Dung Beetle Theology 1.0
I'm working on a longer post about my EFM (Education for Ministry) group and our discussions regarding the OT; I want to get an early start by outlining some ideas here (remember my other blog title: 'everything's a draft'). The title of this post, Dung Beetle Theology, is taken from a phrase B uses that has been retooled by D and come out of our group discussions. DBT is, in part, a way to look at the OT scripture; it means that we humans, including the writers and editors or the OT, understood the living God about as well as the dung beetle understands us. This does not preclude true religious experience or revelation; my group is working through those ideas on several levels. But it means that the OT as we have it is one people's religious record, really the record of a rather small number of people who acted as authors, editors, and sources, and that the OT is imperfect and deeply human, the reflections of dung beetles on the transcendent Reality.
Also, most of us feel the idea of God developed over time. Not God, but ideas about God. You can see this in what is preserved in the OT. After chapters and chapters on proper sacrificial method we begin to see voices elevating mercy, compassion, concern for the poor over sacrifice. True, the point could be made that the sacrifice was empty ritual for those without some kind of faith, and actually, I'd agree.
I think D put it best: the covenant was always love. I believe it. Many theologians look for covenants, the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic. Of the three, it is only in Abraham that faith seems central. None, however, are about loving one's fellow human, one of the two things Christ says the entire OT depends upon; one thing that was central to his teaching. Did God really make these covenants with humans? Maybe, though I have real doubts about Noah. Did God really give the Israelites their extensive sacrificial system? I doubt it, frankly, though God certainly used it as the model for Christ. So while any religious gesture may be honored by God (this really is up to him) I believe the sacrificial system of the Jews never provided atonement or salvation for those who kept it.
Love was always the external expression of the true covenant; faith its internal expression (in general terms). The dung beetles got a little of that in the OT. Mostly, Israel didn't get it. For me, that includes some of the OT authors.
This idea comes in part from Wright's use of Sanders; Judaism in the first century was not merely a cold legal code; there was true spirituality even then. But the 23rd Psalm is evidence of ancient true spirituality, as are many of the prophets and some of the Genesis mythology. Jesus has the amazing ability to sift through the OT to enhance the essentials, like loving my neighbor. I realize what we have in the gospels on his attitude towards the OT is very complex, and I'm only beginning to address it, but surely, there is a fresh ethical breath in Christ' understanding of the OT. Moses' biased divorce law gets tossed out; love's centrality is elevated; the ethical code of the law is not denigrated, but shown to be impossible (and, I think, imperfect).
The covenant was always love your neighbor.
Then why did Jesus die? I don't actually know for sure, but surely he came in part to show us how we weren't getting it right. And, I think, as penalty for the sins of those who would trust him. Yet the atonement has not always been a clear idea in church theology, and I don't believe I have to understand it to place faith in Christ for my own sins and shortcomings, in light of my own certain death. Christ can be the Way even if I'm not sure why or how the Way works. For me the question is not so much how but Who? Meaning that without the advent there would, I can only guess, be either no religion on this earth or only very human and imperfect religion. There would be no way to come to the Father, as Christ himself says. That's enough for me.
But all this about the 613 laws in the Tanakh being God's laws, direct from him and the sacrificial system being sufficient for the Israelites at that time...I don't think so; (read Numbers 5: 11-31 for just one passage which I find irreconcilable with Christ's nature).
Many ancient people sacrificed. I'm not saying YHWH didn't reveal himself in some way to some of the ancient Israelites, leaders and the lowest classes, didn't somehow impress the need for a behavioral code from early on (love is about proper action); But the way the OT was explained to me as a kid and later as an evangelical: this is God's direct word for this particular people at this particular time...I believe this is not true in totality. Dung beetles wrote the thing and dung beetles built the religious cultus of ancient Judaism. The OT is very, very human, a construct from a particular time and place, or a plural of these.
And I'm very glad to begin seeing things this way. Could I be wrong? Yes. I'm not saying judgment isn't real. Or that God has to be anything but what he is. I'm going by what we have about Jesus, who claimed to be the literal historic fulfillment of all the grasping and reaching of the OT tribes.
More on all this later. My hope is this helps or challenges (the few who read!) not builds anxiety or dissension.
***
I just went back and read this and it seems awfully weak and undeveloped, but I think I'll leave it up as it is. Like I said, it's mostly me kicking around ideas.
***
We just got pounded again with another snowstorm. Yikes. The birds are chirping and the sun is out today but another storm is on its way tomorrow. Hopefully the snow level will be mostly above us this time. I'm getting worn out. I can't believe how much water, mostly in the form of feet of snow, is around our house. I'm looking forward to the long, cool, gorgeous days of spring when things dry out a bit.
Gotta run. Peace and love to all
Also, most of us feel the idea of God developed over time. Not God, but ideas about God. You can see this in what is preserved in the OT. After chapters and chapters on proper sacrificial method we begin to see voices elevating mercy, compassion, concern for the poor over sacrifice. True, the point could be made that the sacrifice was empty ritual for those without some kind of faith, and actually, I'd agree.
I think D put it best: the covenant was always love. I believe it. Many theologians look for covenants, the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic. Of the three, it is only in Abraham that faith seems central. None, however, are about loving one's fellow human, one of the two things Christ says the entire OT depends upon; one thing that was central to his teaching. Did God really make these covenants with humans? Maybe, though I have real doubts about Noah. Did God really give the Israelites their extensive sacrificial system? I doubt it, frankly, though God certainly used it as the model for Christ. So while any religious gesture may be honored by God (this really is up to him) I believe the sacrificial system of the Jews never provided atonement or salvation for those who kept it.
Love was always the external expression of the true covenant; faith its internal expression (in general terms). The dung beetles got a little of that in the OT. Mostly, Israel didn't get it. For me, that includes some of the OT authors.
This idea comes in part from Wright's use of Sanders; Judaism in the first century was not merely a cold legal code; there was true spirituality even then. But the 23rd Psalm is evidence of ancient true spirituality, as are many of the prophets and some of the Genesis mythology. Jesus has the amazing ability to sift through the OT to enhance the essentials, like loving my neighbor. I realize what we have in the gospels on his attitude towards the OT is very complex, and I'm only beginning to address it, but surely, there is a fresh ethical breath in Christ' understanding of the OT. Moses' biased divorce law gets tossed out; love's centrality is elevated; the ethical code of the law is not denigrated, but shown to be impossible (and, I think, imperfect).
The covenant was always love your neighbor.
Then why did Jesus die? I don't actually know for sure, but surely he came in part to show us how we weren't getting it right. And, I think, as penalty for the sins of those who would trust him. Yet the atonement has not always been a clear idea in church theology, and I don't believe I have to understand it to place faith in Christ for my own sins and shortcomings, in light of my own certain death. Christ can be the Way even if I'm not sure why or how the Way works. For me the question is not so much how but Who? Meaning that without the advent there would, I can only guess, be either no religion on this earth or only very human and imperfect religion. There would be no way to come to the Father, as Christ himself says. That's enough for me.
But all this about the 613 laws in the Tanakh being God's laws, direct from him and the sacrificial system being sufficient for the Israelites at that time...I don't think so; (read Numbers 5: 11-31 for just one passage which I find irreconcilable with Christ's nature).
Many ancient people sacrificed. I'm not saying YHWH didn't reveal himself in some way to some of the ancient Israelites, leaders and the lowest classes, didn't somehow impress the need for a behavioral code from early on (love is about proper action); But the way the OT was explained to me as a kid and later as an evangelical: this is God's direct word for this particular people at this particular time...I believe this is not true in totality. Dung beetles wrote the thing and dung beetles built the religious cultus of ancient Judaism. The OT is very, very human, a construct from a particular time and place, or a plural of these.
And I'm very glad to begin seeing things this way. Could I be wrong? Yes. I'm not saying judgment isn't real. Or that God has to be anything but what he is. I'm going by what we have about Jesus, who claimed to be the literal historic fulfillment of all the grasping and reaching of the OT tribes.
More on all this later. My hope is this helps or challenges (the few who read!) not builds anxiety or dissension.
***
I just went back and read this and it seems awfully weak and undeveloped, but I think I'll leave it up as it is. Like I said, it's mostly me kicking around ideas.
***
We just got pounded again with another snowstorm. Yikes. The birds are chirping and the sun is out today but another storm is on its way tomorrow. Hopefully the snow level will be mostly above us this time. I'm getting worn out. I can't believe how much water, mostly in the form of feet of snow, is around our house. I'm looking forward to the long, cool, gorgeous days of spring when things dry out a bit.
Gotta run. Peace and love to all
Comments