Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 6, 2009 10:53 pm

The other day I was reading through Genesis 3 and something stood out to me. Genesis 3 opens with the introduction of a new character: the Serpent. Adam and Eve are living in the garden, naked and unaware. The Serpent convinces them to eat of the tree in the middle of the Garden (the only one they were told not to) and they realized they were naked. Familiar story. I hadn’t previously noticed, at least not in this way, what takes place in verses 9-11.

The LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” (ESV)

God seems almost unaware of their naked state. He asks, “who told you that you were naked?” Why?

Is the God of Genesis 3 limited in knowledge? A God who can’t even keep track of the actions of the only two people on earth seems inconsistent with the God of Genesis 1 & 2. I’m sure some scholars would say this is further evidence of multi-author redaction of the text. Besides the fact that I am not inclined toward those types of theories, this would seem to be so blatant that even the most daft of editors would not allow these texts to co-exist. Not to mention that it seems an unnatural understanding of the text. So did God know or not.

It seems obvious, at least to me, that the author believed, and expected us to as well, that God did know that Adam and Eve were hiding because of their nudity and that the Serpent was involved in their education. So why does an aware God ask the question?

Is it possible that God wanted Adam to think about why he was hiding and discover for himself what was wrong? Did God want Adam to do a little reflecting? Was God concerned with Adam’s self-awareness? How about mine?

In any theology, Genesis predates Descartes, Locke, and Frued. I have always felt that the typical modern western Christian (myself included), tends to over emphasize self. Our faith has become deeply, and almost exclusively a personal experience. The problem is that the ancient Mediterranean (the time/land from where both Jesus and the Bible hail) seems far less interested with the self and much more interested with the community/group.

So I am left wondering, to what extent is God concerned with my self-awareness?

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, February 15, 2009 10:26 pm

On October 24, 2008 I posted “The Timely Death of Words: the failure of language to capture the life of a movement” about the drawbacks of attaching a title to a movement. Movements and words are dynamic and nuanced and they often have difficulty converging. Alan Hirsch, self-proclaimed “missional activist” wrote a piece for Leadership Journal called “Defining Missional”. Not surprisingly, Alan does as good of a job as is possible of defining “missional”. While I’m not big of labeling everything to death, the article is a good read. It is also accompanied by missional family tree.

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, January 9, 2009 10:44 am

I have been slowly and quite laboriously sifting through R. S. Sugirtharajah’s work “Postcolonial Reconfigurations” on and off for the past few months. Despite it’s small size, the book has proved a challenge for me both because of the denseness of the material and lack of immanency or necessity to complete the reading on my part. I intended on reviewing the book. It is not Sugirtharajah’s most recent work (in 2006 he released “Voices from the Margin” addressing similar subject matter). In fact, “Postcolonial Reconfigurations” was released in 2003, and can hardly be considered a current work. To date, I have not finished reading this book. Who knows, I may never finish it. But I have gleaned something from it. Something I think is important to pass along to my biblical studies minded compatriots.

Sugirtharajah’s perspective is so unique, so very different from my own. His perspective, and the perspectives he calls attention to, were nowhere on my radar. Reading his work has challenged me. And not just because we differ theologically.

I find the world of the Bible to be quite foreign. The challenges of agrarian life. The clashing cultures of East and West. The multiple layers of oppression. The stress of honor. The sting of hunger. This is truly a world I cannot know. It is all together possible that no modern person can.

I do however see, in the hushed voices of the disenfranchised, the outcast, and the oppressed a perspective more reminiscent of the story of the Bible than that of my own. This has cause me to consider the minority perspective. This does not mean their hermeneutic or theology is superior to mine. It means their voice should be valued and allowed to flavor mine.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, November 25, 2008 3:18 pm

June 19th, 2007, I posted a blog titled, “The Secret Lives of Men & Women: How Post Secret Helps Americans Veil Their Faces & Find Their Voices” about Post Secret and the trend of anonymous confession.

Since then, I have become aware of Christian versions of this, like mysecret.tv (from LifeChurch.tv) and ivescrewedup.com (of Flamingo Road Church). I’m sure there are more out there, but these are among the more popular.

I still have a nagging question. “Have we traded transparency for anonymity?” Maybe it’s too late. Maybe that ship has sailed.

Comments (2)

By Richard Hamilton, November 19, 2008 1:21 pm

Most teens are faced with tough decisions about identity, work, school, career, sexuality, morality, their role in the family and the like. I think it’s easy to devalue the pressure they face daily in the arena of decision making. I recently read about a teenage girl who made a decision most adults are not prepared to make. The decision she faced. To receive treatment or face her death. Her name was Josie Grove and you can read more about her story here. Read. Respond.

Comments (3)

By Richard Hamilton, November 18, 2008 9:15 pm

Ed Young and the Fellowship Church are the latest to promote more sex.

Earlier this year, Relevant Church of Tampa Florida issued a “30-Day Sex Challenge.” Married couples were encouraged for have sex everyday and non-marrieds were asked to be abstinent for 30 day. This challenge included devotional material and relationship advice. Not surprisingly, this drew a little media attention.

In the same vein, Fellowship Church, in Dallas, TX, recently issued a “7-Day sex challenge,” encouraging their married members to commit to having sex everyday for a week.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for married couples having sex. Frequently even. I do wonder though, why has it recently become popular for churches to run “edgy” sexual campaigns? I’m not trying to accuse these churches of having impure motives. I’m sure they are well meaning. But what if they aren’t. Is it possible to maintain their message if they are just doing it as a publicity stunt? I guess the other question I have is, do these type of campaigns even work? I don’t know, but hey, why not give it a shot. Am I right?

Comments (7)

By Richard Hamilton, November 11, 2008 12:06 pm

Outspoken agnostic and professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Bart Ehrman recently wrote one the subject of suffering in “God’s Problems and Human Solutions” and has been lecturing on the subject. September 2008, he delivered one of the 2008 Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul at the University of California Berkeley. If you have an hour to get rid of, check it out.

According to Ehrman, the free-will explanation for the existence of suffering is sufficient to explain evil, but not natural disasters and the like. He proceeds to address the problem of Theodicy, how can God be just given the state of things in this world? This is attempt to rectify the ides that God is all powerful, all loving and that suffering exists.

While I have some disagreements (okay, a lot of disagreements) with Ehrman, I believe he brings up some important questions.

The question remains, how do we account for suffering?

Comments (6)

By Richard Hamilton, November 6, 2008 10:33 pm

I believe there is an intrinsic subversiveness in Jesus’ message of the Kingdom. The New Testament evangelist did not shy away from ascribing to Jesus terms reserved for the Emperor himself. King of the Jews. Ruler. Savior. Son of God. Jesus’ message was disruptive to the divisive class system of his time. He taught a form of social protest in retaliation to the oppression common in the Galilean countryside. Just calling it the kingdom reeks of rebellion.

Simultaneously, Christ followers are told to render to Caesar and make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.

Regardless who you supported (or didn’t support for that matter) in this recently election, everyone must answer a question. How should I act toward government.

I have heard people from any number of political backgrounds (both Christian and non) say, “If ___________ wins the election, I’m leaving this country.” or “I can’t live in a country with ___________ as it’s president.” Interestingly enough, they never seem to follow through. To be honest, I have entertained similar thoughts. Where does this attitude come from? Why is there such vitriol absurdity?

So, how should Christ followers, who are faced with reconciling the subversive nature their faith and the call to honor authority. Peter’s words on the subject seem quite fitting.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Keep in mind who was the emperor he is telling them to honor. Nero.

At the end of the day, whatever your political persuasion, you must balance honor and subversion.