Patriarchy and King's Kids

Wikipedia defines patriarchy as such:

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

On the whole I have no problem with this clinical definition EXCEPT for the part about privilege. I would replace that word with "responsibility."

The standing definition seems to imply (without directly saying of course) that the purpose of a patriarchy is to serve the desires of men if a man's role in a patriarchy were limited to sitting around having grapes plopped in his mouth by beautiful women. History of course has never allowed any society to be run this way and the few households that ran this was were not sustainable. And whatever criticism can be laid at the feet of patriarchy it must be acknowledged that it does have the ability to sustain itself across generations.

What is missing in the modern discussion of patriarchy is that the role of the patriarch is to serve his dependents NOT to be served by them. His role is provider and protector. He worked in the fields, fought in wars and built the city walls, that was his job.

Of course many will still be glad that patriarchy is greatly diminished in Western Society. And I have never solved the struggle between egalitarian and patriarchical models for myself and my family BUT if we are to reject patriarchy, let us reject it for what it is rather a straw man.

Which leads me to my reaction of the Prosperity Gospel argument that God provides material wealth to those he loves just as a good father provides material needs to his children.

The problem with Prosperity Gospel which is most difficult is that it does have a Biblical basis. to listen to the Christian critics one would think that those who teach to Prosperity Gospel basically throw the Bible out the window and make the whole thing up for their own interest. The Bible has a ton to say about God providing for the needs of His people, Old and New Testament. However the Prosperity Gospel defenders make the same mistake of the critics of patriarchy: they assume that the purpose of wealth and power is for those who have it simply to enjoy to it without regard to responsibility to others.

To be sure one aspect of wealth is gain your desires. But that is only one part of it and by itself lacks meaning leading to despair. Those who celebrate the Prosperity Gospel state, with great faith, that they are the King's Kids... and that IS how Christians should see themselves. But imagine a good King who had a child who took all of the gifts and privileges of royalty and squandered them on pleasure and vanity and self interest. Wouldn't that King be grieved and ashamed of their child? Wouldn't the good King want their child to serve the Kingdom?

This is especially troubling of metaphor if you continue the metaphor and say the Kingdom is in a state of emergency and many of the King's Kids have been kidnapped and lost (like Disney's Tangled). What an outrage if a prince and princess were delighting themselves with balls and tourneys while their royal brothers and sisters were in enemy hands!

So I agree those of us who trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been adopted into the family of God and can expect help and provision from our Heavenly Father. We truly are King's Kids but the Kingdom requires responsibility and not privilege.

The Least Privileged Position

In philosophy club, Chris brought up the classic Platonic distinction in art between composer, performer and audience. He noted that much of the philosophy of art deals with deciding which position is the most privileged. Of course, all of them are necessary but I responded with irony "I don't know which is most privileged but most certainly the creator is the least privileged!" There was some agreement there and Mike shared how of all the song he has written it was the one he spent the least time and energy on that received the most praise. I have heard enough singer song writers say something along the same lines.

But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"

The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.

Psalm 119:1-8

Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible; it is one super super long Psalm (poem/song) with the first letter of each stanza being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (or so I am told). The unifying theme is God's Law.

The Law is a prickly subject (as this Psalm explores). The problem is that humans have some kind of nature (born that way and what not) and the Law often times requires that those who follow the Law deny their natural desires. That means there is a constant tension between what any person wants and what the Law expects.

This difference gets highlighted in the various issues of sexuality quite often but it applies across the board of behavior. Just like a person has a natural desire to do all kind of things with their genitals so too does a person have a natural desire to do all kinds of things with that gun or with their money or their words.

The Psalmist does not deny this conflict (contrary to popular belief the Bible rarely hides from the difficult questions) but rather makes it the central theme. But the perspective will a little unusual to modern ears because it assumes that the Law is good and human desire (though normal) is not good when it contradicts the Law.

In particular I like Psalm 119 better than other Psalms because the speaker laments his own sinfulness rather than cursing the sinfulness of others:

1. Blessed are the undefiled in the way,
Who walk in the law of the Lord!
2. Blessed are those who keep His testimonies,
Who seek Him with a whole heart!
3. They also do no iniquity;
They walk in his ways.
4. You have commanded us
To keep Your precepts diligently.
5. Oh, that my ways were directed
To keep Your statutes!
6. Then I would not be ashamed
When I look into Your commandments.
7. I will praise You with uprightness of heart,
When I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes;
Oh, do not forsake me utterly!

Verses 1-4 seem sort of standard advice: You will be happy if.... Now my secular friends and I might have different ways to fill in that blank but from a structural stand point most advice starts the same way: "You will be happy if...." These verses give a little more detail saying not just to walk in the way of the Lord but to do so with a whole heart and with diligence. So half-way obeying is not going to cut it.

Verses 5-8 make a dramatic shift and suddenly the Psalmist is transformed from the Pharisee in the temple thanking God for making him into such a good person into the tax collector in the temple afraid to look up but just asking for mercy.

Freud would not be surprised by this transition from high ethical standards to anguish and guilt but I think many in our society would be. All too often morality is seen and used as a weapon against non-believers and those who do not meet up with a person's definition of what is good are shown wrath. This is commonly understood happening in a religious context but covers almost any standard of human behavior: are you a good parent, are you punk, what kind of wine do you drink etc. These standards are most often used to judge other people and less commonly (though not unheard of) used to judge one' own self. And not surprising when we judge ourselves we often tend to be a lot more understanding.

This self inflicted judgment is the next step in maturity because when a standard is used against one's the standard has been judged to be good in-its self. I have never heard of someone really getting down on them self for not being goth enough (after high school any way) but the standard that people use to terrorize themselves is used because it is believed to be actually Good, more worthy than ourselves.

Though Freud would disagree with me (along with many others) the belief that we are not Good is the first step towards the possibility of an ethical life. Now how the Bible would describe the rest of the steps is a topic for another book of the Bible.

Gay Stereotyping

Not long ago one of my younger friends posted some shock rocker thing on Facebook and commented that she thought they were gay because of the way they dress and look but their songs are about doing stuff to girls.

I kind of jumped the gun telling her to not be ignorant and that sexual orientation has nothing to do with fashion, or masculinity/femininity. She deleted my comment. I was a bit short with her and she knows me as a Christian. I assume the thinks means I voted for Prop 8 (true) and hate gay people (not true). So that is probably why she doesn't care what I think of her stereotyping gay people.

I am used to being ignored for being argumentative on Facebook so I didn't take it to heart... but I often post a quote "The casualties in the war of ideas are people." And while I pretty much don't care about government politics and how the money is divided up (up to a point) I do care what people think of gay people... especially people who want to supportive of them... because the consequences of these actions cut to the heart of who people are. Unlike Prop 8 this actually matters.

Now the LGTQ community is not going to be giving me any medals for enlightened thought any time soon. We have pretty serious disagreements about sexuality but one this point we are on the same page: Homosexuality has nothing to do with outward appearance. There are plenty of people living up the stereotypes but this is only a fashion statement. I assume this fashion statement is socially constructed as a kind of solidarity with a community which will not reject the person for their sexuality. A person can mimic some stereotype, just like an actor, but the tone of voice, length of hair or choice of occupation has nothing to do with how people have sex.

I guess one of the reasons I care so much is because I had to go through it. I was a pretty gentle little boy in a family with five pretty masculine older brothers. They weren't that bad but there were times where I was made to feel that since I wasn't as tough or athletic as my brothers there was something wrong with me. That wrongness was expressed through the word "gay." Now this was before I even knew what sex was, let alone homosexuality. There result was a lot of pain and confusion.

Now I am not super worried about this girl spending the rest her life assuming every gentle man prefers sex with men and every female mechanic prefers sex with women. Most likely in the next couple of years she will move away from Fremont to San Fransisco (or the equivalent) and meet people in the lgqt community not from Fremont. She'll meet "normal" looking, outrageously masculine, feminine and utterly bizarre people... some of whom prefer sex with their own gender or multiple genders. After a little while in Babylon she'll know better but I still don't want her to put people in boxes till then.

Singleness

A preface to this blog is my short story "Sensible People." If you haven't read it (shame on you) here is the link:
http://newspiritezk3626.blogspot.com/2010/07/sensible-people-final-draft-before.html
It will be referenced in this blog.

For those who don't know "Sensible People" was largely inspired by my first real attempt at a relationship since becoming a Christian (and pretty much since high school). The original title was "The Short and Unsuccessful Courtship of a Bitch Named 'Michelle'" which is an AWESOME title. But since I still went to church with Michelle and was reading the story at our Regen art show I felt that would have been inappropriately combative. Michelle was in no way bitchy and even though the original inspiration of the story was our short and unsuccessful relationship the story took a life of its own and "Sensible People" is the correct title.

So every now and then at Bible study during prayer requests I will ask for prayer about singleness. Most of my Christian life so far can be called contently single. I would joke that being single is my spiritual gift and I am think in many ways I could serve as an example of how to be godly in singleness (and humility). But over the last few years this contentment has changed to a need for intimacy, partnership and relationship. So we bring up our needs in prayer.

Now when asking for prayer from friends who know you pretty well you will not only receive prayer but also well meant advice. I try to bite my lip when I feel compelled to fix people's prayer needs rather than lift it up to God (like requested). I can not tell you how successful I am at simply hearing prayer requests and then praying about it without telling people who to avoid needing that prayer request. Ask someone else how I do with that.

Jesse has no qualms about giving advice with his prayers. But that's fine, Jesse knows me pretty well, has a decent head on his shoulders and will actually pray after giving the advice. His advice to me is something like "Stop dating the same kind of girl."

I have thought long about that advice since I am not sure what "the same kind of girl" he is talking about. I mean, what did Michelle and Jennifer have in common aside from going out with me for a short time and being committed Christian?

And then I thought about Pam... I never dated Pam. She was older than my mom and I never knew her when she wasn't terminally ill with cancer (of which she has since died).

I was very fortunate to know Pam at a time and place in her life when there was no pretense or boundaries. I was her weekly ride to chemotherapy and she talked about whatever she wanted to talk about and I listened. I don't think it is possible to be as open as she was in so short of a time without cancer.

One time waiting in the doctor's office she talked about a time she was asked out by a guy from her church. It was years and years earlier, long before she had dealt with cancer. She said how she asked around a little bit and everyone said he was a stand up guy so she agreed. He took her to a concert of some kind and they were having a good time. But then he ordered a glass of wine and she said it was like strike one, two and three right there. Now it wasn't that she had come from a background of alcohol abuse or anything but she immediately decided she wouldn't see him again.

That pretty much sums up the few relationships I've been in. Michelle's break up makes more sense since I made a lot of rookie mistakes but that is after years of perspective, but at the time my reaction to it (like Jennifer and other even shorter and more unsuccessful attempts) is consistently confusion.

So I think I have discovered aside from an insistence on faith in Christ and a tendency to like book smarts I would say my type is: women who are not ready for a relationship.

I certainly did not think of Michelle like a dog hit by a car on the side of the road going out with her, Jennifer either. But there is something very similar in how I approached girls I am attracted to and how I tried to care for that dog (whose name I never learned). There is a slow and steady movement, a patience and careful intention. To be sure there is all kind of baggage too, I mean I would never go out with a girl like the famous Liz (my first love, who broke my heart and went out with my twin brother).

But every relationship I have attempted in the last decade has been in some ways an approach towards a girl who I sensed in some ways was very hurt. There is always this hope that if I am careful enough and gentle enough and patient enough we can meet at a point in time where she can trust again.

So far no dice... and I did ask out a girl who was totally not my type... but she thought I was inviting her to coffee so I could lecture her about something. When I made myself more clear she gracefully begged off.

And the end of Pam's story about the the guy striking out for drinking a glass of wine she said "And a while ago I was at a concert and had a glass of wine myself, so I guess I've grown."

City on a Hill

One of the constant struggles for a Christian seeking to follow God is to find the balance between showing righteousness (as understood by God) and resisting sinfulness (as understood by God). In church you will sometimes hear someone say "There are only two things you can do in this world which you can't do in heaven: sin and teach people about Jesus." The implied question is "what should our life be about?"

Some people believe that when someone becomes a Christian they some how can or some how ought to be able to resist sin in all situations and live with perfect integrity. This is not what the Bible teaches and not what has ever happened. Rather Christians are still tempted and sometimes allow themselves to be carried away, which is heartbreaking for God, the individual and all other Christians. In that sense it is one of a Christian's calling to resist sin in themselves and flee from things that influence them towards sin while chasing after things that influence them towards righteousness. This need has caused many Christians to flee from their world and society in order to live a more righteous life.

The problem with this is first that the isolated Christian or community is still infected by sin and though they may sin less (maybe) they still sin. So it is not as if withdrawing from the world really solves the problem.

But more important complete withdrawal is against God's will. The escape from sin was accomplished by Jesus Christ's death and resurrection and hiding from this wicked world does not accomplish it (otherwise we wouldn't have needed God to save us). But more than that God has specifically called Christians to be in the world, like a contrast to the normal worldly world.

Jesus described the believer's role like salt, which brings out flavor in food and also in His day was also for medicine. He also said His followers should be like light (a city on a hill) which people could clearly see or like a lamp on a table which exist specifically to be different than the darkness around it. This points to the Christian's need to be in the world of regular people and showing what God is like.

But in that same part Jesus reminds us that we are not supposed to be like the world, if a salt loses its saltiness no one would keep it, a lamp under a basket is useless. Christians are not just supposed to be in the world with Christian bumper stickers but in the world while also different from the world.

The problem and conflict for a believers is that just as the light of Christ found in us can influence people in the world towards Christ... so too can people in the world influence the believer towards the world. "Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Cor 15:33) So there is a kind of balancing act where a Christian needs to soberly and wisely understand when we are showing others what God is like through their good conduct, self-control and grace towards others ... and there are times where we are falling into the same kind of thing that everyone does.

I haven't got it all figured out but I think the answer goes something like this: recovering alcoholics should not hang out bars.

Philipians 1

"And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God." Philipians 1:9-11

So I am not like Paul. I don't travel from town to town helping start new churches. Sure I tithe and teach Sunday school twice a month but the general life structures (work, school and so forth) is pretty much the same as it could have been if I had never become a Christian. One might say that Christianity might have once been useful to get my life on track but now that my life is "on track" Christianity seems to be window dressing to an otherwise normal life. This kind of thinking is horrifying when compared to what the Bible seems to expect (imitating Paul who imitates Jesus).

But at the same time I can say with confidence that despite my many weaknesses and failing that my life is defined by following the call of Christ. There is growing knowledge and discernment. This is usually concerning my own weaknesses and failings but also about God's grace through Jesus Christ, which alone is sufficient to justify my life despite my weaknesses and failings. There is growing approval of what is excellent and fruit (actions) of righteousness.

Paul had the circumstances available to travel from town to town. His old life was traveling from town to town (though to destroy not create Christian churches). The circumstances of my life are very much different in structure.

In theory I could leave this life structure behind, become a missionary and imitate Paul in that respect... but to do so would be to abandon my family. Now certainly there are Biblical precedents to support this decision but in my heart of hearts I do not think this is what God calls me to (there are also Biblical precedents to support this decisions).

In truth if I were left to my own inclinations, like say in the after-life, I would be much more inclined to live a some what isolated life, reading and writing in the quiet of my room till about lunch, then spending the day listening to my friends and family play music and hike with a small group through shady forests or perhaps at a misty beach. Dinner with the larger community followed by a bonfire where we all sing "Holy, holy, holy." Then off to bed.

I believe that this sort of life is waiting for me and I will start some of it here and now... but for the most part I do not chase after this in the way normal people chase after the things they want. Though Jemuel and Nitzsche disagree I firmly believe that this life, this world is not our home and not all we have to work with. So before I get what I really want I chase after what God has put in front of me.

God put apostleship, church founding, letter writing and prison in front of Paul and he ran towards it though it was, as he said, like him being poured out of a vessel. But in front of me God has put three imperfect, needy women in my family who have been abandoned by every man in their life and live on the razor edge between destitution and despair... and so like Paul I am being poured out like a vessel on what God has put in front of me.

Now if Paul and I are incorrect about this another world and another life after this one then I would have been much wiser to chase after my own inclinations here and now. But though I struggle I am putting my chips on what the Bible says as opposed to Nitzsche or who ever.

Job 33-35

So Job's critics have been silenced and Job gave a three chapter speech summarizing his innocence. This speech was a summary of most of Job's earlier speeches in that it glorified himself and criticized God's actions in even allowing Job to suffer.

After this a fourth different critic answers Job AND his critics:Elihu. Elihu is different from Job's former critics in that he answers Job's actual words and focuses on God's greatness rather than Job's sinfulness.

I doubt that Elihu would be very compelling to modern humanist understanding. His message is similar to Paul's "Does the clay have the right to judge the potter?" This goes against modern sensibility which rarely says but fully rests upon the idea that human understanding is capable of the deepest insights and no level of knowledge is beyond human wisdom.

Elihu responds concerning God

If he set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to the dust

this will be continued in Job when the Lord shows up to answer Job "Were you there when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

It is not pleasant for man to think about the brevity of his life or the limitation of his understanding. I remember an old Star Trek, Next Generation where Cpt. Picard in his debate with Q asserts that Q's problem with humanity is its potential to be like a God. Certainly that is Nietzsche's perspective, though he wouldn't use that particular word.

To which I boldly reply: "Nuh uhh."

Job 28

Job starts with something in between Hamlet's "What a piece of work is man..." and Sophocles' "Manifold are the uncanny, yet nothing looms or stirs more uncanny than the human being...." Job describes the mighty works of man and sees them with a wonder and novelty as if he were an outside history and seeing it for the first time. If you think about it there is something unbelievable about man digging deep, deep into mountains to find jewels and training the soil to grow bread.

But Job is not praising man but setting up a contrast. In the first eleven verses it is about the infinite faculty of mankind to seek and find what he desires, but then at verse twelve he sets up what man cannot find:

But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
Man does not know its worth,
and it is not found in the land of the living. (28:11-12)

Job then goes on in verses 13 through 19 to say how impossible it is to buy wisdom and then in verse 20 asking logically (though rhetorically) "From where, then, does wisdom come? And where is the place is understanding?"

Now the answer might be considered Bible stereotype; it comes from God, of course; but in the context the answer is very significant because for the first time in a long time Job is recognizing God and praising Him. It is at the end of the chapter that Job states the origin of wisdom: "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding."

Job 25-26

For some reason I am not sure I had notes on Job 25-26 already written in my Bible. The reading comprehension of these two chapters is pretty simple: 25 are six verses which simply say that God is so mighty no one could understand Him. Here is a memorable line:

"Behold, even the moon s not bright,
And the stars are not pure in his eyes;
How much less man, who is a maggot,
And the son of man who is a worm." (25:5-6)

Of course, this is the voice of Bildad not Job or God. But Job's answer (full of faith) is interesting because it denies nothing of what Bildad says... while refuting it completely. But his early line "With whose help have you utterer words,, and whose breath has come out from you?" is telling in context with the preface to Job's troubles. Seeing how the Enemy's goal is to get Job to speak against God, Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar's speeches seem to be serving the Enemy's goal.

Job's answer is to say how mighty God is and expands on His power. He describes God's power opening the grave, splitting the heavens, stilling the sea and piercing the fleeing serpent and then (and this is the key line for my understanding):

Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,
and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand? (26:14)

This leads to what I wrote whenever-ago:

Job has faith. His speech seems to support what Bildad said but Job has a different conclusion. Even that man can never be pure in God's eyes is an arrogant statement. Truly, Job agrees that the Lord is beyond our comprehension but that presupposes it is also possible for God to be so mighty as to also love man, to be able to see him as pure and make it true. Bildad assumes too much knowledge of God and puts limits on His power.

I still agree with myself from back whenever-when.

Job 23-24 and Nietzsche

This is a very exciting place for me because I believe that God has revealed the meaning of a book of the Bible to me. Let me unwrap that statement.

I do not mean that there is some magical, secret meaning of Job which has been revealed to some special servant of God (me). That is silliness; Job is an open book, literally. Every book in the Bible is open, written plainly... yes even Revelation and Daniel. Sure there is some research that helps in the understanding (genre, context, maturity and so forth) but on the whole the Bible is translated well enough into the English language and anyone who can read can understand it.

What I mean is that I believe that I have reached enough understanding of Job to actually teach it to other people. I already knew the main theme: God allowing suffering and needing an answer to this. But I knew all of that from the introduction written by editors, not by my own reading of the book. I knew from reading the last (very readable) chapters of Job that he would be reconciled with God and what not but now I can see the movement within the long winded speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar how Job came to understand his own faith and the unrighteousness of the counsel of E, B and Z.

Certainly my new understanding is sophomoric just as it is in Revelation, Galatians, John and the other books I think I know well enough to teach but here I am... a sophomore for God!

These two chapters are a big step in revealing Job's progress. He rightly describes God and has a surprising (divinely inspired) knowledge of his own destiny with God. It is Davidic in its faith that God will acquit him and that he will be answered (rather than rejected) by God. But this acquittal is still fearful because he sees God as mightier than him. God is not a benign, slightly senile grandfather who would never ever say anything bad about his delightful chubby grandchildren... but He is a righteous judge who for reasons unrevealed and inexplicable does not reject Job.

The second chapter in the speech might appear as a digression where Job questions God's judgment in allowing the wicked to proceed in relative peace and harmony but this does not show a lack of faith in god but a true knowledge of His character. Much later in Revelation (9:6) the saints who sit before the alter after being slain for the Word of God ask the same thing "How long, oh Lord? How long?" This questioning is not an accusation of injustice but a hunger for the justice believed to be coming. Job asking and wanting and caring for the kind of justice which is the character of God means that Job understands what God is really like.

...

I have started the task of wrestling the philosopher Nietzsche (now referred to as N) . Philosophy club has started "The Genealogy of Morals." N is describing the trend of his past writing up to this point and in some ways will be summarizing it. It starts with his task to describe the history of how Western society has come with its current ideas of good and bad.

He describes that long ago (maybe he would say originally) the idea of good and bad were associated with the ability to return good for good and bad for bad. A good person was someone who could pay people back for what they did. So Achilles was a good man because if you hurt him he had the capacity to hurt you back. If you blessed him, he had the means to pay you back. But a bad person (despicable, disgusting, common) was someone that even if you did good to could not or would not repay you. And if you harmed that bad person he could or would not repay you. That was what the ancient people (according to N) thought of as good and bad. And by this understanding goodness was much more associated with strength (of various kinds) than intention.

I'd like to write further but have a dentist appointment.

Job 22

Eliphaz restates (though with more force and specific detail) his original criticism of Job: he must have deserved what he got.

The specific criticism is no light weight stuff considering the nature of God's character:

"Is not your evil abundant?
For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing
and stripped the naked of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary to drink,
and you have withheld bread from the hungry.
The man with power possessed the land,
and the favored man lives in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the fatherless were crushed."

This is the kind of stuff God takes very seriously. Of course most times the prophets warned against God's judgment for these sort of behaviors they were warning people but rarely (if ever) telling weeping people in the street "I told you so."

There are two problems with Eliphaz's criticism:

1. We the audience know that they are inaccurate. Now if the book of Job were a history of a king or noble we might consider chapters 1-2 as fluff written under the guidance of mighty hands but Job is written less as a history and more as a parable or drama. It may well have been historical but that has nothing to do with how it was written. So as an audience we can not think of Eliphaz's criticism as accurate or even sincere because god has described Job as a just and righteous man and Eliphaz has enough knowledge of Job's life to know it. Eliphaz knew what sort of life Job lived and would know that he was not such a wicked oppressor. This makes Eliphaz seem a vicious, vicious mocker.
2. But suppose that we take Eliphaz's statements as more humanitarian finger pointing rather than malicious lies one would wonder what sort of life Eliphaz lives. If he correct that any person who lives a comfortable or rich life is counted wicked while there are still poor people then who is counted innocent at all? Who could escape Job's fate? Certainly not Eliphaz, he was a peer of Job. If he was not as rich as Job he most certainly was in his neighborhood. Eliphaz ought not have been judging Job but quaking in fear.

My application of Job is starting to materialize:
Do not be like Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar
I live a sweet, sweet, sweet life. It is filled with all kinds of comforts and confidences that mostly began around the time of my conversion. Most of the stuff I am praised for was not true before I was a Christian. There is this tendency to think how lucky (if not smart) I was to be a Christian and to make the solution to other people's woes: be more like me. "Are you poor and struggling? Be more like me!" "Are you depressed and suffer from low self esteem? Be more like me!" "You want God's blessing? Be more like me!"

Though I hope this sort of thinking is rare but it is a danger. The truth is that even though I have received a crap load of blessing from God and have found great joy in following God but God does not love me more than those who suffer, I have not earned my blessing and God is worthy of praise without these many blessings I have received.

And there is an important remembrance: the greatest joy of my conversion was at day one. It was knowing that God loved me. I like having some financial security, good looks and respect but I would give all of that up in favor of knowing God's love. Or put another way I can imagine living poor and ugly and disliked... but I would never go back to my life without Jesus Christ, not for all of the gifts this life could offer.

This is not a great statement about my character but a simple observation: the poverty in God's family is richer than the wealth in the world.

So don't be so judgmental, Mikey.

Job 21

Here Job finally answers, for himself though probably not his critics, the question of instant karma. His critics have been saying that he must have sinned against God to have such horrible things happen to him because "that is just how it works" (paraphrase). With powerful language Job answers them:

"How often is it that the lamp of the wicked put out?
That their calamity comes upon them?
That god distributes pain in his anger?
That they are like straw before the wind.
and like chaff that the storm carries away?
You say, 'God stores up their iniquity for their children,'
Let him pay it out to them, that they may know it"

Job spends most of the chapter talking about how pleasant their life is, their children singing and dancing, their calves born healthy and the weather so nice... with dinner parties and egg salad though they say to God 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of your ways." If they are so wicked as to hate God then why are they not destroyed like Job has been?

I some how doubt Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar will acknowledge Job's point. Jesus however certainly agreed with Job here pointing out "God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust" and when a tower collapsed killing the workers people said it was because of some sin Jesus said "Be careful or something worse could happen to you." But my favorite would be in the Gospel of John when his disciples asked Jesus why this man was born blind, "For his sins or the sins of his parents?" Jesus does more than refute the instant karma argument which says if you do evil, evil will come to you, he answers why God who is all powerful, all knowing and all loving would not just allow but perhaps even to causes someone to be born blind. Jesus says "It was not for this man's sins or his parents' sins that he was born blind but so that God's power could be shown through him." God allows suffering so that He can reveal His character by comforting and healing that suffering.

Of course, the counter argument from the peanut gallery is "Wouldn't it have been better if God had simply never allowed any suffering to enter the world? Wouldn't the man still have an argument against God for the first 30 something years spent blind." My only answer is that we can not answer that question for other people. It is insufficient to answer this question "in theory" for someone else.

Now the cured blind man in John could have perhaps said "God you were wrong to have made me blind." But theoretical philosophers, such as myself, cannot say with justice if God's healing was worth the suffering endured. We can only answer for ourselves.

For myself... I have suffered a fair share of undeserved calamity, most of it in the first ten years of my life. I don't know how you can say "it could have been worse" fairly but certainly I have met people who have endured much worse. Still the result of what I did suffer caused great despair and my old motto "my world is cold and without hope" was not melodramatic but a common sense (almost bored) assessment of my life up to that point.

I can say for me who has suffered that God's healing extended through time and made the whole of my life a blessing rather than a curse and I praise Him and His wisdom in allowing what has happened in my life.

Job 20

Yesterday Job seemed to have made a breakthrough of sorts... and I peeked ahead to see that in chapter 21 he is going to make even more progress... but today I was stuck with Zophar's non-response.

I say it is a non-response because it does not address anything Job actually has said. But the interesting thing about this chapter is that out of context it is not at all contradictory with the main thrust of the Bible. The chapter is a lengthy description of how short the time of the wicked is and that in the day of the Lord's wrath they will lose everything.

In context of Job the unstated point is that Job's situation mirrors the situation of the destiny of the wicked so he must be one of the wicked. Zophar's way of thinking might be described as ideological. It has an idea of how the universe works and insists that evidence meet that idea rather than wrestle with the occasions of contradictions.

This kind of thinking is human (all too human) but completely unfair to Job.

...
In unrelated Biblical news I have heard an interpretation of the Pearl of Great Value and the Hidden Treasure from Matthew 13 that I like. The pastor said "The common interpretation of this parable is that we Christians are the person finding the pearl or treasure which is faith in Jesus..." and the funny thing was a soon as he said that I immediately knew and agreed with what he was supposed to say... because OF COURSE we aren't the ones winning the kingdom of God by being so wise and self-sacrificing.

The Christian does grow in knowledge of God's supreme value and imitates Christ in sacrifice but not even the best of us was so wise to seek or know God... but rather we were sought after by Him and purchased by Him through Jesus Christ (who is God). In the parable we are the treasure, the pearl and Jesus is the one who finds us and gives all He has to purchase us. There are other contextual signs which strengthen this interpretation and though they are valid really it is in knowing my relationship with God which informs this interpretation.

Some might say that imagining myself the treasure Jesus would give everything to purchase seems more egotistical than imagining myself wise enough to know and seek God... but I am not saying I am worth the cost. I am saying Jesus believes I (and those saved) are worth the cost and He proved it by accepting a death on the cross.

Job 19

Exciting developments in Job today!

Job actually answers his friends' arguments. Up to this point since Job has been smited by the Enemy (with the Lord's permission) the book has been a back and forth of Job lamenting his situation and his frenemies blaming him for his situation. Neither side would listen or respond to the other but would restate their original position with greater passion. It was sort of life an abortion debate.

But then in this chapter for what seems to be for no reason Job answers his Bildad. His answer is not super righteous but it ends even more surprisingly. His answer is something like "Well MAYBE God is punishing me for some sin" which had been Bildad and Eliphaz's argument " BUT He is the one who put me in this situation to begin with." Job then goes on to list all that God has done to him and then degrades back into lamenting how horrible his situation is and how horrible his friends are to criticize him.

I am in some ways critical of Job's reasoning here, but am forgiving because he is in the middle of a terrible, terrible tragedy. All of his kids have been killed, his livelihood destroyed and his body is falling apart... it would be weird if his arguments were sound and logical. Suffering does not work this way and those cool, logical commentators on their own tragedy seem more damaged than those pulling out their hair, tearing their clothes and pouring ashes on their head.

But the end of the chapter is even more illogical. If I wrote it myself people would (perhaps correctly) that the change in character was too abrupt and did not make sense. But suddenly Job says despite the fact that he is wrongly accused, and unjustly punished and better off dead that some day, even after his flesh is destroyed, he will see God with his own eyes and his Redeemer lives.

It is the most quoted part of Job in the Evangelical circles (Amy Grant I think does a song which samples from Job and the chorus is the line "And I know my Redeemer lives") but what hit me this reading is how out of character it is for Job and for the stage in religious development at the time.

Job one of the least Jewish/Israeli books of the Old Testament. From the text itself it is pretty hard to tell exactly when it was set, really anywhere in between Judges and the Exile would make sense but I haven't seen anything in the text to say it could not have been set in the days of Abraham or Maccabees.

But that Job would suddenly say "I know I will see God with my own flesh... even if my flesh has been destroyed" seems totally unlike so much of the Old Testament. I would wonder where the idea would even come from.

Secular scholars would have their own nice, little answers but their method presupposes that the universe operates according to secular rules. Though they rarely state it at the beginning of their answers; everything they say interpreting religious texts could begin "Since God does not act in the universe we suppose...." That is fine for secular thinkers but however well developed their answers it is all based on a philosophical position which I do not accept.

So for me, believing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has, does and will act in this universe see the question of how Job comes up with this surprising resurrection idea is a little different. Of course the secular answer: "Job probably heard it from some Egyptian or Babylonian religion" is not impossible but I would tend disregard it because after Moses foreign religious ideas would make one the worst form of blasphemer. If Job was influenced by Egyptian or Babylonian religions then the original audience of Job would see him as a sinner and all of Eliphaz's and Bildad's criticism of him would be valid. The lesson of the story would be "Believe in Ba'al leads to destruction" but so from a purely literary standpoint it would be essential that Job does not go to other gods for comfort, though he rail against the Lord God.

This is too long so I am going to stop.

Job 18

What a jerk that Bildad is! But at the same time, I don't think there is a single condemnation he brings before Job which is not ultimately accurate. Those who love wickedness and hate God will be destroyed and nothing will be left of them... but what Bildad says nothing about (perhaps knows nothing about) is God's mercy.

On Judgment Day it won't be the good guys who were awesome, smart and strong enough to love God who remain. It will be those who received mercy.

What makes mercy, mercy is that the person who receives it does not deserve it. I mean if my sins were all just a big misunderstanding which were not really my fault then salvation would be justice not mercy. To receive mercy means, by definition, to not deserve it.

Now to know you are saved by mercy rather than justice actually can put you in a rather awkward situation. You know you don't deserve God's love, to enter into his presence, you are unfit to untie His sandal. But at the same time you are compelled to enter into God's presence, to know Him personally, to be received by Him.

As far as I understand the basic Islamic position this is where you end up, not worthy to know God but accepted as a servant/slave. And it is logical, it makes sense. It is mercy enough of God to not smite you and it is pretentious to imagine you could have any sort of relationship with such a holy one beyond that of tolerated worker.

The only way a sinful human could even in theory move beyond this status (which is in itself undeserved grace) would be if God Himself demanded otherwise. What makes a Christian able to call God Almighty "Father" is that this is what He names Himself.

And so a Christian is like a beggar sitting at the outer gates of the Temple who is sent for, washed, clothed and brought past the hall of Gentiles, the hall for the women, past the hall for men, past where only priests may enter and into the Holy of Holies where only the High Priest could enter (once a year with the sanctifying blood still fresh) and presented to God Himself as a Son.

It would be unthinkable if it were the will of anyone other than God.

Job 16-17

I'm continuing my exploration of Job and now Job answers the rebuke of Eliphaz. Eliphaz had been continuing his original position (16 chapters later) that God must have a reason to punish Job so it must be Job's fault. Job now continues his original position (16 chapters later): my comforters are lousy, I'm dieing in despair and have no one to comfort me despite my innocence.

What really struck me was the end of Job's speech: "If I hope for the grave as my house, if I make my bed the darkness, if I say to the pit 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,' where then is my hope? Who will see my hope? Will it go down to the bars of the grave? Shall we descend together into the dust?" (17:13-16)

Before I knew Christ's love I wasn't too different from Job. I certainly imagined myself innocent, and perhaps I was like Job in having no role in the calamity that befell my life. But what really pained me and brought me to despair was not what actually happened in my life. That was bad sure, but that wasn't my problem. It was this sense that I was completely alone and without any hope. The general trend of all life seemed like a steady downward spiral, perhaps I could find some comfort that the descent was slow or steady but it was all leading to a big, dark drain from which there was no escape.

I had had plenty of comforters who told me (perhaps correctly) that my life wasn't that bad. "Just be happy" Liz Cassidy would always say. But these Eliphaz and Bildad's failed to recognize was that the problem was that life did not have a recognizable hope.

Maybe if I had read Sartre I could have made up my own hope but in so far as life has actual reality that would only been a comfort before the abyss swallowed me up.

The only real comfort, is the comfort Job sought: to know God as a father rather than judge. That can make sense of our comfort and wipe away all tears in the way nothing else can. That is the hope I proclaim, found through Jesus Christ, trust worthy and true.

Job 15

My Bible studies have been sort of lax the last year and so I am hoping to give it some structure by posting my post-thoughts on a blog. I don't believe in magic bullets in spiritual exercises where "If you do x,y,z you will be blessed..." but at the same time I do think that there is intrinsic merit in studying the Bible, sharing your thoughts and doing this with regularity (practiced).

Job 15 is a continuation of a back and forth argument between Job and three of his friends about whether or not God was fair to Job. In the first few chapters we learned why Job's life so suddenly fell apart but the characters in the book only know that all of the sudden Job has lost everything.

The discussion starts reasonably polite where Job is in pain and asking why God has done this to Him and his friends saying that God is fair and Job must have done something to deserve it. That dialog has gone back and forth several times and each time it gets a little more tense and hostile.

By chapter 15 one of the friends, Eliphaz, says God is so holy that nothing can insist upon any goodness in His sight... "how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water!" (v. 16)

Now verses 1-15 I agree with completely... but at 16 where Eliphaz suggests that his friend, who he has shared bread with, is a wicked, wicked man shows a real disconnect. I don't know why he thinks Job is so horrible all of the sudden but I think it is because Job has suffered. He believes, as was not uncommon in the ancient world, that God only allowed the wicked to suffer but never the innocent. I had heard the same sort of argument used to justify the cruelty in the Hindhu caste system: "they deserve to be untouchables because of what they did in their last life."

This is of course a logical error: "God punishes sinners with suffering, you are suffering THEREFORE you must be a sinner." is the same sort of statement as "When it rains the street is wet, the street is wet THEREFORE it must have rained."

But for me even if it were not such a classic logical fallacy it would still be wrong... because Eliphaz knows (as only Eliphaz could) that even if he were a better person than Job... he wasn't that much better. If Eliphaz really thought God was punishing Job it should have scared the heck out of him because he could (should) be next.

The Bible is pretty clear that though God does judge the wicked and the just with punishments and rewards in this life there is still a lot of rewards for the wicked and punishments for the just. Early in Job there is one answer as to why this happens but that is not interesting to me right now. It is enough to know that even if I lived a life more justly than Job I could still expect a fair share of tragedy. Much of the Bible would suggest that this just living would result in greater tragedy here and now.