Misquoting Jesus, Introduction and Chapter One: The Beginnings of Christian Scripture

Posting has been light lately. I'm in my penultimate week of work, i don't have a new job yet, and if my MTEL scores don't come in soon i won't be able to student teach until January, meaning i will have to start paying student loans now. So my anxiety has been a little overwhelming.

BUT, i started a new book this week: Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. This is not a reflective spiritual journey, but a scholarly analysis of the Bible and how it happened. I've taken two classes on this subject already, not to mention reading tons of articles and blog posts and listening to sermons and my dad, so i know a fair deal about the Bible's history. But i'm only one chapter in and i've already placed a dozen sticky notes, so i'm excited about all the learning to come!

Introduction

"The Bible did have a revered place in our home, especially for my mom, who would occasionally read from the Bible and make sure that we understood its stories and ethical teachings (less so its "doctrines"). Up until my high school years, I suppose I saw the Bible as a mysterious book of some importance for religion; but it certainly was not something to be learned and mastered. It had a feel of antiquity to it and was inextricably bound up somehow with God and church and worship. Still, I saw no reason to read it on my own or study it." (pg 2)

I was actually very serious about my Bible reading until college, at which point i was like, "I've read this thing in its entirety at least half a dozen times, not to mention all the bits and pieces from devotionals, Bible stories, Bible studies, sermons, youth group, and so on. Do i really need to read the descriptions of the temple measurements AGAIN?!" Which is, in part, the reason for this whole blogging and exploration thing: trying to keep myself accountable so that i will have to be intentional about my spiritual health.

"There was an obvious problem, however, with the claim that the Bible was verbally inspired -- down to its very words. As we learned . . . we don't actually have the original writings of the New Testament. What we have are copies of these writings . . . Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places . . . Surely we have to know what those words [of Scripture] were if we want to know how [God] had communicated to us . . . having some other words . . . didn't help us much if we wanted to know His words." (pg 4-5)

I posted something about this a while back, how if God wanted us to take the Bible literally, He probably would have designed language in such a way that translation errors were impossible. Instead, if i write something this very second and hand it immediately to someone who is perfectly bilingual in English and Spanish, there is still room for translation error. Because other languages are not simply codes. You can't just substitute an English word for a Spanish word and have it work perfectly every time. There are nuances and connotations and grammatical structures that complicate things. Even a perfect translation isn't perfect, and the translations of the Bible are based on imperfect copies of languages that no one speaks anymore.

"I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes -- sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals!" (pg. 7, bolding mine)

"Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the Church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point." (pg. 10)

". . . I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew)." (pg. 11)

Yes. This.

The Disciples actually met and talked with Jesus, but we don't know if they all read one another's Gospels (were they all even literate?), especially the Big Four, and most of them were probably martyred long before some books were even written. So is talking to Jesus more or less important than reading Acts or 2 Timothy or Revelations? Less important? Okay, great. I'm going to go pray now. You can take your King James and go home.

"Among other things, this meant that Mark did not say the same thing that Luke said because he didn't mean the same thing as Luke. John is different from Matthew -- not the same. Paul is different from Acts. And James is different from Paul. Each author is a human author and needs to be read for what he (assuming they were all men) has to say, not assuming that what he says is the same, or conformable to, or consistent with what every other author has to say. The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book." (pg. 12)

I once witnessed an argument where one guy was talking about two books in the New Testament whose authors disagreed, and another guy was like, "No, but really they were saying the same thing, because they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit." And the first guy was like, "WTF. These are different words. Can you read?" It's okay to disagree, as long as we keep talking through it and loving Jesus.

"What if the book you take as giving you God's words instead contains human words? What if the Bible doesn't give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age -- abortion, women's rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol -- or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty?" (pg. 14)

Chapter One: The Beginnings of Christian Scripture

"Four such gospels became most widely used -- those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament -- but many others were written. We still have some of the others: for example, Gospels allegedly written by Jesus' disciple Philip, his brother Judas Thomas, and his female companion Mary Magdalene. Other Gospels, including some of the very earliest, have been lost." (pg. 24)

"Some Christian authors produced prophetic accounts of what would happen at the cataclysmic end of the world as we know it. There were Jewish precedents for this kind of "apocalyptic" literature, for example, in the book of Daniel in the Jewish Bible, or the book of I Enoch in the Jewish Apocrypha. Of the Christian apocalypses, one eventually came to be included in the New Testament: the Apocalypse of John. Others, including the Apocalypse of Peter and The Shepherd of Hermas, were also popular reading in a number of Christian communities in the early centuries of the church." (pg. 25)

So, since the apocalypse hasn't happened yet, how do we know that John's is better than Peter's or the Shepherd's? Did they describe it the same, but John's was better written? Because that didn't prevent us from keeping four Gospel accounts. And none of it prevented Left Behind from happening, so. Maybe there is no God.

There's a long passage on page 35 that i won't quote in full here about a bishop named Irenaeus who argued that we needed exactly four Gospels, no more and no less, because there are four corners of the earth, and four winds, so it's only logical to have four Gospels as the four pillars of the church. And that's how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John got into the canon. True story.

On page 36, we learn that the 27 books of the New Testament were not listed as the books of the New Testament until 367 C. E. Almost 300 years after they had been written. Even the people writing them didn't consider them to be on par with the actual Bible (they were mostly Jews, so we're talking about the Torah here). They were mostly just writing letters to clarify things they'd said before.

There's also an interesting point in the last two sections of the chapter about literacy in the ancient world. If the actual real words of the Bible were so important, why didn't God make sure everyone in the world was literate? And if illiteracy was so widespread (it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that people started taking literacy for granted for all social classes, and even now illiteracy is a real problem in the global community), why didn't God figure out some other way to speak to us? Like, through prayer and personal revelation and community? Oh, wait . . .

Searching for God Knows What, Chapters 1-5

I read this book a few years ago and LOVED it. My friend Emily loaned me her copy of Blue Like Jazz (Donald Miller's first book), and it was a revelation to me. I wish i'd written about it back then, because i've forgotten a lot of my specific thoughts and feelings and reactions, but i remember thinking that if that book was a church, i would become a member immediately. I then bought my own copy (i actually bought three or four, because i kept loaning it out and not getting it back), and when i found Searching for God Knows What and A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, i devoured them.

About a year ago, i tried to re-read Blue Like Jazz, and i found myself immensely annoyed by Miller's writing style. It's too deliberately whimsical, like an outfit from Anthropologie. I couldn't even finish it, and finally decided to just give it away. I was never going to read it again, and i didn't want it taking up space on my shelf.

But i remembered liking Searching for God Knows What even better than Blue Like Jazz, so i decided to hang on to it for a little while longer and see what happened. I'm still mildly annoyed by his writing style (everything is "quite, actually"), and he's gotten some heat lately for sexist remarks, but i'm trying it anyway.

"I returned home and began poring over the Bible, looking for formulas I could use for my book of daily devotions. And I have to tell you this was much more difficult than you might think. The formulas, in fact, are hidden. It seems when God had the Bible put together, He hid a lot of the ancient wisdom so, basically, you have to read into things and even kind of make up things to get a formula out of it. And the formulas that are obvious are terrible." (pg. 9)

I enjoyed reading that after coming off of Year of Living Biblically and Year of Biblical Womanhood. It's true: there are not that many obvious outlines for behavior in the Bible, except for loving people. But we don't get a bulleted list of how to love them, so. Tricky.

". . . the more you let somebody know who you really are -- the more it feels as though something is at stake . . . I feel it in my chest, this desire to dissociate . . . If I could, I probably would have formula friends because they would be safe." (pg. 17)

Oh, this is me.

"The very scary thing about religion, to me, is that people actually believe God is who they think He is." (pg. 20)
"If you ask me, the way to tell if a person knows God for real, I mean knows the real God, is that they will fear Him. They wouldn't go around making absurd political assertions and drop God's name like an ace card, and they wouldn't be making absurd statements about how God wants you to be rich and know if you send in some money to the ministry God will bless you . . . It seems like, if you really knew the God who understands the physics of the universe, you would operate a little more cautiously, a little more compassionately, a little less like you are the center of the universe." (pg. 38)

I'm just gonna let that sit there on its own.

An issue:
"If I were a girl today in America, I would be a feminist for sure." (pg. 65)
MEN CAN BE FEMINISTS TOO.

A Year of Biblical Womanhood: July through September

"I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah." -- F. F. Bruce (pg. 259)

I think about this all the time. When the New Testament writers talked about the importance of Scripture, they didn't mean Hebrews or John. They meant the Old Testament. And Paul, a Pharisee, had the utmost respect for the Scriptures and would never have presumed to think that anything he wrote (particularly personal letters to friends and specific churches) would be placed in the same category as the Law. Not that i have a problem with taking the NT seriously, but it does feel a little uncomfortable sometimes when someone takes one out-of-context phrase from the NT and uses it to contradict huge chunks of the OT.

". . . I've also never heard a sermon on 1 Timothy 2:8, in which Paul tells Timothy, 'I want men everywhere to pray, lifting holy hands without anger or disrupting' that included a universal dictum that all men everywhere must raise their hands whenever they pray (updated NIV). But I've heard more than I can count on 1 Timothy 2:11, just three verses later, which says, 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission' that have included universal dictums that all women everywhere must submit to male authority in the church." (pg. 261)

If Paul was writing Scripture that we should obey, then he was writing Scripture we should obey. If he occasionally made suggestions and offered his own opinion and talked about specific situations bound by specific cultures, then he has room to be wrong. We can either pick out the parts of Paul that we like and think are good and ignore the rest, or we can take everything he ever wrote as a direct command from God.

Personally, i think that Paul was smart and had a deep connection to the Holy Spirit and was a human being who was sometimes wrong and even when he was right he may only have been right in a specific context and not in every situation in the world. But i'm a woman, so who the hell knows.

"Some rabbis say that, at birth, we are each tied to God with a string, and that every time we sin, the string breaks. To those who repent of their sins, especially in the days of Rosh Hashana, God sends the angel Gabriel to make knots in the string, so that the humble and contrite are once again close to God. Because each one of us fails, because we all lose our way on the path to righteousness from time to time, our strings are full of knots. But, the rabbis like to say, a string with many knots is shorter than one without knots. So the person with many sins but a humble heart is closer to God."

My boyfriend often cites a spiritual teaching from his mom, in which she compared faith to a rubber band. Sometimes we wander far from God, but when we do, the band is stretched tight, and the farther we wander the more likely we are to be pulled in again. In her metaphor, the connection is never broken, but the ideas are still similar. And i like that Judaism (or at least, some of its rabbis) give room for grace. It's funny, because grace is supposed to be the Christian thing. You know: the OT God was full of wrath and judgement and fire and brimstone, and the NT God loves us and wants to forgive us and have us all live in harmony and love. It looks to me,  however, as though God is just a little bit bigger and more complicated than whatever boxes we try to build for Him, and that He always makes room for grace.

The next book i'm tackling is "The Year of Living Biblically", by A. J. Jacobs. A.J. is an extremely engaging writer, and his neuroses and anxieties are all too familiar. While this isn't a theological treatise or a spiritual reflection or anything like that, i'm still excited to add it to my spiritual reading list. After all, some of the books that have provided me with my greatest spiritual awakenings have been fiction, or poetry, or decidedly un-religious. God meets us where we are. And after spending the last couple of years frustrated and baffled by the large pockets of Christianity that insist on a "literal interpretation" and "straight reading" of the Bible, it's refreshing to see someone do exactly that. A.J.'s approach highlights some of the conflicts and difficulties (and absurdities) of this kind of scriptural understanding.

For example, when discussing the struggles that he and his wife had to conceive, he cites the command to "be fruitful and multiply". It's the first thing God tells Adam to do, the first commandment in the Bible.

"Now, if I were taking the Bible absolutely literally, I could be "fruitful" by loading up on peaches at Whole Foods Market and "multiply" by helping my niece with her algebra homework. I could scratch this commandment off my list in twenty minutes flat.
"This hammers home a simple but profound lesson: When it comes to the Bible, there is always -- but always -- some level of interpretation, even on the most seemingly basic rules."

There are a couple of things i want to point out here: first, because the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" is so old, and because the concept of fruitfulness has so long been tied to human fertility, and because the concept of increasing your family has been so important to so many cultures for so long, we forget that this is actually a metaphor. It's easy to see those words and read their meaning and forget that we are interpreting, but we absolutely are. It is not possible for a human being to literally be fruitful, although multiplication is certainly attainable.

Second, i'm neither a history buff nor a math whiz, so i may be wrong here, but i'm not sure that multiplication was invented when God said that. I'm not even sure it was invented whenever that passage was written. I think that the original word is probably more like "increase" than "multiply", which means that even if A.J. had done a few quick sums, he would still have failed at a perfect literal following of the text, because of a translation error. The Bible is full (like, bursting and exploding at the seams full) of translation errors and oddities, and probably tons of transcription errors that we don't even know about. What is the virtue of following the Bible literally if the words are not correct? Do you get points just for trying? And if so, why is it not okay to try to interpret the text? Do you not get points for trying to get closer to the meaning that the author actually intended?

A.J. also had some really great insights about prayer. This is something i've been struggling with a lot lately: why do we pray? How do we pray? When do we pray? What do we pray about? I won't ramble all of my thoughts here now, but i will leave you with A.J.'s:

"In Deuteronomy, the Bible says that we should thank the Lord when we've eaten our fill -- grace after meals, it's called . . .
"I'd like to thank God for the land that he provided so that this food might be grown . . .
"I'd like to thank the farmer who grew the chickpeas for this hummus. And the workers who picked the chickpeas. And the truckers who drove them to the store. And the old Italian lady who sold the hummus to me at Zingone's deli and told me 'Lots of love.' Thank you . . .
The prayers are helpful. They remind me that the food didn't spontaneously generate in my fridge. They make me feel more connected, more grateful, more aware of my place in this complicated hummus cycle. They remind me to taste the hummus instead of shoveling it into my maw like it's a nutrition pill. And they remind me that I'm lucky to have food at all. Basically, they help me get outside of my self-obsessed cranium."

I've been doing a lot of reading and writing and thinking lately (really, for most of my life, if i'm being honest) about food and food ethics and how i can consume more ethically and what is healthy for my body and what is healthy for my mind and heart and spirit and what is healthy for the bodies of others. So connecting that whole food conundrum to spirituality, and particularly to the prayer conundrum, was really eye-opening.

In the Name of Jesus, pt. 1

This week, i've been working my way through In the Name of Jesus, by Henri Nouwen. Nouwen is pretty famous in evangelical circles, and i had to read another of his books for a class once. This particular book was selected for a campus-wide study last year. I stole one of the extra copies and it's been sitting on my shelf since last July, untouched. I had a lot of Batman comics to catch up on, okay?

Strictly speaking, this is not a devotional. While Nouwen often references scripture, he does so in the same way that he might reference a scholarly article: to support a point that he is making. He is not reflecting on the Bible, he is reflecting on his own life and experiences and relating them back to the Bible. Which is totally fine; i just want to let you know what i'm reading before i start talking about it.

It's a very small book and a very quick read; this week i read up to page 63 (through "The Task: Feed My Sheep", if you're in a different edition), and i'll finish it next week. I like it okay. It's not earth-shattering, but i'm not arguing with most of it.

This book is subtitled "Reflections on Christian Leadership", and while it is certainly that, it is also describes what Christian leadership should look like. And while some of what Nouwen says is amazing and wonderful and good, i do take issue with some statements.

On page 27, the very beginning of the section on the "temptation to be relevant", Nouwen talks about his experience living in a community of the disabled. Having spent much of his career teaching at institutions like Harvard, he was used to working with the best and the brightest, so moving into this facility was a huge change for him. "The first thing that struck me when I came to live in a house with mentally handicapped people was that their liking or disliking me had absolutely nothing to do with any of the many useful things I had done till then." He segues this into a very important point: at the end of the day, all we have is ourselves. If we have published books or given lectures or attained degrees or been awarded with the highest honors, that may be enough to get us through the door, but we still need to be able to do something once we're there. Your résumé might get you hired, but it won't get you promoted, or even guarantee that you keep your job. At the end of the day, you can (and should!) be proud of what you've accomplished in that day, but when the next day begins, you're back at square one. He revisits this on page 37 (The Question: Do You Love Me?). Referencing Peter's conversation with Jesus, Nouwen says, "The question is not: How many people take you seriously? How much are you going to accomplish? Can you show some results? But: Are you in love with Jesus?

On page 30, Nouwen says that Jesus' "first temptation was to be relevant: to turn stones into bread." I'm pretty sure that's bullshit. Jesus' first temptation was to turn stones into bread, but that temptation immediately follows a passage where He fasted for forty days and was "famished" (Matt. 4:2). It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that someone who hadn't eaten for forty days and was then asked to make Himself food was tempted to be "relevant". It seems more likely that He was tempted to be self-serving and impatient.

Later in the book, particularly pages 55 and 57 (From Popularity to Ministry), Nouwen talks more about this temptation to be "relevant". He relates it specifically to pastors and other kinds of ministers feeling like they need to be in the spotlight, like they need to be successful performers in order to be successful ministers. On page 57, he says that he finds it "hard to be truly faithful to Jesus" when he is alone. And because he has found it so, he tells us that ministry is essentially social. He points to Jesus sending the apostles out in pairs and tells us that ministry requires community and partnership. While this is true, it's also an extroverted view of ministry. Some of us do not insist on solitude so that we can be the star, some of us insist on it because it is the only way we can remain energized when engaged in ministry. Some of us find it much easier to be "truly faithful to Jesus" when we have alone time. Maybe it's because i just finished reading "Quiet" and "Introverts in the Church", or maybe it's because i'm an introvert, or maybe it's because Nouwen is not entirely right, but this definitely didn't sit well with me.

Isaiah 39-66

Isaiah 56:6-7
Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants --
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant --
Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.

Hey, look! The Old Testament God is talking about the salvation and righteousness of gentiles!

58:6-8
Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

People like to talk about the Old Testament God and the New Testament God (as i facetiously did above). The truth is, God is God. "I am that I am." Remember that the Bible was written by human beings, who were influenced by the culture and time period that they lived in. I had a class in my freshman year where the professor (now my pastor) used to remind us every day that the things we say about God reveal a lot more about us than they do about God.

So the things that the authors of the Old Testament said about God said a lot more about the authors than they did about God, and the same goes for the New Testament. That's why it's important to read the whole Bible, multiple times, and to talk about it with others, and read commentaries and scholarly works on it: it is still possible to learn truths about God from the Bible, but you've gotta take everything in it with a grain of salt.

This passage, however, is a good example of how God's nature is eternal and unchanging. In fact, all of Isaiah is a pretty good book to read to help people untangle their understanding of OT and NT God. We see God repeating Himself a lot, and those messages are generally good ones to pay close attention to.

Proverbs 19-31, Ecclesiastes 1-12, Song of Solomon 1-8, Isaiah 1-4

Proverbs 20:5
Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water,
But a man of understanding will draw it out.

This is such a beautiful image. I think even if i weren't a Christian, i'd love the Bible for its brilliant metaphors.

Proverbs 25:17
Seldom set foot in your neighbor's house,
Lest he become weary of you and hate you.

As an introvert, i may have just found my life verse.

Ecclesiastes 11:3-8
If the clouds are full of rain,
They empty themselves upon the earth;
And if a tree falls to the south or the north,
In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie.
He who observes the wind will not sow,
And he who regards the clouds will not reap.

As you do not know what is the way of the wind,
Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child,
So you do not know the works of God who makes all things.
In the morning sow your seed,
And in the evening do not withhold your hand;
For you do not know which will prosper,
Either this or that,
Or whether both alike will be good.

Truly the light is sweet,
And it is pleasant for the eyes to behold the sun;
But if a man lives many years
And rejoices in them all,
Yet let him remember the days of darkness,
For they will be many.
All that is coming is vanity.

The word in Ecclesiastes, translated here as "vanity", has been translated into a different word or phrase in pretty much every version of the Bible that exists. Some get closer than others, but none really hit the target. But i think this whole passage here does a pretty good job of explaining the concept: Things happen as they happen. The world keeps turning. There are cycles and patterns to life. Do your best with what you have and know that nothing lasts.

I'd also love to forcibly tattoo this passage on the chest of anyone who comments on tragedies, especially natural disasters, by suggesting that they were "God's wrath" for the sins of those affected. If the clouds are full of rain,/They empty themselves upon the earth. That's just how it works. We don't know the way of the wind or the works of God, so we sow our seeds. Life goes on.

Psalm 66-150, Proverbs 1-18

How long has it been between these posts? Two weeks? Whatever; i'm covered by the blood of the Lamb, right?

Moving on.

Psalm 139 is probably my favorite right now. Poetically, i hate it; or rather, i hate the author, because he beat me to this. I wanted to write this psalm, and i've tried to a couple of times, but he already stole all of the ideas. Other poets suck, and i love them for it.

Full disclosure: one time, i was really pissed at God, and i wrote a reverse-imitatio of this psalm. Basically, i just changed a few words here and there to talk about how i felt like God had abandoned me. It was a terrible poem, but i felt better afterwards.

vs. 9-10
If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.

vs. 14
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.

Really, i could quote the whole thing here and never write anything again and be perfectly happy, but instead i'll make you read it on your own and i'll keep up with the second-rate blather.

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

I grew up in a denomination called Nazarene (similar to Baptist or Methodist). One of the things we do is a scouting program (like Boy Scouts, only even more religious) for kids from 1st through 6th grade. Kids do traditional scouting things (knot-tying, pinewood derby car racing, tent pitching, fishing, etc.), and also study the history and theology of the Nazarene church. It's pretty cool, actually, and helps cut down on kids who are like, "Well, I'm (fill in denomination here), which is, like, different from other ones? I guess? I think we baptize babies or something."
Anyway, Proverbs 3:5-6 is one of our big memory verses every year. And really, it's a good one. Trust God.

Proverbs 8:1
Does not wisdom cry out,
And understanding lift up her voice?

Shout out to all my teacher friends!
And, uh, me, i guess. I'll be teaching soon (Lord willin' and the crick don't rise), and then i'll be one of those lifting up my voice for wisdom and understanding. I've been doing it for many years now on a smaller scale, and i'm looking forward to a captive audience.
Because seriously, guys, wisdom cries out and understanding lifts up her voice. Just listen, okay? Geez.

Proverbs 16:3
Commit your works to the Lord,
And your thoughts will be established.

I think about sin a lot. (Hubba, hubba.) No, but for real: i spend a pretty good chunk of time pondering the nature of sin and badness and evil and how we can rise above it. So many things are habit, or we don't know that they're wrong, or the thoughts and words come so quickly and sometimes we can't pull them back in time. Sometimes it really does seem like we are rotten to the core and can't do anything about that, and like trying is pointless because how can you ever conquer all the sin in your heart, anyway? if you lived long enough to do that, you'd also live long enough to pick up all kinds of new sins. And either we're covered by grace or we're not, so just do your best and don't worry about it, right?
Well, yeah, but also no. Do your best, and don't worry about it, because doing your best means surrendering fully to God, who can conquer ALL of your sin. All of it? All of it. Even the ones you don't know about? Even the ones you don't know about. Even the ones that are long-held bad habits? Even those. Even the ones you're in denial about. Even all of them. Even everything. Commit your works to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established.

*          *          *          *          *

common theme: rape? and sexual orientation? the two are unrelated, unless you are a bigot.

When i was a freshman, i took a public speaking course. One of our assignments was to give a persuasive speech on a controversial topic. I can't for the life of me remember what i chose; probably something about feminism? Anyway. Several people spoke on gay rights, particularly gay marriage and don't ask, don't tell. One young man in the class was vehemently and vocally opposed to the very idea of gay soldiers.
"My dad was in the army," he said. "Those guys do everything together. They change together, shower together, spend every minute of the day together. I don't like the idea that someone who could be attracted to me might be in that environment."
Let's leave aside the non sequitur of his father's years of service. Let's also leave aside the issue of women in the service. And finally, let's ignore the fact that many, many, many, many women, both civilians and soldiers, have experienced all manner of sexual harassment and assault at the hands of men in uniform. Instead, let's address his unshakable belief in two things: all gay men are automatically attracted to all penises, and no gay man is able to control his sexual impulses. Because obviously, never in the history of the world has a gay man been able to look at any man (in any state of dress or undress, alertness or vulnerability, position of authority or position of subordination, homosexual or heterosexual, attractive or ugly, attached or single,) and thought, "Meh, not for me." To be gay means to be so strongly attracted to all penises everywhere that you cannot help but touch them, even if they belong to your boss; or your straight, married, best friend; or a really ugly, rude, obnoxious, bigoted guy with terrible personal hygiene; or a nice, single, attractive, gay man with a great personality who just doesn't like you that way. Obviously.
An entry in Cliff Pervocracy's archives addresses the issue of sexual abuse and harassment on the job.
"And I'll tell you a personal story: back when I worked 24-hour shifts, I shared a very small quarters with three people who were attracted to my gender. We slept together, shared a bathroom, and frequently changed clothes in front of each other. If I didn't want to sleep next to someone whose orientation made them potentially aroused by my gender, I'd have to sleep out in the truck . . .
Of course some female EMTs do face abuse. What if they had harassed me? Then the problem would be the harassment. "He was all heterosexual at me" isn't a complaint; it's "he was all disrespectful and abusive at me." It'd be nice to ban abusers from service but unfortunately we rarely ask and they never tell . . .
(Or, following the logic often used to exclude women, ban heterosexuals. They're the ones with the problem, right? Some hetero gets his boxers in a twist and files a frivolous complaint and your whole career goes down the tubes, I tell ya.)"

One of the finest features on Pervocracy has GOT to be Cosmocking. Here are some gems from an entry in April 2010 about avoiding rape on road trips:
"If you are taking a long trip and will need to stop for fuel after dark, go to websites like exxonstations.com/locator to find full-service stations along your route. That way, you can stay in your car with the doors locked.
There are several insane paranoid precautions you should take specifically when doing anything after dark. Apparently rapists are vampires.

When you're shopping at night, or if the lot looks eerily empty, ask store personnel for a security guard to walk you to your car. If there isn't one available, keep a hand free of packages as you walk to your car, and stay in the middle of the parking-lot aisle, away from vehicles, where criminals might be hiding.
Apparently rapists are funhouse vampires, and they operate by jumping out and going "boogy boogy boogy!" . . .
[If your car breaks down] While you wait for help to arrive, do not under any circumstances get out of your car; roll up your windows, lock the doors, and stay inside.
For fuck's sake. Is air toxic to women? I don't know about rapists; this is how I would act if there were velociraptors outside the car."

My introduction to Jennifer Knapp came from WOW 2001 (shut up; it played in the Christian music store where i worked). Her song "Into You" was something entirely new in Christian music. I knew the Point of Grace/Avalon/Petra/Michael W. Smith worship choruses, the Anne Murray hymns, and i was learning about Contemporary Christian Music for the Jesus Youths: DC Talk, Switchfoot, Superchic[k], KJ52, and so forth.
But i had never heard a voice like Jennifer's.
I had heard music that was immediately identifiable as Christian, and i had heard music that you could play at Youth Group OR under the credits of a popular movie or TV show (Switchfoot, i'm looking at "Dare You To Move"). It was in the 90s and early 2000s that young Christian artists began to simply write songs from their hearts, instead of trying to write "church music" (Keith Green and Amy Grant aside). There were still musicians who were trying to hit a particular target, but artists like Jennifer wanted to make art and trusted that God would speak to people through it, just like He has for the past several millennia.
"Into You" remained my only Jennifer Knapp exposure until 2010, when i learned that she had 1. temporarily quit music to spend some time in obscurity and personal growth, 2. just come out as a lesbian who had been in a same-sex relationship for many years, and 3. ended her "retirement" by releasing a new album about her feelings (both about her partner and about Jesus and the Church). I read several interviews, impressed by her reticence and discretion about her personal life, touched by the pain and anger she had felt and expressed, and wishing desperately that the interviewers would stop asking about her girlfriend and start talking about her music, because every time they did i became a bigger fan or Jennifer Knapp. I downloaded the new album and fell in love.
Three years later, she talked to Rachel Held Evans and her fans, and that interview has forever cemented Jennifer's place in my heart. Because not only is she a brilliant and talented musician, but her heart for God is amazing, and she says some stuff that i've been feeling and have been struggling to articulate. I wish i had enough skin to tattoo her words on my body:

". . . If I understand correctly, your journey took you to a point where you now own the fact that you can't not be gay and you can't not be Christian. For the second part of that - What were some of the moments, the thoughts, the experiences that brought you to the point of claiming your faith as a Christian?

There are times in our lives where we are witness to certain events and happenings that radically alter how we will move about our world. We have experiences where we are forever changed in how we see the world around us, how we see ourselves and how we will react in navigating our individually unique journeys. I am grateful that the Gospel spoke to me in such a way. I saw, I experienced, I left altered by a grace that I knew I could never merit nor repay. To this day, my life has never been the same.
Try as I might, the message of Christ continues to inspire and move me, even when no one is looking, even when others insist that I am "doing it wrong" or not acting 'Christian enough'. Being in a church every Sunday isn't why I identify as Christian . . .
Over the years I have continued to question what calling myself a 'Christian' implies. There's a lot to unpack there in terms of religion, tradition, history, theology -- but honestly, in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone calls me. I am and continue to be inspired by my experience with Christ. No one can take that away."

Pervocracy should just write articles taking down other articles. Because seriously? there's a lot of bullshit that needs to be deconstructed, and she does it so well and so hilariously. Here's a takedown of the idea that women "withhold" sex as punishment when men hurt their feelings.
"Some women make a habit of withholding sex from their partners, while some only do it under very specific circumstances. To men, this seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
Some women have sex very often, while others prefer to have sex less often. To men who think everything is about them, this seems like it's all about them . . .
Personally, I've never withheld sex in a relationship, because I couldn't withhold it from myself, but I've turned down sex, um, ones of times! For reasons that had to do with both my partner and myself . . . If I'm not fucking you because I'm unhappy, the main problem is the unhappiness; the fucking problem is only a symptom . . .
When I'm angry at you, I don't want to have you inside my body. This is not some ultimate cruelty that I'm "not above" . . .
Again, ugh, "sex privileges." It's not like I can just hand you the key. I have to be there the whole time and everything."
That last line is one of Pervocracy's greatest contributions to the discussion of "sexual rights": if a guy is hitting on me and i turn him down, i'm not just denying him sex. I'm also denying myself sex. It's not like i can just unscrew my vagina and hand it to him for the night. If he wants to have sex with me, that means i have to have sex with him, too.
Many men (and women! Example: Cosmo) seem to forget this, and talk about sex as a commodity that women hold. Women can choose to give their sex to men or to deny their sex to men. There is little or no discussion of women wanting sex, women pursuing sex, women being "denied" sex, or women actually "having sex with men". Sex is not something women have, it's something they give or keep. And of course there is little or no discussion of women having sex with each other; lesbians are an invention of porn and Katy Perry designed to give sexual pleasure to men. And women do not want sex because they like the sex itself, they want sex because they love their husbands or boyfriends and want to please them, or because it's the third date and they want to turn these guys into their husbands or boyfriends, or because they want a promotion or raise, or because they want attention and affection, or because their biological clocks are ticking and they want babies. Women choose to give men sex for one of these reasons, and they choose to withhold it because they are cranky, or they have a headache, or whatever.
Here's the thing: sex is something that two people do together. Rape is something that one person does to another person. If you want to talk about rape, we can talk about rape, and we can talk about how you can rape my vagina without my consent or enjoyment. In that case, you get laid and i do not. So me denying you sex? Is me denying you rape. But me deciding that i don't really feel like having sex with you? Is me deciding that I do not want to have sex. And maybe it's because i already have a boyfriend and you're not him, or maybe it's because i'm on my period, or maybe it's because you are unattractive to me, or yeah, maybe it's because i'm cranky or have a headache or whatever. But at the end of the day, if i am not having sex with you, it's not because i hate you and want to prevent you from getting laid. It's because i do not want to have sex. So men: stop whining about how women won't let you have sex with them, and start figuring out how you can make women want to have sex with you (hint: more hygiene and fewer rape threats will go a long way).

Esther 3-10, Job 1-33

Job is one of my favorite books, and has been for many years. The poetry in the middle section is so great, and the poetry when God shows up is absolutely transcendent (which only makes sense, since He's God and all).

My Bible study took a pretty in-depth look at Job, but did so in only two weeks, so we left a lot out; there's a lot to be said about this book. People always say that the Bible speaks to you in new ways every time you read it. This may be slightly heretical, but that's never stopped me before, so here goes: i'm not sure that that's true of the whole Bible. I don't know how many new things you can discover when you're reading the same genealogy for the sixth time. I'm not sure that there are many great spiritual insights tucked into the measurements of the Temple.

But Job always has something new, at least for me. When i read it in different seasons of my life, when i come back to it after some significant experience, when i revisit a passage in a new translation, i notice something new.

This year, i noticed three passages.

Job 13:20-21
"Only two things do not do to me,
Then I will not hide myself from You:
Withdraw Your hand far from me,
And let not the dread of You make me afraid." (NKJV, emphasis mine)

I want that last line tattooed on my skin forever. "Let not the dread of You make me afraid." I read this verse in multiple translations to make sure i was getting the right message. (There's still room for interpretation, but i'm pretty confident in my understanding.) We talk sometimes about fearing God. Some denominations talk more about this than others; earlier generations talked more about it than we do now. "Fear", in this sense, doesn't mean, like, nightmarish terror of the thing under the bed. It means an awed respect for something or someone much greater and more powerful than you, something or someone who is so far beyond your comprehension that you can never hope to meet its level, and yet this thing, this person, is reaching out to you; you were in awe of it when it was on a far-off mountaintop but when it reaches out to take your hand? it's more dreadful and awesome than you could ever imagine. It's the terror of falling in love, really in love, and realizing how much power this other person has to hurt you, and also trusting them completely to keep you safe. It's entering the lavish throne room of a king and seeing him in his great throne, towering over you, with the divine right to control your life, and then seeing him smile at you.

I fear God, but i am not afraid of Him.

In Bible study one week, we talked about the difference between trusting God and trusting in God. Trusting God means being certain that He will never allow anything bad to happen to you. Trusting in God means that you know that bad things will happen to you, but that God is still God throughout, and that His will will be done in the end, trusting that His will is ultimately a good thing, even if it necessitates your death and pain and suffering. This is what Job learned: his life and health and happiness were subject to God's whims, but God is still God. God still loved him. God kept His hand on him. God was dreadful, but Job was not afraid of Him.

Job 16:1-5
Then Job answered and said:
"I have heard many such things;
Miserable comforters are you all!
Shall words of wind have an end?
Or what provokes you that you answer?
I also could speak as you do,
If your soul were in my soul's place.
I could heap up words against you,
And shake my head at you;
But I would strengthen you with my mouth,
And the comfort of my lips would relieve your grief."

Job 32:3
Also against his (Elihu's) three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

We do this all. the. time. We blame the victim, because if whatever bad thing happened is somehow the victim's fault, than we can just do the opposite of whatever they did or didn't do, and then nothing bad will ever happen to us. We give condemnation to people who are hurting, instead of comfort, or we offer a weak comfort like, "His ways are higher than ours! We don't know what the Hell He is doing! Just shut up, lie back, and take it!" Job's friends could not find an answer, they could not find a sin that he had committed, and yet they persisted in telling him that he must have sinned in some way. That his kids must have sinned in some way. That somewhere, somehow, someone messed up and called down the Wrath of the Almighty on their heads. Of course, those of us in the audience know that no one did anything wrong. And when we're not in the audience, when we're on the stage, it can be hard to keep everything in perspective. It's important to remember, therefore, the lesson of Job's friends: comfort comes before condemnation, and condemnation only comes after proof. Relieve the hurting of their grief, and refrain from insisting that everyone who has ever had something bad happen to them must have asked for it in some way.

Martha Sabbath

Sometimes i take a Martha Sabbath.

Usually i'm Mary. I like to worship in community. I like to hear other ideas, other voices. I like my thoughts and feelings to be confirmed, and i like my thoughts and feelings to be challenged. I like to sing, to pray, to listen. I know that these things are important, and i feel that i need them.

But sometimes i'm Martha.

Sometimes, when i wake up on a Sunday morning, i just don't feel like going to church. Sometimes, the thought of putting on clothes and doing something with my hair and driving all the way to church and talking to people (talking to people! so many people! why do you talk to me?! leave me alone! i'm trying to worship and you're totally harshing my mellow!) is completely overwhelming. Sometimes, it feels like more of a chore than a joyful and necessary and longed-for part of spiritual life.

Yes, i know that we have to do these things. In a relationship, sometimes you have to do things you wouldn't otherwise be inclined to do. You have to go to a concert for a band you don't care for, because your significant other loves them and you want to be with that person when they are so happy. You have to go to family Thanksgiving so that your relatives can find out how you're doing and comment on your life. You have to get up early to make lunches for your kids before school. You have to go to church and talk to people and sing and sit still and pray. The practice of these things does build a bond (and i could lecture on the psychology of that, but i won't) between you and the object(s) of your affection. When it comes to spiritual disciplines, the bond is multifaceted: between you and God, between you and your pastor, between you and the other people on the worship team or in your Sunday school class or the other greeters or what have you. You are a part of their spiritual lives too, and it is your Christian duty to be there for the sake of their worship, just as it is their duty to be there for you. It builds community and love, it assists in spiritual growth, it fosters connection and learning and worship. Going to the same church every week is a good thing.

You know what's also a good thing? Sleeping in. Spending the day in PJs. Taking time to clean the kitchen for your roommates, or to cook lunch for your houseguests, or to shave your legs for your boyfriend, or to organize your desk for yourself.

Sometimes, you need to worship Jesus by caring for yourself and for others. Sometimes, you need to worship Jesus by bleaching the shelves in the fridge, or reorganizing the Tupperware, or sleeping for just one more hour.

Sometimes worship is the blending of voices raised to the Lord. Sometimes worship is snuggling with a cat and then washing a sinkful of dishes.

Mary worship is the norm, and that's as it should be. But never be afraid to take a Martha Sabbath.

Judges 11-21, Ruth, 1 Samuel 1-24

Saul often gets a tough break when we talk about the kings of Israel. He was the first one, and he was followed by David, who was the favorite of God and ancestor of Christ and all kinds of other impressive things. Plus there was that whole thing where Saul was jealous and kept trying to kill David, and when they were picking a king Saul hid because he didn't want to be considered, and he lied and was cowardly and violent and rude. He started out as God's anointed, but everything went pear-shaped somehow.

According to the text, God sent "a distressing spirit" to Saul. In fact, according to 1 Samuel 16:14, God actually left Saul before sending the distressing spirit.

God left Saul and sent spirits to distress him, and then Saul started acting crazy. Let's put two and two together here. This goes along with some of the frustrations i've felt toward God lately: God sends spirits to trouble people and then they are judged by their peers and by history for a judgement God visited upon them.

I know Saul was not blameless. I just think it's a good idea to approach the people around us with grace. Who knows what kind of spirit God might have sent to them?

Judges 1-10

I read WAY more than that this week, but considering how long it's been since i've done one of these posts and how much reading i've done (and how boring most of it was; i can't even express how glad i am to be done with Deuteronomy and Joshua and all the other reviews of the Law), i'm just starting with Judges, because i like Judges. It has lots of awesome stories, like Gideon (which is full of Gideon testing God and God testing people and people playing crazy pranks on one another that win wars for them).

Chapter four of Judges has one of my favorite stories, about a woman named Deborah who was really kick-ass and a man named Barak who was a pussy.

Deborah was a prophet and a judge of Israel. Barak was a commander in the Israelite army, who were at war with Canaan. Deborah spoke to Barak, and told him that God wanted him to go to battle and that the Canaanite commander (Sisera) would be delivered into his hand. Barak said he would only go if Deborah went with him. vs. 9 "So she said, 'I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.'" Sure enough, Deborah lured Sisera into a tent and kept watch while Jael, the wife of one of the soldiers, drove a tent peg through his temple and into the ground. Two women teamed up to kill him, and no men were involved at all.

And in Judges 9:53-54, we get a tiny little story about the death of a corrupt king of Israel named Abimelech. There was an uprising, and Abimelech, fighting for his life, was driven back against a tower. A woman dropped a millstone on his head, crushing his skull. He lived long enough to ask his armorbearer to drive a sword through him, so that no one would say that a woman killed him.

I hope you see the irony of that. Abimelech's story is only 57 verses long, and two of those verses are about him being killed by a woman. She's not even named; she wasn't an important person in her own right, like Deborah, or the wife of someone important. The text just calls her "a certain woman". His death may have been accelerated by a young man, but it was unquestionably caused by a woman. It's like she shot him, and he was in the hospital on life support, and his assistant pulled the plug. Still killed by a woman, Abimelech! Still counts!

Go ahead and tell me how clear the Bible is that women should submit quietly to men.

Leviticus 25-27, Numbers 1-30

from LePage's "Word" collection

First, a shout-out to Jim LePage, one of my favorite artists.  I am not a big fan of Numbers, but i love what he did with it. Because here's the thing: Numbers is really mostly just that. It's a census report, complete with names and genealogies and a rehashing of the law. Because i hadn't already read the law three times by this point.

There is some cool stuff though, like one of my favorite Sunday School Bible stories: Balaam's donkey.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, i'd urge you to read the whole thing (it's not that long), in Numbers 22:1-35. For now, i'll summarize it.

Balaam was from Mesopotamia, and appears to have been some sort of magician or prophet. He knew something about the Israelites, but was not one of them. As the Israelites were cutting a bloody path through the ancient world, seeking to establish their Promised Land, they ran up against rulers from many different nations. Balak, king of the Midionites, called for Balaam to curse the Israelites, hoping to prevent them from attacking his people. Balaam accepted their fee and prepared to go, but God said, "Yeah, no. You can't curse My people." So then Balaam told the princes to go back home. They did, and then they sent more princes and more money and more dignitaries and honors, and asked him again. So God said, "If they keep begging, you can go, but only say the words I give you."

They didn't exactly keep begging, but Balaam went with them anyway, so God sent an angel to stand in their path. Balaam didn't notice, but the donkey he was riding did, and walked into a field to avoid the angel (who was standing there with a drawn sword). Balaam beat the donkey and got her back on the road. A little while later, as the path wound between two walls, the angel showed up again. The donkey pressed close to the wall, trying to squeeze past the angel, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall, so he beat her again. Then the angel stood on a high, narrow path, where there was no way to avoid him, and the donkey laid down in the road. Balaam, enraged, began to beat her again, and the donkey spoke to him, asking why he kept beating her.
"Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!" said Balaam (vs 29).
vs. 31 "So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No."

Then Balaam saw the angel and realized that the donkey had saved his life three times. He repented, and promised to say whatever God wanted him to say.

Couple of things about this: first, what the donkey said. Now, donkeys are notoriously stubborn and difficult, but this one has belonged to Balaam for a long time, and has apparently never given him trouble before. And the very first time she does, he gets angry and assumes she's just being stupid or stubborn or lazy, and never stops to consider if there might be a reason for her behavior. How often do we do this: something that always works for us, something that we have come to take for granted, stops working, and instead of considering whether there might be a reason for it, we heap abuse upon that thing (or that person, or that animal, or that whatever). Maybe that breakdown is God's way of trying to get our attention. Maybe that thing (or person, or animal) is trying to save us from something. Don't immediately get angry at delays and setbacks. Look around to see what might be behind them.

Second, am i the only one who is a little bit happy that the donkey is specifically noted to be female? Anyone who says that God's design is for women to serve men, who says that women can't lead in the church, who says that God doesn't call or speak to women, that women shouldn't lead or speak to men, they should read this and shut the hell up. God spoke to Balaam, and when Balaam wouldn't listen, He spoke to a female animal, who listened to His word and chastised Balaam. When God speaks, we are ALL empowered to listen, obey, and prophesy.

And finally, i leave you with these:

from the "Old & New" project

Exodus 7-38

Let's talk about the plagues.

Exodus 7:14-12:30 details the ten plagues that God sent to Egypt to let his people go. And it's obvious that Pharaoh is the villain of the piece; he enslaved these people and refuses to let them go, no matter what! Isn't it obvious that God is super-powerful and will stop at nothing to get His people free? Really, Pharaoh, aren't you just being a dick by clinging stubbornly to this power?

And for the first few plagues, you would be right. Pharaoh's heart is hard, and he refuses to budge. Although God knew that he wouldn't, so i guess He was just sending the plagues to punish the Egyptians for mistreating his people, or to show off his power, or something? Anyway.

After the sixth plague (boils), things shift a little. Exodus 9:12 says, "But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses." The Lord hardened his heart. We see the same thing after the eighth plague (locusts) and the ninth plague (darkness), and after the seventh plague we see that God still knew that Pharaoh would not change his mind. God and Pharaoh are in a stand-off, and God is cheating.

The last plague is the death of every firstborn child in Egypt. Pharaoh's firstborn son, the firstborn son of the peasants, even the firstborn animals of the livestock. God sends an angel to kill children, and He does so after intentionally ramping up the stakes again and again.

Hebrews tells us that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could work greater and greater signs and miracles, and thereby prove His greatness and bring glory to His name. Now, intellectually i'm totally okay with this. If God is the all-powerful ruler of the universe who brought me into this world, He has every right to do whatever He wants with my life, including end it, just because He wants to.

But i don't want to hang out with a God like that. I don't like that God. And i don't know what else to say about that.

Revelations 17-22, Genesis 1-22

Genesis 4:15
And the Lord said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

God says over and over again that only He is allowed to kill people, that only He is allowed to have vengeance, to take life. Yet in this first story of murder, God not only declines to kill Cain himself, but prevents anyone else from killing him. God goes out of His way to protect the first murderer.

Genesis 12:1
Now the Lord had said to Abram:
"Get out of your country,
From your kindred
And from your father's house,
To a land that I will show you."

What intrigues me about this is that final line: to a land that I will show you. God didn't say, "Go to Egypt", or "travel west for seven weeks" or anything like that. He just told Abram to go until He said to stop. Abram was traveling blind, placing his trust entirely in God's hands.

What's especially interesting is that, when you read on, you see that Abram messed up and wasn't able to get where he was going until he set it right. God said to leave his family behind, but Abram brought along his nephew, Lot. Abram and Lot camped out in Canaan and Jordan for a while, but Abram's servants and Lot's servants quarreled, because there wasn't enough water and food for everyone. So they parted ways, and Abram got stuck with Canaan. At which point God said, "This is where I wanted you to be."

Sometimes we just have to go until God tells us to stop. When we start to feel lost or confused, we should review what God told us to do. Have we followed His whole instruction, or only part of it? Is there something else we could be doing? Make sure we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, and then keep doing it until God tells us to stop.

Genesis 18:16-33

This is the passage where God decides to destroy Sodom and Abraham intercedes for them. Every time someone says something like, "We shouldn't question God; his ways are higher than ours," I want to beat them over the head with a baseball bat and scream these verses into their faces. God proclaimed His intentions, and Abraham argued with Him and got Him to change His mind. God wants us to engage with Him, to talk to Him, to press for what we think is right. Is there a time and a place for us to shut up and accept what God gives us? Absolutely. In fact, if you read the passage, Abraham is bargaining with God for righteous people in the city. He starts out with fifty: "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?" He gets God to agree that it is worth saving the city, if fifty righteous people can be found within it. And then Abraham keeps bargaining, and talks God down to ten. If they can find ten righteous people in the city, it will be spared.

But that's how messed up this city is: there are not even ten righteous people in it. God generally has really good reasons for what He's doing. Yet He still allows us to ask questions, to doubt and argue, to engage Him in debate. He's awesome that way.

2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews 1-6

1 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

When i was younger, i always wondered why some of the old testament books had made it into the canon. I mean, we get all of the laws in Exodus, right? And then we get Leviticus, and there are a couple of short stories, but mostly it's a detailed rehashing of the law. And then there's Numbers; once again, there are some stories, but it's mostly genealogies. And then we move on to Deuteronomy, and we go over the law. Again. Is all of this really necessary? Is my spiritual life really going to be enriched by reading the measurements for the first curtain in the temple a third time? The temple was entirely rebuilt by Solomon, anyway! And then it was destroyed and hasn't been rebuilt since! I mean, keep the blueprints on file if you must, but that stuff is all for the Jews, anyway. How can i, as a 21st century Christian, benefit from this stuff?

I've made my peace with a lot of it, and i'm sure we'll be revisiting that in a few months when i move on to the old testament. But for now, i'm in the new, and i'm once again wondering what the point of this is. 2 Timothy has some good stuff (For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love), but Titus is 46 verses long. It has some instruction about how to set up the elders of the church, but that's really it. The whole thing could be condensed into half a dozen bullet points and put in textbooks for religion majors. I feel like we only keep Titus so that we can point back to the Bible when someone asks us why our church is structured the way it is. And Philemon is even shorter, at 25 verses. Let me show you the section headings for this book: Greeting, Philemon's Love and Faith, The Plea for Onesimus, Philemon's Obedience Encouraged, Farewell. It's basically a text message saying, "You guys are awesome. It would be really sweet if you took Onesimus back. If you have issues with him, that's on me. I think I'm coming to visit soon. Peace." Why do we need this?

1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I think life verses are dumb. People pick one verse that's supposed to support them forever, no matter what, but life changes all the time, and we change with it. The things that encourage me today may be powerless to move me tomorrow. You can pick a verse for a particular year or season or event in your life, but a whole life verse is a little naive.

But if i had to pick a life verse, it would be this one. Because this is me. This is what i do.

I test everything.

You can ask my boyfriend. I am incapable of leaving well enough alone. I always ask more questions, always want more information, always want explanations and progress reports and references. I want to see the annotated bibliography. I want to hear the director's commentary. I want to read all of the footnotes. I explore hypothetical situations. I answer rhetorical questions. I over-think everything. I don't like to take anything for granted. My default mode is cynical mistrust.

And none of that is necessarily bad. Some of it could maybe stand to be reined in a little (again, you can ask my boyfriend for confirmation of that; i'm sure he'd be happy to provide a whole list of ways i can rein myself in), but it's not inherently bad to be cautious.

Even (or maybe especially) when it comes to faith and religion, it's good to test things. The fact that your pastor said it does not make it true. The fact that your particular translation of the Bible (viewed through your own cultural, historical, personal, gender, etc. lenses) says it does not make it fact. It's okay to ask questions. It's okay to doubt. It's okay to try things out and put them to the test before making a commitment.

The key, however, is that you do commit. Test everything, and when you've found something good, attach yourself to that. Test the doctrines of your church. Test the teachings of your pastor. Test the different translations and commentaries carried by your local book store. Test your own experiences and feelings. Test the leading of the Holy Spirit. Never assume that you know everything. In fact, never assume that you know anything. Keep asking, seeking, knocking. Someone has defined fundamentalism as holding on to your beliefs so tightly that you leave fingernail marks on the palms of your hands. Don't injure yourself in your desperation to be right, to hold onto something right. Let yourself be wrong. Let yourself be uncertain. Let yourself test all things.

2 Corinthians 8-13, Galatians 1-6, Ephesians 1

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is a theme we see a lot in the New Testament, and one we've seen hinted at even in the Old. Regardless of whatever barriers we have put up between ourselves, regardless of what God may have told one group or another about their status in the world, we are all the same. Everything else is superficial and ultimately meaningless.

Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 1-10

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful; all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

This, i think, is what a lot of religion should come down to in the end. Rather than a mere list of do's and don't's whose purpose is to provide a yardstick of righteousness, concentrate on the things that are helpful to you. And keep in mind that this list will not be the same for everyone. Some people (like myself) can have a couple of beers with dinner, or a glass of wine after work, and suffer no ill effects. Some people (like myself) can even get really drunk once in a while (so far, i've been drunk three times in five years), and suffer no long-term ill effects. However, i do have a lot of alcoholics in my family, so i appreciate that not everyone can do this. And while i could get really really drunk more frequently than i do (say once a month) without necessarily becoming an alcoholic and ruining my life, is it a good idea for me to do this? No. I don't want to have large chunks of my life blurry around the edges or missing entirely because i was too drunk to know what was happening. I don't want to spend long weekends hung over and miserable. I don't want to make bad decisions that i have to atone for in the morning. I don't want to damage my brain, liver, esophagus (from the stomach acid of vomit), waistline, teeth, and so forth. Having a few drinks now and then can help take the edge off of a stressful day, can help me loosen up and socialize with others, can help me warm up on a cold day, can open me up to new experiences. Plus, alcohol is delicious (seriously, Black Label toasted caramel flavored whiskey in apple cider is THE SHIT). All of these are good things. But getting drunk is not helpful and provides no edification. At least, not for me.

Instead of being built around the things that divide us, maybe religions and denominations should be built around the things that unite us. Like, instead of a church splitting over angry debates about whether or not it's okay to get tattoos, maybe they can peacefully say, "Hey, we all love Jesus, right? Okay! See you in heaven!" and then gently separate into two factions: one who believes that tattoos are not helpful or edifying, and one who believes that they can be sometimes. Or better yet, maybe they can agree to disagree, keeping in mind that all things are lawful. What is helpful for me may not be helpful for you, but that's really between me and God, isn't it?