God's Story: Which God? [2]

I did some google searches a moment ago. I typed “who is god?” and got 1.25 Billion results in .25 seconds. I also searched “What does god want?” and got 1.35 Billion results in .39 seconds. I doubt there is enough time remaining in my life to read the results from just one of those searches – let alone both – even if I did nothing but read them. This reality can pose a variety of interesting questions. Yet I will focus on one; where would people have found the answer to those questions BG (before google)?

I realize there are many answers to the question. However, for our current purpose, we will stick with one source – the Bible. While this may seem like a “no-brainer” answer, it is surprising how many people have formed a view of God that is not based on the Bible – and this goes for both Christians and those who are not Christians. The outcome of this practice is not good.

So, last time I encouraged you to read Genesis 1:1-2:3 as “act one” and Genesis 2:4-3:24 as “act two.” Simply stated, “act one” shows us a god created; “act two” shows us which God created and what this God desires. This can also be stated as “act one” shows us creation in broad brushstrokes (like for a painting), while “act two” focuses in on certain aspects of those brushstrokes (like day six and events sometime after it). In other words, these are not competing creation accounts; they are complementary vantage points of the same creative act. 

In act one a generic word for god (or God as it is in the Bible) is used. This is why I said “a god” in the above paragraph. There were lots of gods in the ancient world…just as there are today (we just do not call them gods – but that is another issue). An assertion that a god created would not have been earth shattering in the ancient world. The real question would be which god(s) actually did it. And as you can guess, this would be answered by whose creation story you were reading. Yet there are still some striking elements to act one in Genesis that clue the reader (or hearer) in a bit that something is different.

In other words, the somewhat generic creation story in act one still makes some startling claims. An example is on day four. In the text, when the sun and the moon are created, they are called “the greater light” and the “lesser light” (Gen1:16). This is significant as both the sun and the moon were viewed as gods in many cultures – particularly in Egypt.[i] In other words, the Bible begins by telling of a god who created everything, even what others claim to be gods. Huh, that is interesting. 

Now, some may be bothered by my use of the lower case “g” in god. There is a reason for this, and it becomes clear as we swiftly move into “act two.” In act two, the account that looks at certain aspects of the broad brushstrokes of act one, there is a shift from god to the LORD God (YHWH God from here on in the blog; YHWH = The LORD). This shift is huge as YHWH was the personal, covenant name of the God of the Bible. In other words, while act one makes some startling claims, act two becomes even more alarming as the Hebrew people learn it is their covenant God – YHWH God – who made everything.

And now, for literary purposes, I will get a bit Jewish on you. In act one god is mentioned 35 times. This may sound insignificant, but numbers were very important to Jewish people (they are for us too – but in terms of $$$). Jewish people (and other ancient cultures) were often more interested in the “weight” of a number rather than the number’s “measure”. In other words, certain numbers were significant, because of their weight, and at times this was the focus rather than the actual numeric value we view as important (and let us not forget that numbers “weigh” for us too – e.g., 13, or 9/11).

The number seven was one of their numbers for completion; using god 35 times in act one is a complete number multiplied (7 * 5). There are other phrases and words in act one which have numeric weight to them, but alas, we will move on. The point here is what happens when we shift to act two. In act two, YHWH God is used 20 times (10 is another number of completion in Jewish thinking). Interestingly, the generic word for god appears in act two as well. However, it only occurs four times (yes, a number for completion…often attached to the earth; e.g., think of four directions)…but what is astounding is where these four occurrences are in act two.

If you do not remember from reading it, they all occur in Genes 3:1-5. These are the verses where the serpent comes to Eve (and Adam) and asks, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Gen3:1). Make no mistake about it, this is huge. The serpent, already introduced as crafty, does not give the God of the Bible His full due. The words of the narrative (story) shift in his mouth from YHWH God to god. In other words, from the personal, covenant God to a distant, non-caring god… 

Even more shocking, Eve reciprocates and does not correct the serpent. Eve says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said…” Note, she did not say “‘YHWH God’ said.” This reality is not some minor bit of trivia…this is huge.

How huge it is we will look at a bit more next time. Yet you can be thinking of misrepresentations of the God of the Bible in the meantime. Until then (hopefully tomorrow), try reading out loud – or better yet have someone read to you – act two and see what you notice around the time the serpent enters the picture.

While there is major difficulty in act two…it is not all downhill from here. After all, this is God’s Story.

---

[i]  Christian tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which would place them sometime after the departure from Egypt (the exodus). This is a significant point as a) we should not read Genesis as a “reporting on the go” type of document like the news of our day...or like a scientific explanation of the world, and b) it points strongly to Genesis being a “polemic” (a verbal attack on something) on the worldview the Hebrew people had been living among for over 400 years. 

Bigger Than "Pay It Forward"

If I were a better historian of our culture, with more time, I would further develop the forthcoming statement for you. Yet given my limitations I will simply state it; there are identifiable movements and ways of doing things that can be traced back to a point of origin. Similarly the popularization of, basically about anything, can be traced back to a point of origin(s).  

This can be viewed as cause and effect. Yet at the same time there is an aspect of it that is so much bigger than “a” led to “b” which led to “c”. It seems to be more of an Event and response.

A relatively modern example is how the idea of “paying it forward” is somewhat common in our culture – both in the vernacular and practice. While I will not deny the reality of people using the phrase and implementing the principle before the year 2000, at least my awareness of its frequency can be traced back to the popularity of a movie by the same phrase ("Pay It Forward") starring Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, and Haley Joel Osment. If you are unfamiliar with the movie you can click here for a synopsis (by the way, there is another strand of thinking here [i.e., "my awareness"] I will hopefully pick up in another post). 

Now why state all of that? 

I state all of that because at times I am blessed to be able to help people in a monetary way. A way this happens is through the generosity of people where I serve (New Life Christian Church in Emporia, KS). When helping whomever, I make sure to let them know how it is even possible for me to be helping them. In other words, I make it clear I am helping them on behalf of a community of people who give just a bit more each week to make this help possible.  

There have been times when the one(s) being helped talk about paying us back. I ultimately leave the ball in their court, but I make it clear that they are under no such obligation. I reemphasize how our motivation for doing this is simple; we are seeking to respond to God, and in doing so want others to know there is a God who loves them and is concerned about their situation. Often they reply with a thought of “paying it forward” to someone else (i.e., "payback" the deed, but not to the one who helped them, rather to someone else in need). I understand this is a bit of a natural response. I agree it is better than simply receiving and receiving and receiving. Yet what I want those who have been helped to understand, or at least consider, is that they ought to take a second look at God if they are not following Him.  

At its core, it seems the thought of "pay it forward" is to help make the world a better place. This is commendable. Yet is also a recipe for failure. This is why I mention the "Event and response" above in the second paragraph. 

I say "pay it forward" is a recipe for failure because, sadly, everyone is prone to think - sooner or later - that they are giving too much, that others can help themselves, that this person was not truly grateful, etc. In light of that, what I want people to realize is that when God’s people respond and give, it is not like paying it forward. It is people responding to an Event that has impacted and forever altered their lives. The cause of this Event is God - He deserves a second look if someone is not following Him.  

Yet I want to be clear that the God who is deserving of a second look is quite possibly "not the same" god they heard about in the past. This is a God who desires His Church to be the hands and feet of Jesus in a broken and hurting world. A God who has such a beautiful and compelling story that when it is understood it does not ignore evil, the faults of His own people, or anything like that. Rather, His Story says those things will not have the last word and that God's purpose of redemption for the world will come to fruition.

I realize some reading this may not be open to that right now. I can appreciate that. In light of this possible reality, I want to simply add that honesty with God is a good thing. And given the implications of God’s Story, there is good reason to be honest with Him. Yet that is another post for another day…

Do You Hear What I Hear?

What is wrong with us? It is a rather common question in the wake of the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary school this past week. Yet there are other common questions, or should I say statements, in the wake of the shooting as well. I will get to some of those statements below...

Yet first, in light of the tragedy and the generally agreed upon "holiday season" in which we find ourselves (yes, I know Christmas coming...but it is technically Advent right now), I want to ask us all a question in the spirit of a song - "Do you hear what I hear?"

So, do you? If you do not, my hope is that after reading this post you will.

What I hear is a bunch of people not listening to one another. In fact, that is one of the things (not everything) wrong with us. We do not listen well. This should not be a shock, especially if you have any interaction with children. How many times have you said something to a child (even your own), and then asked them, "What did I just say?", only to discover their response is, well, lacking? Indeed it seems poor listening starts at an early age. So parents, be parents and help your children learn the skill of listening well. Yet (cue the weeping and wailing now), in order to do this you will have to model listening well...including towards them.

However, it is not merely that we do not listen well. No, poor listening is a compound problem. In fact, as we chronologically age (notice I did not say mature; everyone ages chronologically, not everyone matures), something else is added to our poor listening skills - we become defensive listeners. What is a defensive listener you ask? While I am sure I will tweak this definition in the future, a defensive listener is one who quickly (sometimes immediately) either dismisses or becomes offended by a statement with which they do not agree. Yet not only do they not agree, they reinforce what they have previously thought - often emphatically. As you can see, this leads to a heightening tension and does nothing to work toward a resolution. Generally speaking, defensive listeners think what they want to think and will not consider other options. Tragically, sometimes defensive listening stops a potentially constructive conversation before it ever gets started.

If we are honest with ourselves, I am certain we will discover, we have all been defensive listeners a time or four in our day. Yet when will we mature and learn the skill of listening well? When will we be able to actually hear another side of an issue without a) conjuring up a rebuttal while appearing to listen, or b) exploding and/or retorting with our previous point of view? When will we be able to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe (I know it is a stretch), we may not be right - or at least that someone else has some valid insight and concerns? I cannot even count the number of times I have been involved in conversations where "defensive listening" was on prime display. Sadly, I have been the culprit more than once. Basically those conversations can be charted in a downward slope toward chaos, polarization, and isolation. This is unfortunate because it did not have to happen that way.

I am not saying you cannot have your own opinion. What I am saying is you need to work at hearing "the other side" of the issue. This is vital because it is quite remarkable what often happens to people when they "feel heard". Have you ever seen it? Facial tension will be released, sometimes shoulders lower a bit, the tone of voice softens, sometimes even tears flow because they felt, catch this, valued. We all like to feel valued, do we not?

Now, back to opinions. Take the outcry for and against gun control in the wake of the recent shooting (or whenever the next tragedy like this happens). Graphics like these are common place now.

Is this really constructive? I suppose it may conjure up a laugh by some who agree, or even (as disturbing as this is) an "Amen". But is calling someone stupid helpful? If anything, it is this type of speech that gives way to more defensive listening. Perhaps a person is uninformed, but the jump to stupid is a bit extreme. Now, consider this. Do people who agree with this picture really think the "founding fathers" had the type of automatic assassination-style weapons in mind when they were talking about the right to bear arms? I kind of doubt it. In fact, I think they would see the danger in having them at all. But let us not miss this fact, how could they have known? That technology was not available then! Are you still listening?

Simply consider and acknowledge the fact that we do not know for certain what they would think - they are dead! (And for good measure.) I understand there is a concern of a "slippery slope of no return," and "if certain guns are banned then what is to stop them from taking my hunting guns?", or whatever. I realize this is a concern; in fact, I think I understand it. Yet let us not miss this...that seems driven by fear. And is not fear a portion of the same argument by those calling for more gun control? Oh, I realize there is logic involved, but the "other side" employs it too.

Furthermore, this line of thinking (i.e., the "slippery slope") is similar to people who have questions about God, and are told not to question or doubt because "if you start down that road, who knows where you will wind up". I understand that - I really think I do. Yet it would be interesting to know how many people have left the Christian faith over that stance (like being told it when they were younger) vs. those who would have had their faith strengthened if they would have had someone walk along with them in search of answers...

Oh yeah, what other examples can I utilize in the outcry for and against gun control? How about this one:

Now, I do not know the truth of those statistics, but the map is to show where stricter gun control laws exist the number of deaths decline. My assumption is they are correct. Yet I will give some thoughts from a friend's Facebook post; in it he raised issues like...
***the guns were stolen
***he shot his way through the glass to get in; why not have bullet-proof glass in schools
***why not have safe/lock down rooms; for protection against knife wielders and weather
***why not have better climate control so windows do not need to be open
***and a few more really good questions...
Basically the post was saying, in a respectful way, there are many more issues than simply the guns to consider. This, and other tragedies, warrant an ongoing discussion, not merely latching onto a piece of the whole and refusing to let go like a proposed veracious dog.

Well, this is getting rather long, so I will wrap it up - I think. Defensive listening is not good, it only contributes to a lack of understanding, polarization, and isolation. What is the solution? Well, the Bible calls us to "be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). It also warns us that "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1). Are you still listening my Christian brothers and sisters on the "right" and the "left"?

Furthermore, I will add that the Bible also says "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Proverbs 18:2), and in light of this warn my brothers and sisters in Christ. While the Bible says "the fool says in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 53:1), do not be uninformed to think this is talking merely about believing those words. What we say (believe) in our heart comes out in our actions (cf. Jesus in Mark 7:20-23). If "we," of all people, cannot seek to be peacemakers in situations where tempers rise and opinions are strengthened (due to defensive listening - cf. Prov18:2), then what does that say about "us"?

My concern is it shows we do not really believe in God - at least not the God of the Bible.

What!?!?! Some may retort... How dare you insinuate I do not believe in God!! But are you listening my brother/sister? The God of the Bible (not just our "right" or "left" culture-influenced Theology) also calls us to be peacemakers (Mt5:9). He also calls us to love our enemies (Mt6:43-48). In fact, He calls us to imitate Himself (Eph5:1).

I see nowhere in the Bible that says "thou shalt not infringe upon the rights of others to bear arms". Maybe it does, please enlighten me. Yet I am certain it does not give us permission to belittle and label others. In fact, we are called to love (Jn13:34-35), and that love leads to belief (Jn17:20-23), and that belief will lead to tragedies like whatever the most recent shooting is now decreasing...

Hmmm, in light of all of that; What is wrong with "us"?