I read your blog, The Embarrassment of Noah, and as a “religionist”--although I prefer the moniker “follower of Jesus”--I wanted to affirm the truth of your words. If any human attempted to do the things that God has done in history, that person would be a “moral monster”--a psychotic sociopath we would all agree needs to be imprisoned to keep from hurting people. Ironically enough though, if God were human, he wouldn’t hurt anyone. Instead he would specifical love and care for the people that live of the fringes of our culture. He would heal the sick and free those in bondage. Of course, we would hate him for not playing by our rules or affirming our organization of society and would shut him up the only way he know how--strap him to a gurney and pump him full of narcotics or if this were another time in history, string him up on a tree so that his lungs fill with his own blood.
Mr. Lindsay, the problem with your rational inference about God is that it presumes the mind of the Creator is confined to the same network of neurons of a human mind. I think that we can both agree that if there is a God, and that god is “big” enough to make this universe, perhaps we shouldn’t think of him as though he were the same as us. How could he?
Anyway, I’m not sure that quite I fit the mold of the “moderate religionist” you were hoping would “set the record straight”. . . I believe the Bible is true, that the stories therein reveal truths about humanity, creation, and God, and that those stories do not have to be literally true to uphold that true. As it pertains to the flood, yes I believe there was an actual flood and it doesn’t matter whether that flood was global or regional, the lesson/truth of the story is the same. As I’m sure you are well aware, the flood tale from Genesis is the not only of its kind. The Epic of Gilgamesh, an equally ancient text, also recounts a massive flood. I’ve alway found it interesting that two unrelated cultures would tell the same story of a flood, but glean from the experience two very different “lessons”.
Is that moderate enough?
While it wasn’t explicitly stated, I presume, Mr. Lindsay, that your are an atheist, and as such I hope this next statement rings in your ear as a compliment. I’m afraid that your presumptions about both God and the Bible have colored the “lessons” that you pull from Noah. In other words, your conclusion reflects a bad hermeneutic, and neglects to understand the account of the flood within the greater narrative sweep of the Hebrew scriptures--or really even within Genesis. Simply put, you think little of God and too highly of humankind.
You may be relieved to know that no one in the Judeo-Christian believing community throughout history believes that the “lesson” of the biblical flood is that “violence and destruction are perfectly acceptable means of addressing problems, human rights (let alone animal rights) are an illusion, and power is ultimately what counts.”
The biblical narrative states that God is not dealing with "alleged wickedness", but that the biopsy results are in and like any good oncologist, God knows he can't just throw a handful of drugs at this one--the cancer is too aggressive and it must be remove. In the Old Testament, "wickedness" or sin has little to do with being a good or bad person. It is about crossing boundaries--boundaries set by God to ensure we are able to maintain our relationship with him as well as our relationship with each other. Also, it is a not so subtle view in the Old Testament that "wickedness" is genetic, meaning yes children are born "wicked", so at the very least carrying the punishment of the parents transgressions. The people of Noah's day live without any sense of boundaries, and the writer and original hearers/readers of the story had a healthy understanding of sin and God's judgment.
Throughout the Old Testament, God is never quick to enact judgment, in fact the very people who had experienced God’s wrath did not hesitate to attribute to YHWH being “compassion, gracious, slow to anger/wrath, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth” (Ex. 34:6). As it pertains to his judgment, Isaiah describes it as YHWH, “strange/unusual task” (28:21). Most theologians and philosophers would agree that a "good" God can not stand back and do nothing the face of evil/wickness/sin. Most of time God gets a bad rap for not doing enough to prevent pain and suffering. But the truth of God's judgment throughout the Old Testament is that is there is always a "remnant". In other words, God never starts from scratch--he continues to work within his creation. The story of Noah teaches us that it wouldn't matter if God just wiped out the whole lot of us and started over with a select few; we would still use our freedom to cross boundaries and ignore God. This "religionist" has no problem affirming the people of Noah's day got what they deserved, but that's because I know I deserve to drown with them.
The problem with your telling of the story of Noah is that it's not the whole story. The beauty of the full story--the one which spans the from Genesis to Revelation-- is that God took my place among the drowners so that there be room for me on the ark. In fact, now there is room enough on the ark for us all, but some people reason an oxygen tank and scuba gear all you need to be saved. God loves those people enough to let them try to brave the floods without him.
By the way, I probably should have mentioned earlier that I haven’t seen “Noah” and probably won’t. I’m one of those people that thinks the book is always better.
Comments
Post a Comment