Why does the benevolent God of the bible behave so badly in the Old Testament? The hidden assumption behind this objection is that because the bible is a constitution the images and descriptions of God should all be consistently Godlike (whatever that means). But what if the bible is not a constitution? What if the bible is a library; a collection of diverse opinions about what God might be like - separated by time and culture? This is an important point - for a library, unlike a constitution, is comfortable with the tension that arises from different perspectives. More specifically - if we accept that the bible is a library then we can intuit that the biblical authors understanding of God’s character must also have evolved – therefore it is not God who behaves badly – but that humanity struggled to understand His true character and ethics.
In-fact the emerging understanding of God's character seems to be driven by God himself[1]. In Exodus 6:3 God tells Moses that the mysteriously divine name had been withheld from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They only received the part of the revelation that showed that God was almighty (El Shaddai). Similarly, in Hosea 2:16 God says that a time would come when his people would not refer to Him as master but as husband; while Jesus told his disciples not to think of themselves as his servants - but as His friends and that the spirit would continue to guide them toward yet unrevealed revelation (John 15:1).
For McLaren[2], there are at least five lines of evolution that can be identified in the biblical library. First, we can trace a gradual maturing among the biblical writers in their understanding of God’s uniqueness. Some early images present God as a supreme being among many while later images show God as unique.
Second, there is a shift in God’s ethics. In early passages God is interested in ceremonial fidelity – rituals, sacrifices, even dietary and cleanliness codes. But later we see prophets who minimise the importance of ceremonial purity in favour for social justice; now God seems more concerned with feeding the poor and protecting the widow.
Third, there is a shift in understanding God’s universality. In early passages God is tribal but as the centuries pass it becomes clear that God created and loves all humanity. Israel was not chosen to be exclusively separated from those God disfavoured, but chosen to become God’s blessing to the world.
Fourth, there is a shift in God’s agency. In some early passages God’s interventions were out of the normal; as if God was outside and generally uninvolved in the saga of humanity until circumstances became so dire that God has no choice but to get involved. Two views emerge from this prototype. First, the world is mystifying and chaotic (Ecclesiastes); second; God is hyper-present, deterministic.
But as the discourse continues these tensions are incorporated into a more nuanced understanding. We learn that God is not outside the universe. Instead God is involved in the daily affairs of men yet remains distinguishable from these events. God does not let randomness rule over a chaotic universe nor does He control a clockwork universe. Rather God’s wisdom unfolds relationally through history.
Finally, there is a shift in God’s character. In some early passages God appears violent, retaliatory, and has little regard for human life. But as the library progresses we see a view emerge that shows God to be gentle, not cruel; compassionate, not violent; fair, not biased towards the few. In this deepening understanding God is not capricious, blood thirsty, or prone to violent rage, but instead loves justice, kindness, reconciliation. As it turns out, God prizes redemption.
Again to be clear, McLaren[3] is not saying these shifts are changes in God’s personhood as if God somehow matured along the way. Rather these shifts have to do with the biblical author’s understanding of God’s character which matured along the way.
The idea that divine knowledge should emerge incrementally is not surprising. What if people who lived in the polytheism world of antiquity had to learn that God was superior before they could learn that God was unique? What if the best way to teach global solidarity was to first teach tribal solidarity, and then teach tribes that they should include ‘others’? What if we need to learn how to find God in our brother before we can hope to find God in our enemies?
On the flip side we could now ask if we moderns have a better grasp of God's character and ethics. The answer must surely be both yes and no. Yes, in that Jesus did come to earth and showed us God's loving character - a luxury not afforded to the Old Testament authors - and no, because history shows that we have not embraced the idea that God is love. Instead we say God is love and.... as if love must be amended with something else. So here our view of God remains incomplete.
[1] A New Kind of Christianity McLaren B 2010 Hodder &Stoughton
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment