Have a little faith...

Something bad happened. In between writing the last post and writing this one, I admitted my transgressions. That I had run away from what God told me to do, and I had lied about what God told me. But that admission came to late for me to salvage the situation about which I had been praying. I missed my chance. I feel better that I finally came clean and told the truth, and that I am no longer lying to myself and others about God's response. But, at the end of the day, that opportunity to follow God's instructions appears to have been lost.

So, being a human, I asked again. How many times has *that* particular drama unfolded in the bible... I appealed for forgiveness and mercy for not listening. And not only for that, but for lying about what I heard. To me, that seems worse.

I asked for instructions. Now what? Now that the situation is not salvageable, because of what I did not do when You told me to do it, now what do I do?

Nothing.

Nothing was his response. Or rather, there was no response.

I have faith that His response to me initially was correct. It was my decision not to follow it. I have faith that His response to me now is just as correct. I've come clean, and I've been honest, and now, I have to keep doing what I am doing, healing and giving whatever testimony might matter, and continuing to have faith. Continue to listen. Learn from the past, grow, be a better person.

So, I opened up my readings today to see what I could learn. Noah? How does that apply? James, John, and Peter? Where does that fit in my sadness? And then I realized that these are all faith stories. God is giving lessons of faith in these stories. Noah had faith, and followed. James, John, Peter, all had faith and followed when called. Even the psalm reading clearly states, "trust in the Lord."

Is God's lack of response a punishment for my not doing His will? I see so many instances of incredible mercy in the bible for sinners, I can't believe it as such. People learn, and grow, and by God's mercy, we get the chance to get it right again, even if we fail the first time.

One thing I think I've learned about faith. Faith is not saying what you believe, it is believing what He says. Acting on that belief is the core expression of faith.

...robbing them of life.

Our pastor just delivered an amazingly inspirational sermon about new beginnings. Before I went to church I read the daily readings, and was most touched today by Proverbs 1:19. As it discusses the trap that people fall into by being "greedy for gain," the author reminds us that such behavior is a trap that ends up robbing us of life.

I've prayed for something that will bring me closer to God. I started this journal/blog as my mitzvot to achieve that end. In the past two years, I have struggled under the weight of a crushing financial debt that I am starting to overcome, and I have seen how it has robbed me of my life. But any greed for gain will do as much. Any desire to feel "safe" in a way that appeals to our own selfish center will do the same. I know this empirically, because I have lived it, and I see how it has robbed me of a life I could have lead otherwise. In the setting of new beginnings, I am encouraged to begin to do things differently. I see the admonishment not to live as "greedy for gain" but to live in a way where I ask God to let me know what I can do for Him instead.

Part of the cerebral intercourse of the assessment of biblical validity, relative to post-modern deconstructionism, legalism, and emotionalism is what spurs me to write. But at the end of the day, what does it do for God, and what will I do for God in this?

There is something about which I have prayed over and over, and I have always been given the same response. But it is not the response I want to hear, so I have ignored it. The response I was given made me feel unsafe, unsure, and like I would lose everything if I did what He informed me to do. So, greedy for gain, I have ignored it, and tried to keep myself "safe" in my own selfish terms. And in so doing, the pain from getting what I want has spurred me to read about some of my issues and learn why I do what I do. But it is not "life." My greed for my selfish gain has robbed me of a life that God has chosen for me.

I don't know that putting things in such personal terms goes with the intellectual walls I had been building with my initial thoughts, but maybe it is time for a new beginning, after all. God has a life in store for me. It is not the life I would choose, but the life I will follow when and where He tells me to go. What can I do for Him?

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...

I have wondered whether writing down doubts about biblical interpretation would violate my fear of the Lord. I completely believe in this concept, about fear of the Lord, because it implies that the Lord exists, outside of us, independent of us. Fear of Him removes us from our own interpretative pride and lets us remember that it is really not about us, it is about Him. Once we recognize that, and live it, all other things fall aside, and knowledge truly can begin.

In the OT reading today, there were a couple of points that were interesting to me. First there is the introduction of evil, which is shown to be a willful disobedience to God. This is represented in the serpent. The downfall of Adam and Eve is conjoined. Some people make a big deal about the misogynistic theme of the initial downfall of Eve and her subsequent entrapment of Adam, but in reality, that pursuit of women is begun here, and who among us guys has not behaved this way. It is our nature. As I believe that all things start from a fixed point, it seems that this simple disobedience is the fixed point from which all other evil flows. Is eating the forbidden fruit the same as rounding up and killing six million Jews? In degree, of course not, but the latter is the end expression of the former, the willful disobedience to God.

Second, I was touched by God's love in Genesis 3:21. After banishing them from the garden and handing down a whole host of punishments, it states: "And the Lord God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife." Even when sending them from the garden, God made provisions for man's safety. The overwhelming mercy of God is exhibited in this description.

Third, I was reminded of "naked and ashamed." The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil initially gave Adam and Eve self-awareness. There first feeling was to be ashamed of their nakedness. They were not ashamed of any evil act they had just performed, but only of their nakedness. Why is nakedness the first "evil" act of which man is aware? Obviously it is the disobedience that is the first evil act, but they are not ashamed of that. Why is shame of nudity the first admission of sin? Does it relate simply to self-awareness and human shame? Or is it related to sexuality? Is it related to an overall feeling of guilt for never being "good enough," and is guilt itself the very first sin? God did not read their hearts, he observed their actions. What if they hadn't been ashamed and sewn fig leaves together? Are we supposed to give ourselves more credit than we do, and is the actual subtext of this story that we are being told not to be so hard on ourselves? I don't know the answer to that, but I know there is an answer, and the knowledge of it starts in fear of the Lord, so I won't press too much.

Finally, there is a final nod to legalism and interpretative loosening. The first words of Genesis 4:17, "Then Cain's wife..." Who??? His sister?? Some other derivation from some other Adam and Eve?? Does the use of that simple phrase, and the lack of its explanation completely undermine the legalistic interpretation of the Adam and Eve story? I don't know, but the ambiguity keeps the door open for interpretative license, giving fuel to those who want to use it as a Chinese menu. And once one starts that process, then the bible loses its authority over man, and begins to become a tool for man to bend to his own intellectual and interpretative will, potentially in manipulative and destructive ways.

But still, the answer lies out there, some where, beyond us. And Fear of the Lord is the beginning of that knowledge.

In the beginning

The very first sentence opens up with a declaration of a fixed point from which all other points derive. "In the beginning" creates that fixed point. If you believe in a fixed point of reference, as I do, then this could be your fixed point of reference. I have chosen to make it mine and tune out all the other interpretations and possibilities.

Immediately after the declaration of the fact of a fixed point of reference, the bible begins to establish an "order" out of that fixed point, and the order is created by God. And not only is the order created by God, but the definition of the order is also God created. He created "light" and "darkness" and did not rest there, but utilizing the characteristics of light and darkness in a temporal cycle, gave us the definitions of them as well, in "day" and "night."

So, we have the establishment of a fixed point of reference, a creation of order, and a creation of the definition of that order, all stemming from God. The rest of the reading is obviously important, but it follows the same projection.

It is at the end of the very first section that we come to one of the major literary clashes of legalism versus non-legalism. Is all this truly happening in a "day?" Or, as some have said, are we supposed to loosen up the definition of a "day" and define it as an epoch? And what about all the scientific evidence of the earth's age at 4 billion years old?

For me, this is the first stumbling block of legalistic interpretative study of the bible, and can start one down the road toward which Derrida's nihilistic deconstruction tends. Was this a "day?" How could it possibly be? Yet if it is not truly a "day" as we know it, then does the biblical use of the word "day" undermine the belief system established in the first sentence, taking away, in a retrograde manner, a belief in a fixed point of reference altogether, leaving one grasping at nothing in a cold, Godless universe? Or does the use of the word "day" and the ability to disbelieve in it as a literal "day," but a desire to still believe in a fixed point of reference in this universe, then give the reader license to interpret the bible less legalistically, resulting in the bible becoming little better than a Chinese menu of "good ideas," where we can take what we want and leave what we don't want?

To me, the essential crux of belief is summed up all in the first paragraph. The establishment of a fixed point of reference, the acknowledgment of God, the establishment of order, the establishment of "definition," and finally, the possible undermining of all of those by the use of the word "day." That struggle, that yin/yang of belief/disbelief is, to me, a core part of any faith journey. The behind-the-scenes creation of that belief/disbelief system in the first paragraph sets up a tension that heightens one's senses to it's applicability in our own lives. I never know what's right, and it's hard for me to hang my hat on something that creates its own yin/yang internal struggle. But I do know that there is "right" and the bible is a living, breathing document and in its own struggles, my aching heart finds solace. I don't have to know, all the time, but I can have faith. Faith in the beginning...

The New Testament reading mattered to my heart very much today. I am struggling with something very personal, and I prayed hard for guidance today. Sometimes, something crystallizes so clearly, it's like a light being shone directly into your eyes. When Joseph, ...being just a man, decided to break the engagement quietly... an angel came to him and told him to go ahead with his marriage.

God acts in our lives, and He tells us to do things, things that all our friends may tell us not to do. Things that we can convince ourselves not to do, because they don't make any rational sense. But at the end, we are part of His plan, and we have to follow where God tells us to go. If God is speaking in our ear, then we must follow what He says. Not following what He says separates us from Him, which is ultimately sadness for all of us. Is this just wishful thinking? Or do I listen to God and find something at the end of it all which is much more than I could ever attain doing things "my way?" If I am being pointed down a thorny path, and told to go there by God, knowing that there is a good chance I will fall, fail, and run away, do I start that journey?

So why do this...

There are lots of people who blog. And they all have their own passions about which they blog. The "blogosphere" is huge. I've personally tried to tend away from my own passions as they seem to get me into trouble. That doesn't mean I don't want to write or that I am not passionate about things, but I have tried to limit my passions to things that are not personal. Things that are external to me, and not simply things that represent my interests.

True, I am interested and passionate about this topic, but this topic exists outside of me. It's not something I am conjuring up out of my own unique personality and creativity. At least, that is my fundamental standpoint. And that is sort of the crux of the issue.

If God does not exist, then this blog is about as useful as a blog describing my personal feelings toward something like, say, video games. But, if God does exist, then I feel like I have chosen the thing that matters most in the universe about which to write. And if the purpose of this journal is a "mitzvot" to bring me closer to God, then what better subject matter could there be?

I guess, for me, it comes down to that above paragraph. I am an "either/or" sort of person. That black and white thinking has gotten me into trouble, but in this setting, I think it is justified. Either God exists or He does not. I am not sure there is a "both" option.

Either there is a "moral order" to the universe, or there is not. By "moral order," I mean an external moral reality of absolute right and wrong against which all human experience can be judged. If the latter, if there is not a moral order, then all questions of morality by definition become questions of ethics belonging to the closed system in which they were raised. Was the holocaust "moral?" If there were no absolute moral order, then someone would find some way to justify it, and believe in its morality, without anyone else being able to pull rank on a higher "moral order" (because we have said for this argument that it doesn't exist) and strike down their argument.

But if there is a higher, external, absolute moral order to the universe, then all questions of human morality become secondary to that absolute morality. We can never falsely justify something "immoral" because it can be externally judged as such.

To me, it seems this is something ingrained in humanity. As children, we cry out, "it's not fair" as though we know, deep down, there is a "fairness" doctrine outside of our little family life to which we can appeal. And, as children, we seek validation from our parents for our mudpies or any other human endeavor. Who hasn't said, "Mom, look at me, look at me?" How many mothers have heard those words...

As we grow into adults, maybe we get cynical and come to believe that there is no "fairness," there is no "moral order." Or we grow up and learn not to seek validation in others. But do our beliefs in the lack of existence of something make that lack a reality? Just because we begin to believe that life is not fair, does that really make life not fair? Or is life completely fair? Is there a moral order from which this fairness springs?

It's my belief that there is a moral order. There is a fundamental meaning. But what drives me is how to get there. If language is imperfect, according to Derrida, then how can something written in language get us to an understanding of a perfect moral order? And if we cannot get there, by definition, why try? Are we still just making mudpies? "Hey God, look at me, look at me..."

If there is a fundamental moral order to the universe, if God exists, then there is another argument. There either is, or is not, a written document that exactly depicts this "God." There either is or is not a perfect representation of His revelation in human terms.

One could say that the Bible is it. But which version? Which of the 10+ English translations is it? Is it even the English version, or is it the Spanish version? And if we find one version that is "perfect," does following it to the letter simply just represent legalism?

I believe in a fundamental moral order, But I have a hard time believing that there is a perfect human representation of that moral order, and if there is not, then how much room for interpretation is there? That is, if there is a document which most closely represents the expression of God in human understanding, but is not "perfect," then how much room is there for an individual to take what he or she wants from it like some sort of Chinese menu?

Even if we go the other way, and say that the Torah, perfectly copied, is the divine revelation of God's word, we still leave room for human interpretation.

So, how do we go about the search for ultimate meaning when we know that search can never be ultimately satisfied? I have come to believe that it is in the search that meaning lies. And therefore, my mitzvot, my task to bring me closer to God, will be in this search, through a dedication to this process.

That Post-Modern problem...

I don't want to spend a long time writing about differing philospophical viewpoints that have helped to shape current thought, because doing so would be a distraction from the truth I glean for myself from my Bible study, but I would like to point out one influential writer, and quickly describe his works. I will be referring generally to this thought process during my writings, using his name as a general descriptor of this post modern thought process.

Jacques Derrida remains a controversial philosopher today, and to my mind, is emblematic of post-modern critical thinking. He is the philosopher most associated with deconstruction, which is a term he used to describe a pursuit of meaning of a text to the point at which, due to the inability to find a commonly agreed upon starting point, all text has no underlying definable "meaning."

"Deconstruction generally attempts to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text has therefore more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incomparability of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

As you can imagine, if this thought process is applied to the Bible as a work of "literature," then meaning is removed from the Bible.

This process is fundamentally "relativisim," or the idea that everything is relative to some other "thing" without any concrete starting point, or fundamental truth upon which we can build all other references. By pursuing relativism to its end, one might wonder where God exists or if He could in this thought process.

The interplay between this thought process, which many people will find absurd in its final expression, and the contradictory concept of legalism and accountability in the Bible and in Bible study, and finally the application of that interplay to real world problems is what spurs me to journal, and to write this blog. If anyone reads this, I hope I can share my enthusiasm with him or her, especially when certain passages ring so true. Why do they ring true? Is it legalism to say "This is the truth?" Are we acting in love if we see another who does not believe in that "truth" and then reject him, saying "he is not one of us."

And what does all of this mean to someone who is hurting and who goes to the Bible in quiet reflection and prayer to find solace from a damaged and hurtful world? Where do we stop, and just quietly hold this person?

An Introduction

This year our pastor asked us to perform a Mitzvot as we read the One Year Bible together. As far as I am able to glean from a variety of sites, a Mitzvot is "an individual path to connect oneself closer to God." www.hanefesh.com/613_Mitzvot.htm

I have read the One Year Bible twice (over 2 years) and then read a regular bible a third time over a third year, changing to a new version but letting the readings guide how I read the different bible. I grew up in Nashville wondering, who are these odd people who call themselves "Christians?" I subsequently became one through this process of reading and study. As cerebral of a conversion process as this sounds, there was plenty of emotionalism that went with it. I find that the emotionalism does not lend itself as well to verbal description, so I will not dwell on it.

My most influential adult experience with Christianity was through the teachings of a Church of Christ pastor named Rubel Shelly. His life experiences shaped his interpretation of the text, and inspired my conversion to Christianity. One of his main goals, it seemed to me, was to decrease sectarianism. He preached these sermons inside what was (in my view) a somewhat sectarian environment. The tension that this dichotomy created fueled many inspirational ideas, ideas that still stick with me and will be the subject for many of my posts.

If one of the interpretations of the life of Christ is as a reformer to a Jewish religion that had become entrapped in a phariseeical legalism, how then do we worship Christ without falling into a similar legalism ourselves? And if we don't have some legalism, how can we have "accountability" in a healthy manner? And how do we tie the concept of legalism and biblical interpretation to the post-modern world in which we find ourselves, a world in which we are told there is no definable meaning in language? How do we use a non-definable communication structure to worship Jesus in a healthy, non-legalistic manner, establishing boundaries of behavior for which accountability can be ascertained?

It's that fundamental tension that fires my pursuit of faith. It's one thing to pursue Christ in a biblical manner because the Bible tells us to do that. It seems to be another thing to pursue Christ in the world outside the Bible, especially in these confusing times where we are given so many conflicting messages.

So, as I read the One Year Bible again this year, I have chosen, as my Mitzvot, to write this blog. My desire is to connect myself closer to God. I could journal this, and not blog, but I find that if I write for others, then my thoughts remain more focused and accountable.