Is this where Tolkien got the idea for the Ents?

The reader of this blog will have noticed that I've recently written about quirky hermeneutics. This time it comes from a discussion in a chat room in which an atheist asserted that amongst other scientific impossibilities, the Bible describes talking trees. When I asked him (I assume I was chatting to another male) to show where in the Bible these talking trees are, he referred me to Judges 9:8-15. It reads as follows:

One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king.’

 “But the olive tree answered, ‘Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?’ “Next, the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and be our king.’ “But the fig tree replied, ‘Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?’

 “Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come and be our king.’

“But the vine answered, ‘Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?’

 “Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, ‘Come and be our king.’

“The thornbush said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’

I consulted commentaries by Daniel I. Block, Dennis T. Olson, and Trent Butler, and some carefully selected online study helps. The consensus is that Jotham was telling his audience a story. You would have to be using some creative hermeneutics to assert that Jotham believed in literal talking trees. Perhaps the chatroom participant was working from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

According to Win Groseclose, the context of this story is that Gideon, who was once a strong, godly leader, had taken his eyes off the ball by taking many wives and concubines. After Gideon's death. one of his 70 sons, named Abimelech, went to live with his mother in Shechem. This may have occurred in 1129 to 1126 BC. She was one of Gideon's concubines, and they conspired with the people of Shechem to make Abimelech their king. and they did so by capturing and killing all of Abimelech’s brothers. Jotham was the only one who escaped. Thus Abimelech was made king.

When Jotham heard this news, he went to the top of Mount Gerizim and told this parable. This gave Jotham a place where the acoustics would have been good enough for him to be heard over a great distance as well as some distance from those who would be offended by his words and try to kill him. Mount Gerizim was an important mountain in ancient Israel. In Deuteronomy 27:9:26, Moses commanded that after the people had entered into the Promised Land, some were to ascend Mount Gerizim and others were to ascend Mount Ebal. From Gerizim, blessings for obedience were to be pronounced and from Ebal curses for disobedience were to be pronounced. This command was later acted out in Joshua chapter 8.

Jotham’s story is a cry for judgment upon both the Shechemites for being unfaithful in choosing such a man as their king (verses 8-15), and for the process by which he assumed power (verses 16-20). Speaking in symbolic language, Jotham compares Abimelech, who was so evil that he murdered his own brothers, to a bramble or a weed. Interestingly he cried out from Gerizim, and not Ebal. Perhaps this is because Jotham is leaving judgment of the people’s actions in the hands of God. Regardless, it is from Mount Gerizim that Jotham tells this parable.

Jotham's strong pronouncement came to pass in Judges 9:22-57, with Abimelech being killed in battle by having a stone dropped upon his head, crushing his skull, and judgement coming upon the Shechemites as well.

Quite clearly he was speaking figuratively. When I pointed this out to the atheist, he strongly disagreed with me. This led to a lengthy and not very productive discussion about how important it is to read the Bible carefully and it context. Often one learns what the Bible does say by what it doesn't say.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/02/abimelech-at-shechem.aspx#Article

http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/jg/9.html

Sexism? Where?

I read with interest Professor Sally Young's article about sexism in Australian political journalism. Although it's bad grammar to use a double negative in a sentence, I don't disagree with this article. It seems fair to surmise that some people cannot abide having a woman in a position of power. 
.
However, why is there no mention of former Western Australian Premier Carmen Lawrence (1990-1993), former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner (1990-1992), or former New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally (2009-2011)? When they were appointed Premiers of their respective states, arguably their governments were already headed to be voted out of office. I remember when Keneally became Premier of New South Wales, a female commentator said that her elevation to the position was motivated by pragmatism. In other words, her parliamentary colleagues thought that she'd improve their electoral prospects. 

I also remember the unflattering cartoons of Mrs Kirner in the Herald Sun, which depicted her as a frumpy housewife in a polka dot dress. This was part of an ongoing campaign which that newspaper ran against the Victorian Labor government at the time. They memorably reported that she burst into tears during a cabinet meeting when one of her ministers demanded money for his office bathroom renovation. Bear in mind that this was during the most severe economic downturn in the state of Victoria since the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

Yes, there is sexism in some reporting of Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership, but another explanation is the poor standard of political journalism across the board.  Male politicians receive their fair share as well. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard was mocked for his glasses, voice, and for wearing pants that were too long for him during a joint press conference at former US President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, and for wearing a tracksuit during his regular morning walks around the foreshore of Sydney Harbour. Former Labor leaders Kim Beazley and Mark Latham received unfavourable press coverage for being overweight, as has shadow treasurer Joe Hockey. 

The real issue is not so much sexism or misogyny (a fashionable word of late) in journalism as it is the overall poor standard of political journalism. Serious political discourse is largely reduced to image and easily digestible sound bites. Surely its more important to consider which political party has the best policies to serve the common interest and keep their state or nation, as the case may be, on the correct trajectory. 

Greens tell Christians to butt out of euthanasia debate

Talk about mixed messages. This comes from an email I received from the Australian Prayer Network. Former Greens leader Bob Brown once asserted in an interview that the Greens are a Christian party, and some Christians are sympathetic to the Greens' ideals. It's hard to reconcile his assertion with this news report from New South Wales, where a Greens MP in the New South Wales state Parliament insinuates that people with religious views are a hindrance to the Greens agenda:

"The New South Wales Greens have again highlighted their anti-Christian worldview by claiming that people with religious views are blocking voluntary euthanasia laws and making the lives of vulnerable people even more wretched and should butt out. "It's time they recognised they are in the minority and got out of the way," Greens MP Cate Faehrmann said. Her comments came as she launched a photo book and an online video promoting voluntary euthanasia as part of her campaign for a Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill, expected to come before parliament later this year.

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell will allow a conscience vote if the laws are debated. "I've indicated that if it should come up, members of the Liberal Party will have a conscience vote," he told reporters. Mr O'Farrell declined to outline his own views, saying it would come down to the laws introduced. "These are complex matters. You wait to see the legislation, you wait to see what's being proposed, and then you make a decision," he said. The latest Greens campaign features a video of Loredana Alessio-Mulhall, who is in the advanced stages of multiple sclerosis and wants law reform so she can die at a time of her choosing.

Ms Faehrmann said in a statement. "Loredana is given every assistance to live an increasingly undignified life, yet society is turning its back on her when all she is asking for is the right to die with dignity." Ms Faehrmann said Ms Alessio-Mulhall could not take her own life because she had lost the use of her limbs. And if a loved one assists her to die they could be tried for manslaughter or murder. State and federal parliaments (made up of a majority of members with non-religious views) have refused at least four attempts to legalise euthanasia in recent years."

Since then, Victorian Beverley Broadbent has reignited the euthanasia debate by taking her own life, and in response to this, the Council on the Ageing and Cate Faehrmann's federal Greens colleague, Senator Richard di Natale, have also called for federal euthanasia laws to be enacted.

Of course all political parties actively court the support of the Christian constituency, and try to get them onside. However, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a Greens politician has pushed them away. The lesson here is to take any overtures from the Greens with a pinch of salt, or from any political party, for that matter.

It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen

Chancellor Palpatine (or should I say Darth Sidious) in Revenge of the Sith; the personification of a liar, manipulator, and an all round nasty piece of work

A friend of mine made a social media posting asking people to compile a list of ten things in society that are blatant lies, but that people still believe anyway. In no particular order, here's my list. It's a random assortment of thoughts that are mainly inspired either by people I have met, things I've read, or Christian speakers I've heard.

1. How I live my life is my business, and I can do what I like if nobody else gets hurt (When you throw a pebble into a pond, it still creates ripples).

2. I come first (Sometimes I wonder if we're becoming more individualistic and less community minded. I hate selfishness. Public transport fare evasion and aggressive driving make me angry. These may seem to be minor things, but to my mind, they reflect a selfish mindset).

3. I have unlimited potential in life and can become whatever I want to be (This is the line that motivational speakers push, and some Christians believe it too. Even though I'm striving to honour God with my life, if I'm not living this supernaturally empowered, transcendent life, does that mean that I'm not walking in the Spirit and that my faith is defective?)

4. God's highest purpose for me is making me happy (Again, this is problematic for Christians who aren't happy and whose faith journey has been difficult. What about holiness and sanctification?)

5. Don't be friends with down and out people because they'll only hinder you from succeeding in life (I've heard this said from a church pulpit. So much for Christian compassion).

6. Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves (But only if they're conservative and not aligned with progressive and fashionable political or social causes).

7. All Christians think alike (Some non-Christians who are either apathetic or hostile towards Christians seem to think this).

8. Christians blindly follow their leaders and do what they're told without question. (Some non-Christians who are either apathetic or hostile towards Christians seem to think this too).

9. If it feels good, do it (This seems to be the prevailing ethic of contemporary Western society).

10. I'm not responsible for the consequences of my actions (This correlates with the first item on this list).

I humbly offer these comments as a corrective. I write not to judge or browbeat, but to state things that I need to be reminded of myself, striving to grow in Christlikeness and to not be squeezed into the (Western) world's way of thinking.

Compare this to Jesus himself, of whom the apostle Peter wrote, "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22)

Extreme bafflement

Stalinist propaganda 

To most of the democratically governed world, former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was a despot and mass murderer. To others, he is a beloved figure. The city of his birth, Gori in Georgia, is home to the Stalin Museum and birthplace. Adjoining buildings house artifacts from his life, and for all intents and purposes, are virtual shrines that serve the cult of personality that surrounds him to this day.

Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, it is one of the unfathomable mysteries of history that a such an evil man could be so loved and admired. After he assumed and consolidated his power, it is believed that with the purges of his enemies, forced famines of the Soviet populace, state terrorism, incarcerations in labour camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the death of as many as 40 million people within the borders of the Soviet Union.

So cold and evil was he, and completely unmoved by this massive death toll, that he is believed to have said that, "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic." 

By the time of his death in 1953, he was a sick and paranoid man, believing that his cronies were plotting to kill him.

He suffered a stroke on March 1, 1953, and died 4 days later. 

In his seminal 1992 work, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, British historian Alan Bullock (1914-2004) narrates Stalin's slow, agonising death as follows, as recounted by his daughter, Svetlana:

"The death agony was terrible. God grants an easy death only to the just. He literally choked to death as we watched. At what seemed the very last moment he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glances, insane or perhaps angry and full of fear of death...Then something incomprehensible ad terrible happened that to this day I can't forget...He suddenly lifted his left hand as though he were pointing to something up above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was incomprehensible and full of menace..The next moment, after a final effort, the spirit wrenched itself free of the flesh."

It must have been terrible to die with the blood of millions of innocent people on one's hands, and as a former Orthodox seminarian who died having made an enemy of God. There is nothing here to indicate that Stalin felt any remorse over his crimes. It gets you thinking; it's certainly not the way I would want to die. God doesn't want anyone to die estranged from Him (2 Peter 3:9). Only God knows what is in a person's heart, and I'm not so presumptuous and arrogant as to judge who is and isn't worthy of salvation, because only God can judge. If Stalin had repented of his sins and sought God's forgiveness late in life, accepting the gift of salvation, he would have received it. Some people are so hardened against God that they are beyond help, and Stalin was one of them. 

All things being unequal

The reader of this blog would have seen my earlier post about poor hermeneutics. Here is yet another example. In his second letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul warns his recipients against being "unequally yoked." (2 Corinthians 6:14)

This time, the individual concerned attempted to assert that this verse forbids Christians from socializing with Christians from other churches. This means that if you're a single Christian who is marriage minded, but cannot find any suitable prospects in their own congregation, is not allowed to widen his or her social circle and seek out opportunities to meet other Christians elsewhere. Wow, it's pretty impressive of Paul to speak into the situation of single, marriage minded Christians in 21st century suburban Melbourne.

Sarcasm aside, what did Paul actually mean by being "unequally yoked?"

The text notes in the Life Application Study Bible say that Paul was urging believers not to form binding relationships with non believers, because this "might weaken their Christian commitment, integrity, or standards," specifically in business or personal relationships, particularly in the context of marriage. Compromise is a real danger. It brings to mind the image of trying to yoke two different breeds of cattle to plough a field. One would pull the other off course. They wouldn't be able to plough in a straight line.

The ESV Study Bible goes into greater detail:

To be "unequally yoked" is to be "hitched up" or even crossbred with another animal who is not the same (Gk heterozygeo)...It is thus an image for being allied or identified wrongly with unbelievers. In context, it refers especially to those who are still rebelling against Paul within the church, whom Paul now shockingly labels as unbelievers. (He clearly thinks that some are [2 Corinthians 13:5], though he hopes not), but the principle has wider applications to other situations where (as with animals yoked together)one person's conduct and direction of life strongly influences or controls the other other's.

Paul doesn't go as far as telling believers to isolate themselves from non believers (1 Corinthians 5:9, 10).  These unbelievers may either be untrustworthy persons in contrast to Paul, Gentile Christians who did not observe the Mosaic Law, the immoral within the church, and the false apostles, whose attempts to undermine Paul's work in Corinth prompted his writing of this letter.

There's nothing worse than being a Christian whose only friendships are with other Christians, and who seeing it as irredeemably evil, deliberately cloisters themselves from the outside world to avoid being contaminated. but  the clear application is to exercise wisdom and discernment. as this passage says nothing about relationships or involvements with other believers, there is no possible way to interpret this passage as the unnamed individual asserted.

Reams of ink have been used on explaining what this passage actually means and how to apply it. In the English speaking world, we're pretty much spoiled for choice when it comes to the wide availability and accessibility of Bible commentaries, dictionaries, atlases, sermon pod casts, not to mention other study helps.

"Lone ranger" Christians who disregard this material and come up with their own unique interpretations are trouble makers who need to pull their heads in, and be disciplined firmly, but fairly.

A headful of rubbish

Muffet from Battlestar Galactica

Churches are often fond of getting their congregations to participate in some sort of study program to get the year off on the right foot, so to speak. To that end, my cell group is working through Rick Warren's Forty Days in the Word. 

The DVD and accompanying workbook is designed to help Christians read the Bible more effectively, which is sorely needed these days.

Each chapter of the workbook is devoted to a different Bible study method, and the third chapter explains what Warren calls the "probe" method.

Warren has devised the following acrostic to apply to a verse or passage that you might be reading: SPACEPETS.

S - Is there a SIN to confess?
P - Is there a PROMISE to claim?
A - Is there an ATTITUDE to change?
C - Is there a COMMAND to obey?
E - Is there an EXAMPLE to follow?
P - Is there a PRAYER to pray?
E - Is there an ERROR to avoid?
T - Is there a TRUTH to believe?
S. - Is there SOMETHING to praise God for?

The phrases in the acrostic are all framed so as to help the reader draw out the passage's meaning. We all found this acrostic very amusing. What was Warren thinking when he came up with it? At least it is easy to remember. For my mind, the first thing I thought of was Muffet the daggett, which was a sort of robot dog from the original 1978 series of Battlestar Galactica.

If his teaching videos are any indication, Warren is an affable sort of chap and he'd probably be amused and not offended if somebody pointed this out to him, as long as it does not detract too much from his goal of getting Christians to read, properly understand and correctly apply the Bible to their lives.