| Stirring the pot |
This weekend on the Resonate email list, I've been a part of a rather interesting conversation. (and wouldn't you know it, it's a bit controversial!)
The dialogue started when someone asked a provocative question about the different portrayals of God in the Old versus the New Testament -- soon this question evolved into a discussion of the use (and condoning?) of genocidal acts in the Bible.
This topic has long been a MAJOR issue for me, and it's one of the few reasons why I cannot view the Bible as completely inspired and holy. (for starters)
This page has a brief refresher of the genocidal passages of the Bible. Here's a few:
Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."
Deuteronomy 2:26-35 - Land of Heshbon "...we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."
Joshua 10:40-41: "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
The above is only a sampling of what is recorded in the Bible of when the Israelites invaded the land of Canaan.
So far in this online discussion I have yet to hear an explanation of these genocidal acts that doesn't rationalize, justify, contextualize or diminish the force of what happened.
Here's one reply I sent to the list, and I think it summarizes how I view the issue of the biblical canonization of genocide:
So, in reading the genocidal accounts of Joshua, Judges and other OT books -- I suppose we should regard them as justifiable homicides?
I suppose I'm not so eager to embrace the theory of prophetically motivated mass murder (sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't -- is it?) ... and while granted, I'm not living 3000 years ago as an Israelite, I'd like to think that genocide is an evil, sinful thing -- no matter what guise it's sold under. Hindsight doesn't diminish the moral implications of genocide, no matter how much distance we put between ourselves and the act itself.
It's harder for me to accept that these acts of atrocity were a part of "God's divine plan" for his "chosen people" than it is for me to look at the biblical text -- and see how the HUMAN authors could have easily slipped in a deus ex machina line of "God told us to do it" and viola! Justify some pretty horrific chapters of history.
As you can imagine, my ideas weren't embraced wholeheartedly by some (to say the least) -- in fact, I think I downright pissed off one of the more vocal members of the list. I was not trying to be contrary (believe it or not) -- I can't accept the condoning of these atrocities. That, and I won't bow down to interpretations that don't add up, ethically or otherwise.
Growing up, these types of deep, underlying questions weren't necessarily encouraged in my church environment -- and as result, several of my doubts were silenced from the start. After reading through several exchanges in this online conversation, I've discovered that spiritual insecurity isn't limited to a conservative, fundamentalist type of faith.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is an answer to this dilemma that would be acceptable to me. I don't buy into the progressive revelation argument, and I have a hard time accepting that God would really condone murding an entire race of people.
It wouldn't be the first (or the last) time someone claimed God supported their evil actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
