Brueggemann, God and the Bible
The following is a brief interview with an academic mentor of mine about the God of the Bible and the call for the church today. Brueggemann says a few things that will be unsettling to some, but I think his points are thought provoking and important.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0hK3ZTVyc
Walter Brueggemann on the Bible
Here are some of the key quotes in the interview:
- I believe the God of the Bible is implicated in the inherent violence of the Bible.
- I believe the God of the Bible is a recovering agent of violence… it (violence) is always latently there.
- Violence is intrinsic to our inheritance… the question is whether or not we can resist this inheritance.
- The big revelatory moments are characteristically departures from what has been taken for granted.
- There is no final reading to the text — we are always going to be led somewhere else.
Without doubt most Christians are uncomfortable with calling God a recovering practitioner of violence, but without some serious theological gymnastics, it is hard to dispute — The God of the Old Testament used violence to bring about his will. Let us not get caught up in this non-traditional description of God, but instead grasp the more important points Brueggemann is trying to make:
- The narrative of redemptive history is pointing us in the direction of love where violence is no more.
- Each generation is called to further the restoration of the world.
- We must often fight with the status quo in order to bring about a better world.
- While the next step is not always certain, the direction of the movement is. We must move away from violence and oppression and towards a world where all things are set right.
- We must be open to God’s will in these matters and be bold in our willingness to act.
This raises some interesting questions. Is God like a recovering alcoholic father who will do better the second time around?
I have thought about this, and without getting too much into it, the thrust of my question is this: what is the people Israel didn’t screw up so much, would violence be necessary? Was violence the “plan a” or was it the “plan b”? Essentially, where does the ultimate blame for violence lay? If creation is an act of love extending outward rather than a just a demonstration of power, how does this act of love reconcile with an inherently violent father?
The narrative of redemptive history, I think, is pointing us back to Eden. If God already has the wrong “personality” (for want of a better term) in Eden, why should we want to go back there?
I will have to think more on this when it isn’t 11:30, but I’m not sure God is ultimately responsible for or an agent of violence.
So, why worship a god who is not perfect, kind of mean, and doesn’t behave in an admirable fashion?
First, I think Brueggemann is using hyperbole to make his point. I don’t think of God as a violent person on a 12-step program. The way I see it God used violence in the past as a way of achieving his will. I also believe Eden is the original and ultimate intent. I don’t think the God of Eden was a violent God. However, after Eden, God resorted to violence to begin the process of restoration. The will of God is not violence, but violence was used to bring about the will of God. As the progression of redemptive history moves us closer to restoration, each generation is called to move farther and farther away from this.
Of course the question becomes, “Why did God use violence?” which I think is somewhat under Michael’s question. The brief answer is that God worked with what he had. I have heard it argued that if God tried to make Israel pacifists from the get go they would be wiped out. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it is a thought.
It becomes decidedly more difficult when you ask “Why would God command his people to commit genocide?” It is hard to say God is not responsible for that violence, when Scripture records God giving the command. You could say Israel simply misunderstood God, committed horrendous acts, and then attributed them to God’s will. I have toyed with this idea, but am not committed to it.
I actually have a theory of theodicy that accounts for the conquest. If you need some good bathroom reading, you can find it here: http://kickert.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/theodicy.pdf