[personal profile] rj_anderson
Yesterday, thanks to the kind offices of Twitter, I followed a link to an opinion piece about the recent controversy in the Montgomery County school system, where a teacher is being challenged and accused of corrupting young minds because of the inclusion of certain books in her classroom reading list.

No, that isn't what I'm going to rant about. Actually, the article made some quite good points about the dangers of judging these things hastily or leaping to wrong conclusions about the people or books involved, so there's not much to complain of there.

The column was nevertheless responsible for triggering this rant, however. Because halfway down the page I came across the following statement:

"I believe consenting adults should be able to write, publish, read or surf almost any loony material they please (with the exceptions of child pornography and nuclear secrets), just as I believe they ought to be free to worship anything from the fire-spewing God of the Old Testament to pet rocks."


Think you know what I'm going to rant about now? You're probably wrong. Actually, it was the "fire-spewing God of the Old Testament" part that got my dander up, and not much else.

Is the author of this piece (a pastor no less) actually saying that the God of the OT is completely different from the God of the NT, and one whom only "loony" people would worship? I would hope that I am misunderstanding him on that point, not least for the sake of my Jewish friends. But whether the author means what he appears to be saying or not, he's far from being the first to claim that the God of the Old Testament is somehow significantly different in temperament from the God described in the New. I've been hearing similar assertions from people -- not just skeptics trying to disparage the Bible, but professing believers as well -- all my life.

And quite frankly, it drives me crazy. Because I've been reading and studying the Bible since I was a child -- I've read it cover to cover several times and studied the major books of the Old and New Testament more times than I can count -- and based on everything I can see about God's character as revealed throughout the Bible, the idea that the Old Testament God is a big meanie and the New Testament God is jolly old Santa Claus is just not true.

The question of why God judged and punished certain particularly sinful individuals, cities and nations over the course of Old Testament history is a huge one, one that would require giving every one of those incidents a close and careful examination -- and there's no way I can do that here. But I can say that when you look at many of those incidents, you discover surprising things.

Things like God telling Abraham that his descendants won't be taking over the land of Canaan right away because "the sin of the Amorites [the inhabitants of that land at the time] has not yet reached its full measure". In other words, the Amorites were bad but they weren't bad enough to merit being wiped out -- in fact God was determined to give them another four hundred years to recognize their sin and repent. Similarly, long before the Babylonians swept in to conquer the nation of Israel and take them into exile, God had been sending prophet after prophet to warn the Israelites of their danger and urge them to repent and come back under His protection. Only when Israel had sunk so far into evil that they were sacrificing their own infant children to idols did the worst of their punishment finally come -- and even then, God alternated His messages of judgment and condemnation with assurances that He would not forsake Israel and promises that one day they would be restored to their homeland.

We see this kind of thing again and again in the OT -- instead of a hot-tempered "fire-spewing" God flying off the handle and smiting people right and left, we're presented instead with a God who patiently instructs, corrects, warns, pleads with, and grieves over sinful people for days, weeks, years, decades, even centuries or millennia before He finally steps in to judge and punish them for their sins. And even when the punishment is being carried out, He still shows mercy to those who are willing to acknowledge their sinfulness and invites them to come and be healed.

"As surely as I live," God declared to the prophet Ezekiel, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should turn from their ways and live." Judgment is something He does because it would actually be worse -- indeed evil and uncaring -- for Him to do otherwise, not because He enjoys making people (even wicked people) suffer. That's why He delays, and warns, and pleads, and is patient, as long as He possibly can before things get so bad that He has to step in.

And even in the midst of rebuking and condemning Israel for their gross immorality, injustice and idolatry (details about which the Old Testament is almost nauseatingly explicit, just in case you're tempted to think God is overreacting to some niggling little offences that didn't really hurt anyone), He also compares His love for His people to the love of a faithful husband for a wayward wife, and even the tender love of a nursing mother for her child. He has not written them off completely. He is not washing His hands of them. He longs to bring them back to Him and restore them to wholeness and joy -- the only reason He hasn't done so is because they themselves are not willing to accept the help He offers.

And the Old Testament is full of examples of God showing mercy and compassion to people in need, and urging His servants to do likewise; it's in the Old Testament that we find the lovely and much-quoted Psalm 23, "The Lord is my Shepherd," and many other touching and beautiful words of encouragement. Time and again God's gracious and forgiving character is shown in His dealings with flawed, confused, and sinful people -- the Old Testament is full of misfits and screw-ups and yet God accomplishes great things for and through those misfits and screw-ups nonetheless.

So no, I do not see the God of the Old Testament as some "fire-spewing" barbarian with no patience or tender feelings, whom the enlightened moderns of Christendom have thankfully outgrown. I see a righteous God who loves and cares for those who are weak and needy, and must sometimes bring terrible judgments on those who exploit and oppress them… but who doesn't enjoy doling out those punishments, either, and would much rather not have to.

And then there's the New Testament God, whom we're supposed to believe is nothing but marshmallowy indulgence by comparison. People who hold this view appear to have forgotten that Jesus spoke eleven times about hell for every single time He spoke about heaven; that in the early days of the Christian church Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for lying to the Holy Spirit, and the arrogant Herod struck down by an angel of the Lord so that he was eaten by worms and died; that the book of Hebrews reminds us that "our God is a consuming fire"; and also that the book of Revelation records the most horrific spectacles of human degradation and divine judgment to be found in the whole Bible. Not to mention that according to the gospels and the epistles, God loved the world but deemed the accumulated sins of mankind so profound and terrible that He had to step into human history Himself and undergo ultimate suffering on humanity's behalf -- that no lesser payment or sacrifice could be enough.

You may or may not agree with any of this: you may not think the Bible historically accurate or even in some vague sense "spiritually true". It may be that as far as you've seen, you find both the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New to be unappealing and as such, the idea that they are one and the same hardly matters.

But I do hope this rant of mine makes it at least somewhat evident that the much-touted dividing line between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New is really no wider than a single thin, rustling page... and that the God of the Bible is -- to use a New Testament phrase -- "the same yesterday, and today, and forever," whether you choose to love and trust and worship Him for it or not.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrsvc.livejournal.com
Two words: Thank you.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Thank you for reading! And now I am all ranted out and that sofa in your icon is looking mighty comfy. *snore*

Date: 2009-11-30 07:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrsvc.livejournal.com
Get your rest, friend. You tucked yourself out on that soapbox (lol). It was a wonderful read and well worth my time. I've spent many years in Christian school and church (so when you say you've studied the major books more times than you can count, I KNOW. We went through the book of Acts seven times during my tenure at Christian school.) and I have never understood how someone could see two different Gods between the OT and NT. So, lovely rant. I enjoyed it.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] soloflights.livejournal.com
Sorry, I didn't read under the cut. But my take would be that the bible was written by many different writers, translated and updated, and reorganised by many more... all with probably a different personal opinion of what god is to them... it doesn't make god different, it is just different for different people, and the different stories they had to tell...

Date: 2009-11-30 07:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
You should probably read under the cut. :)

Date: 2009-11-30 07:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sartorias.livejournal.com
Beautifully said, and a good reminder that it is far too easy to condemn with careless words what we don't understand, or can't be bothered to explore fully. How often have I heard, "Oh, the Old Testament is full of begats, and misogynistic laws about how unclean women are, as well as all the smiting."

Judgmental much?

Date: 2009-11-30 07:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
I really need to do a post about Awesome Women of the Bible one of these days, too. I'm particularly fond of Sheerah (mentioned in Chronicles), who casually went off and built, oh, you know, three cities. And named one after herself, because she was shy like that. :)

Thanks so much for reading and commenting.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sartorias.livejournal.com
A great idea!

Date: 2009-11-30 09:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tinpra.livejournal.com
LOL.

I've wanted to teach my students at church (who are mostly girls) about women of the Bible so that when someone in the world or in school tells them that Christianity is sexists they can go "Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the daughters of Zelophehad getting a nifty inheritance?" or perhaps just think it smirkingly in their hearts.

Date: 2009-11-30 09:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Oh yes! Zelophehad's daughters are fabulous. I keep meaning to do a message about them sometime, because they're a great example of how you can fight for justice and stand up for your rights (and get them) while still being respectful of God-appointed authority.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quiller77.livejournal.com
I do love your rants. All I can say is: amen.

Date: 2009-11-30 07:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Thank you for enabling my rantitude. It may be that by posting this kind of thing on my LJ I'm merely talking into a echo chamber, but if so it's a very nice one and I like it there. :)

Date: 2009-11-30 08:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nuranar.livejournal.com
Yay! Preach it, sister! This is an annoyance of mine, too. And as for this "different authors over hundreds of years" junk, it actually proves the point: how could any divine being be shown *that consistently* without divine inspiration?

Date: 2009-11-30 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Well, the Bible being written by different authors over hundreds of years is certainly true, but as you say -- it's staggeringly unlikely that they would agree on the character of God and the way He deals with humanity to the degree that they do, if it was just a case of various people speculating.

The thing that always gets me about the Bible is that nothing is whitewashed or oversimplified. It's not this glossy heroic narrative about superhuman characters doing great and noble things and/or perishing in epic ways as the result of their larger-than-life flaws. What it says about human nature thousands of years ago is still true of human nature now. That's one of the reasons I take it seriously as history, and not mere mythology.

Date: 2009-11-30 08:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nuranar.livejournal.com
*nods head off* I know it. It's the Word of God, end of story.

Date: 2009-11-30 10:56 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: 7th Doctor frowning: *frown* (frown)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
The thing that always gets me about the Bible is that nothing is whitewashed or oversimplified.

No, the whitewashing and oversimplification occurs when stupid human beings water it down in order to make it "accessible". GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea." (Matt 18:6)

Date: 2009-12-02 12:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scionofgrace.livejournal.com
The thing that always gets me about the Bible is that nothing is whitewashed or oversimplified. It's not this glossy heroic narrative about superhuman characters doing great and noble things and/or perishing in epic ways as the result of their larger-than-life flaws. What it says about human nature thousands of years ago is still true of human nature now. That's one of the reasons I take it seriously as history, and not mere mythology.

Word to this and your rant. We joke about how "history is written by the winners", but the thing about the Bible is that it casts even the winners in an honest and rarely flattering light. They're people and they act like it. A myth would have ended Gideon's story with the defeat of the Midianites, not go on for a little longer about how he set up a shrine and became his own priest.

Nine times out of ten, people who complain about the Bible have never studied it.

Date: 2009-12-02 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Well said! Thanks for weighing in.

Date: 2009-11-30 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dichroic.livejournal.com
I can think of some pretty horrid parts of the OT - for example apparently approving of Mr. "Take my daughter - please" Lot while turning his wife into a pillar of salt for merely looking backward. But even those are about who is tolerated and about inconistancy, not who is not. And even then, your point holds because I can think of (*) inconsistancy in the NT as well.

(*) Inconsistancy in my opinion only, of course. But I think the argument works as well if you insert the word "apparent" there.

Date: 2009-11-30 08:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
We're not told God approved of Lot offering his daughters to the mob; only that Lot did so. IMO it's merely evidence of how warped Lot's priorities had become, that he would feel such a desperate need to appease his neighbors and protect his reputation as a good host even at his daughters' expense.

I also believe that incident was what led to Lot's daughters using him the way they did later on. If their father showed no respect for them, why should they show respect for him? So he certainly reaped some bitter consequences from his behavior.

The NT says that Lot was tormented daily in his soul by the things he saw going on in the city, and that as such, he was a righteous man. But nevertheless, he made a very bad choice about where to live and with what people to associate himself, and it was only by God's mercy that he and any of his family escaped alive.

As for Lot's wife looking back, I don't think it was the mere act of looking that was the problem -- it was the hesitation that came from longing. She was more concerned about what she had lost back in Sodom than she was about the welfare of her own husband and daughters who were with her. And God had explicitly warned her not to look back, but she chose to disregard that warning. I think that shows something of what was in her heart, not just toward God but even toward her own family.

God 2.0

Date: 2009-11-30 09:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] carbonelle.livejournal.com
It's not PC vs. Mac but ver. 1.0 vs. 2.0 :-)

Lovely rant, thanks.

Re: God 2.0

Date: 2009-12-02 03:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
LOL! Thank you.

Date: 2009-11-30 09:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meredith-wood.livejournal.com
I know it's already been said, but thank you from me also.

Date: 2009-12-02 03:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
It means a lot to know that people appreciate these posts, so thank you for saying so!

Date: 2009-11-30 09:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tinpra.livejournal.com
Posts like these are one of the reasons I love, love your journal. Not to just praise you willy nilly, but they always seem to be well thought out and well written. It makes me wish that I was half as clear when I find myself having to (or feeling that I have to) explain my faith or Christianity or the Bible, etc., to other.

Thank you so much.

Date: 2009-12-01 02:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
I'm very glad they're an encouragement to you! I really appreciate you saying so.

Date: 2009-11-30 10:38 pm (UTC)
kerravonsen: from "The Passion", Christ's head with crown of thorns: "Love" (Christ)
From: [personal profile] kerravonsen
Amen, sister. Amen.

Date: 2009-11-30 11:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] patty1943.livejournal.com
What you write is always interesting. For me, it is a journey into another reality which is quite different from mine.

Date: 2009-12-02 03:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Then I appreciate all the more your taking the time to read it! Thank you.

Date: 2009-11-30 11:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ev-vy.livejournal.com
Thank you. And I think some people might be confusing OT God with the way He was seen by the Puritans. I sort of think they might have overinterpreted OT a little bit.

Date: 2009-12-01 12:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elvenjaneite.livejournal.com
My denomination sees the sacrifice of Christ in a different light (not as a thing which was demanded, or as atonement or payment, but rather out of love), but other than that, spot on! A few friends of mine had an interesting discussion with a priest we know after we read the section about Jericho in Joshua. One of his points (besides the one that they were, you know, sacrificing people and all that) was that we don't know how many times God gave them the chance to repent. That's not given in the account. But we know that with so many other similar situations He did send messengers and prophets, so we can fairly safely assume that the same thing happened with Jericho and they ignored it every time.

I do get so annoyed with the fuzzy NT God image. Sorry? I mean, Christ does preach love and redemption and all kinds of WONDERFUL things. But all those bits where he makes the moral code more stringent than it was in the Mosaic Law? Yeah, they tend to get skipped over a bit.

Date: 2009-12-01 03:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
My denomination sees the sacrifice of Christ in a different light (not as a thing which was demanded, or as atonement or payment, but rather out of love)

I wouldn't say demanded, rather necessary -- and certainly it was out of love.

Re Jericho, we know that the news of Israel being God's people carrying out His judgment on the sinful nations of Canaan had travelled to the Canaanites, because Rahab said as much to the Israelite spies when they came to her. And we also know that God was willing to rescue anyone in that city whose heart was open toward Him, because He rescued Rahab and all her family from the destruction... and as if that weren't enough grace, then Rahab the Gentile harlot ended up in the genealogy of Christ Himself.

And there are so many other examples of people like Rahab in the OT, I just can't buy into the idea that God was being harsh and unjust and not giving people a fair chance.

Thanks for your comment.

Date: 2009-12-01 03:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elvenjaneite.livejournal.com
I'm not sure I would use necessary, exactly. Certainly, we could not have been given the gift of eternal life or salvation without it, so Christ's sacrifice was necessary in that sense. (And that may be what you meant, I'm not quite sure.) But certain Protestant theology ends up essentially arguing that God had to send Christ and starts to talk about the whole process like it's some sort of a cosmic balance sheet.

Anyway, minor point in a great post. Just wanted to try to clarify what I was saying a bit more (I'm getting a cold, so I'm not sure any of it makes sense anymore).

Date: 2009-12-02 05:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bookaddict88.livejournal.com
I do get so annoyed with the fuzzy NT God image. Sorry? I mean, Christ does preach love and redemption and all kinds of WONDERFUL things. But all those bits where he makes the moral code more stringent than it was in the Mosaic Law? Yeah, they tend to get skipped over a bit.

YES.

And [livejournal.com profile] rj_anderson, thanks for this post! This has been an annoyance of mine for awhile, but I could never spell it out like you have here. (Also, hi! I'm new here. I've seen you around quite a bit, actually took a look at your journal when you posted the Conspiracy of Kings review, and decided to friend you when I found your other entries interesting as well!)

Date: 2009-12-02 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Welcome, and I'm glad you were interested enough to stick around! I appreciate it.

Date: 2009-12-01 08:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rhinemouse.livejournal.com
Thank you, this is very refreshing. I too get very tired of the "OT God vs. NT God" meme--I think the only one I hate more is the "Jesus never had anything to say about sex!" one. (Someday I want to go through the gospels and count up exactly how many times He condemns adultery and fornication, because each time I reread the gospels I think, Wow, that's a lot!)

Date: 2009-12-02 03:31 am (UTC)
innerslytherin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] innerslytherin
New to readership via [livejournal.com profile] tartanshell but just wanted to step in and say that this was thoughtfully-written and thought-provoking, and I agree.

Date: 2009-12-02 03:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rj-anderson.livejournal.com
Thank you, and welcome!

Date: 2009-12-10 05:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] longlegs21.livejournal.com
Hello! I really appreciated your post. This mistaken idea a lot of people have about the God of the Old Testament’s being a raging sadist is always so distressing to hear. So it’s nice to see an essay that talks about how God is really portrayed in the Bible. The awesome interplay of his love, justice, wisdom, and power truly is revealed throughout the Bible. And the greatest expression of God’s love—sending His Son to redeem us from sin and death and just set everything right again—was alluded to in the prophesy about the “seed” at Genesis 3:15 (“Old” Testament!), even as God punished the first human couple for their disobedience.

Profile

rj_anderson: (Default)
rj_anderson

August 2018

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678910 11
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 11th, 2025 07:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios