In worship we discussed the Bible directive to life a life of love and forgiveness, rather than the hate-filled rhetoric that often comes to our mind when we think of Christians engaged with culture.  Normally this would have been in the sermon...but it was communion Sunday and it was already getting pretty long.  

I felt I needed to clarify that every Sunday for the last 4 years I haven't been just spouting off non-sense about belonging to an eternal way of life, one with standards set from heaven and not from Earth.  Which means, that while we ought to love first in the mold of God's grace for us, I do think the Bible certainly points to holding fast in faith as well.

I could point to the example of every prophet in the Old Testament.

Hosea - remember the "whore" that Israel was labeled...that was because they didn't stand up for the ever-so-important "only 1 God" belief.  And why is that important?  Well, the Romans 1:18-32 passage we referenced is essentially a laundry list of behaviors that humans come up with by themselves to celebrate whatever they feel is important...WHEN...they are living by their own rules and not the rules from God.  So...1 God, 1 understanding of the value of life = good in scripture's eyes.

Ezra - (yes I know he's not a prophet...just go along)  Finds out that people during the exile have intermarried with all sorts of other tribes and nations, and actually makes the men throw their foreign wives to the wayside (let's hear it for the Biblical understanding of marriage :) ).  Why is this important?  Because foreign women mean allegiance to foreign dignitaries, foreign customs, etc. = not total allegiance to God and God's mission on earth.  Although...you'd think that maybe those other women might have converted?  (we'll ask those questions another time)

Paul (I know he's not even Old Testament, just keep going with me) - he speaks of the virtue of patience and talks of how suffering builds endurance and hope.  Paul clearly encourages believers to hold fast to their convictions in a world of pagan bunk.  But what does he list as the fruits of the spirit?  Kindness, generosity...you know, things revolving around love.  So stay firm in the faith that you ought to be kind, generous, hospitable, giving and active.  What was that?  He also said the "greatest is love?"  

Jesus - (Now at least I'm back to Old Testament alongside New Testament...think about it Matthew scholars)  The epitome of God's wisdom (logos/word) states things such as:

-don't get divorced

-don't even lust

-don't cheat people

-follow the 10 commandments

-give to the poor

So what I hope you'll notice is that all of the actions and attitudes that we are pushed towards involve remaining in proper relationship with God and with each other (2 greatest commandments).  When we are encouraged to stay strong in our faith and persist, I believe it means that we are to stay strong in our relationships, never letting evil get in the way of the respect and love we ought to treat each other with...not to mention the dignity with which we ought to treat those we disagree (love your enemies).  Do we agree with everyone or even state that everything is ok?  Absolutely not.  If you murder or molest a child...it's going to take a long time until I forgive you, and God is certainly not cool with your actions.  But the good thing is, is that you can always get cool with God's actions of forgiveness through Jesus on the cross.  Good thing I'm not God right?

Certainly we ought to stand up for the belief that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life...but again from the sermon...it's a hard case to make when we don't act remotely as Jesus would.  So remember to speak the truth in love, dignifying the other's personhood and worth when you are standing strong in your convictions.

As Paul states in Romans 2:1-4, "don't judge...because chances are you're not perfect (paraphrase...if you couldn't tell)."  

Will this lead to the degradation of society?  I doubt it, society seems to be running away from the Gospel at an alarming rate because of churches that hate them before they ever walk in the door.  I would actually think that the more relationships we maintained as good, the more God has a chance to use us for the furthering of God's Kingdom...and not our own.

What are we "Begatting?": My thoughts on violence in the world.

The Bible is full of people begatting other people, which holds a little more significance than just giving birth in the medical way we think of it.  Begat means to give a part of yourself to the person you are birthing, and so perhaps the better question is: "which parts of ourselves are perpetuating?"

This question struck me today as it was the theme of worship, but as I got home and saw the mass shooting in Milwaukee, I thought of a comment I heard yesterday... "It just seems like the world is on fire."

Which you've probably heard someone say, "it didn't used to look like this," which I usually blow off by thinking, "it did look like this, you just didn't see it as much because the media wasn't as wide-spread."  But I got to thinking, maybe it didn't used to be like this?

At least in some point in our history.  Because the Bible starts off in early Genesis with Cain murdering his brother Abel, and Abel being terrified that someone will exact revenge against him.  In essence, one bad turn deserves another.  (For all you Bible scholars out there trying to come up with the exact geneology of Adam and Eve, you can ask yourself where all those other people trying to get Cain came from...but that's a different blog.)

There's no doubt there are more shootings and other acts of violence, and we wonder why that is.  I think, because like begats like.  Not in a hereditary way, but when someone who is struggling to decipher life and having a hard time sees a sick way of handling problems such as violence...the idea enters their mind that perhaps this is the way I'll feel better.

Think about your middle school counselor, who gave you the advice that when you're upset, go hit a pillow.  Good move...doesn't really hurt anyone, except it does plant the visual idea that hitting something is a stress relief and will make my life better or take the edge off.  What happens when the pillow is not enough?

And then what's the punishment for a violent act?  Violence.  So it turns out, on the side of wrong and right the answer is violence or exclusion.  Now, chalk up American history since 1776 and before, coupled with world experience from the dawn of humanity a couple hundred thousand years ago and you've got a long line of violent acts to draw inspiration from.  So, it'll just get worse right?  More revolutions, mass shootings, etc.?

Maybe not if we listen to Jesus.  Jesus says, "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye' but I tell you to love your enemies." 

I'm not saying there doesn't need to be law enforcement by any measure, but what if we built up a cache of public acts of love, charity and kindness that helped people sort out their issues in life that slowly "the way" of life became one of mercy and forgiveness in the midst of the unavoidable conflict. 

Is this idealistic...yes.  But what we wish to perpetuate must start somewhere, and it must start from someone.  And a new way of viewing the world in which conflict is not to be "settled" but is to be lived into and shared amongst us. 

Maybe we'd start seeing better news if we had something to see?

The church: Public or Home-school?

Every Friday there is a great homeschool group called MArCH that uses our church facilities to hold enrichment activities for students all the way up to seniors in high school, as well as group activities and studying for AP and higher course work. They are a great group and I thoroughly enjoy interacting with the students and teachers on Fridays.

But I remember one Friday I was working with a public school students who was off that day to create a video for worship.  He didn't know why all the students were here, and when I explained it, he wondered aloud why anyone would ever want to homeschool. 

I'll admit, my wife and I had discussed homeschooling as well, but I struggled with the same question.  What about their social engagements?  What about learning how to deal with unfortunate circumstances?  What about all the other things that high school brings (read here...football games!).

But as I've gotten to know some of the teachers here and observed them, I see why this program is awesome...and I get jealous.  Not in terms of school, but in terms of church.

The program is awesome because each teacher here is a parent of one of the students.  Chances are they educate about 12-15 other kids outside of their own, if not more, and what I've seen is that there is no drop off in passion or energy between their kids and the other kids. 

And it is EVERY teacher.  There isn't one teacher/parent here who doesn't seem rabidly committed to the education/fun/success/enjoyement/passion of each student they interact with.

Just today I walked past a teacher reading a story about an owl to a group of Kindergardners and the way she was reading it made me want to sit and listen!  She was engaged, passionate and narrated it in a way the kids could hear and understand.

Today I saw a gym teacher playing dodgeball, engaging with the kids and having fun with them, all the while pushing them to do better and get in shape.

Did I mention that the majority of kids they deal with are not their own?

I have mentioned this in worship before, that when we are baptized and accept a newly baptized child or adult into the body of Christ, it is in our promises to them to nurture, educate and impassion them with the love and message of Christ resurrected.

But often I sense more of a public school mentality.  The teachers are passionate, they are committed...but they are fewer.  And people drop off their kids and politely, yet silently, say "you take care of them."

There's an understanding that some parents really do need a break, others are exploring passionately the issues of faith themselves, but the majority have an idea that their kid ought to be learning about God, but don't know how to do it.  So we outsource to the few excited, passionate kids' workers we have.  I even read recently about a church that started to give a stipend to Sunday school workers...

The church ought to be a home school, because this family is like our second home.  Forget about that if every adult in the church who is legally allowed to work with kids took one hour of one Sunday out of the year, we would have about 500-700 adults still left.  We won't mention that stat.

What I will mention is that when you walk into this community, each kid you see is as important as your own kid, because we are brothers and sisters in Christ.  And what would you not do for your own child?  How would you embarrass yourself, make yourself uncomfortable and/or learn something new...for your own child?

I'm still in awe of the passion these teachers have for the kids they teach...and none of them get paid.  I'm still in awe of public school teachers who accept anyone and everyone...and barely get paid.  I'm in awe of people who give of themselves at homes as stay at home parents and those who consistently work with kids because they recognize God's beauty in them.

And I'm continually inspired by those who pour so much love into those kids they have no reason to love...except that Christ loved them first.