It may be that some of us are beginning to get the lessons in our minds, but that we have questions: questions about the lessons, questions about the text of Joshua, or questions about how to teach the material.
This is a place not just for answers, but for questions as well. Feel free to ask them, and let's see what answers we might be able to find together.
For example, here's one of mine: How are we going to respond when our kids (with their post-modern mindset) ask us if what the Israelites did to the Canaanites was genocide?
4 comments:
Ron,
I will respond to this hopefully more in depth later, but Brain McLaren addresses this in his book Generous Orthodoxy. While he doesn't go into great detail about this, he raises the question almost the way you do.
This response in now way is a definitive definition of postmodernism, nor do I claim it to be. However, this an essay I wrote for a graduate class at LCU. I hope this helps.
A fellow question asker and seeker of truth,
More thoughts...
“postmodernism is very often horribly misunderstood.” I confess with reluctance that I have often horribly misunderstood postmodernism. From conversations with peers, and reading outside of class, I understood postmodernism to primarily be relativistic. While, there may be relativism in certain segments of postmodern thought, I have been challenged to rethink the way I perceive postmodernism. One of the difficulties for me in coming to grips with the term postmodern is trying to define it’s essence.
So what is postmodernism? Postmodernism is understood to be the period of time that
we are in. I am not sure how accurate I am at on this point, but it seems to me that
postmodernism is a transitory phase in human history. I say transitory in that with the
pace that Western society changes, I am not sure where we are headed. Postmodernism is an attempt to frame a worldview apart from long standing institutional definitions of such. Postmodernism is a reaction to the straightforward linear approach of reason and
experience characterized by the “modern” period. Postmodernism and all that this term
appeals too seems to be more global in nature. Global in the sense that it appeals to a
wider world of reality than any one definitive worldview, so in this sense postmodernism
takes on a relativistic nature.
To aid in the misunderstanding of postmodernism is societal religious pluralism and
irreligious dogma in light of a post 9-11 world. To give various religious traditions a voice
in the global situation has accelerated in our postmodern world. It’s not that religious
dialogue among various faiths haven’t taken place, but with the situation Western society
has been thrusted since 9-11, it seems that there is an appeal to explore the motivation of other religions, especially in matters of love, justice, and mercy. Where does Christianity fit into this ongoing debate? With the wholesale rejection of Christianity in certain segments of the Enlightenment and subsequent modern period, I think that now more than ever there is a need to distinguish the particularity of the Christian message.
Postmodernism rejects grand narratives or metanarratives, these were seen as authoritarian (McGrath, Introduction to Theology, 114). I find it fascinating that where the
postmodern philosophers reject metanarratives, our society thrives on the language of
story, and the theology of postliberalism incorporates such metanarratives. Is this the
great paradox of postmodernity? A wholesale rejection of narrative by a society that in
mass flocks to movies, is fascinated by fiction and history, engrossed in music and the
arts? At this point, I am again inclined to say that at best postmodernism confuses me.
Confused as I maybe, there is indeed a movement that may be understood to be reactionary within Christianity to identify itself in light of our postmodern plight. With the exploration of the Church’s future it becomes increasingly clear that that theology in the postmodern period will best be that which transforms the world instead of trying to
explain the world (McGrath, Introduction to Theology A Reader 1.28).
As far as the Church is concerned, postmodernism is a blessing and a curse. Where postmodernisms has been a curse is that it is often misunderstood to be something entirely it is not. Church leaders, at least in my experience within the churches of Christ in the United States, have typically lead from a modern mode. Church leaders in the older generations that are often in leadership positions as elders have lead from the more linear approach that likes tidy, black and white ideas and with a firm foundation in the experience of tradition handed down from the previous several generations. This rationale in the Church has met conflict as two competing worldviews have collided. Postmodernism is perceived to be scary and disconcerting to the established order. I think what postmodernism offers Church today is a wholesale rejection of doing church
just for the sake of doing church. Let me elaborate…with postmodernisms’ rejection
of “yesterday” it is clear that our present situation or crisis, however it may be deemed, that a dialogue is needed to discern the direction of the Church. A dialogue that would serve to clarify the salient points of postmodernism, and attempt to pacify fear of the unknown in attempt to discover the common ground that exists between both competing philosophies and discard the rigidity of the established order where it has produced lifeless spirituality. Indeed, the 21st century is a Church in transition. I doubt that
postmodernism will be solely responsible for helping the Church find it’s way in a new
world, but I do think postmodernism can serve a higher good, and that higher good being
finding that which is lovely, true and praiseworthy in our day and age.
on the whole, modern and postmodern conversation, especially in the arena of theology is vastly different than it’s previous predecessors. I say this because in the other periods
that we examined at least up to the Enlightenment, in that theology was written and practiced in a generally Christian culture, whereas beginning with the Enlightenment there was a rapid increase in the secularization within society, I like the verdict of Bonhoeffer on this matter, “Man in challenged to participate in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world” (Radical Theology and the Death of God by Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton). This godless world is an ever-increasing reality, in which the task of theology is defining its central message. I think in defining this message, theology will help to transform a godless world, by becoming the hands, feet, and voice of Jesus
Christ.
Ron,
Thanks for raising the postmodern issue and the challenges this brings with Gen-Xers one down. I do believe you could answer this question in a very satisfying postmodern way, but here goes.
you wrote:
"How are we going to respond when our kids (with their post-modern mindset) ask us if what the Israelites did to the Canaanites was genocide?"
I am making an assumption that some of our kids at camps, and even in our youth groups come to a place like this in Scripture and are blown away at the seemingly hostile accounts put forth. For some of our students, and adults a like, this sort of scene turns people off, but I want to make it clear here and every where that the problem isn't the Bible!
Let me say that again, the problem isn't the Bible, (I will not qoute at length from Brian McLaren's, A Generous Orthodoxy, El Cajon: California, Youth Specialties, 2004, 166-171) The problem isn't the Bible, "but our modern assumptions about the Bible and our modern interpretive approaches to it...there is a better way to understand the Bible and apply the Bible, a largely new and unexplored way that can be summarized like this: We need to reclaim the Bible as narrative. The Bible is a story, and just because it recounts ... what happened, that doesn't mean it tells what should always happen or even what should have happened" (McLaren, 166-167).
[McLaren provides a really helpful flow chart, that I can't recreate here...] Anyway...
"We must begin with the recognition of how violent the world of the Middle East was. The violence of the Jews entering Canaan in 1400 B.C. was not extraordinary; it was typcial of their day. And so we ask: in that context was God commanding the people to do, not what was ideal or ethically desirable for all time, but what was necessary to survive in that world at that point? Was there a viable alternative at the time for a group of wandering, homeless, liberated slaves seeking a homeland? In other words, assuming history is real and not a simulation, not a chess game in which God plays both sides, not a video game moving to the pressure of God's thumbs on a controller -- if God is going to enter into a relationship with people, then God has to work with them as they are in their individual and cultural moral development. And back in those days, that meant that any group of people, if they were to survive, had to fight" (McLaren, 167-168).
But there is more... McLaren provides two helpful analogies that I won't go into detail here, but he uses our American past, and our American present of the example of God working with the sometimes worst in society to accomplish his purposes. Interesting stuff.
"According to Torah, while God is commanding the destruction of Canaan, God simultaneously commands that once it was subdued the Jews should treat their neighbors and aliens with respect and kindness. God never commands them to build a divinely sanctioned empire that will conquer all their neighbors and destroy or assimilate them; after all they had been victims of empire themselves in Egypt. Instead God stricly limits violence and leads the Jews to create a society that was a step above that of their neighbors ethically" (McLaren, 170).
"We have to face, sadly but honestly, the reality that in many circumstances...people who ostensibly follow Jesus Christ have violated the plot line of our story, have reversed the flow of the narrative. They have acted regressively, as if the slaugher of the Canaanites were intended as an expression of God's desire for all time, honoring Moses above Jesus, denying where they are in the unfolding narrative. They have kept the ethnic cleansing card in their back pocket, and they have thus become perpetrators and victims of tragically had literacy, confusing the genre of ancient biblical narrative with the modern genres of political constitution or moral dictionary or religious blueprint. As a result they have perferred to read the Bible as a timeless document rather than a timely one" (McLaren, 170).
"And Jesus comes with a new command that fulfills and supersedes all Torah: to love one another, especially to love one's enemies - to forgive, not to inflict revenge, to give, not to take or even grasp what you already have..." (McLaren, 170).
"This narrative approach does not lesson the agony one feels reading the conquest of Canaan with the eyes of one taught by Jesus to love all, including enemies. But it helps turn the Bible back into what it is, not a look it up encylopedia of timeless moral truths, but the unfolding narrative of God at work in a violent, sinful world, calling people, beginning with Abraham, into a new way of life. This isn't deterministic progress of Marxism or capitalism; this is the struggle of common people in the journey of faith, hope and love. And it challenges us: to be truly biblical does not mean being preoccupied with some golden age in the ancient world and God's word to people back then. It means learning from the past to let God's story, God's will, and God's dream continue to come true in us and our children" (McLaren, 171).
Hope this helps a little bit. I know it's rather long, but I think the key argument is seeing the Bible as narrative, and reading this story of the Canaanites in light of the historical-sociological aspects of their day.
Very well done, David and Jason. Asherah poles like dandelions - a very colorful simile. And of course, one lone dandelion poses a threat to an entire yard if not agressively treated.
Jason's comments about narrative are also very much to the point, because even though most post-moderns reject the notion of a metanarrative (one large story for all of humanity - precisely what Christianity claims), they respect the value of narrative over logic. The complete story in context helps the act make sense.
It also helps to know that the Canaanites were active practitioners of child sacrifice, regularly offering them under the misperception that gods would only accept that which was the most precious. So which is worse: infanticide or the death penalty? I avoid the term genocide because of an argument put forward by Jeffrey H. Tigay (about the Deuteronomic imperative which is enacted by Joshua):
"The aim of this unconditional requirement is to rid the land of Canaanites, who might influence Israelites to adopt their abhorrent rites, such as child sacrifice and various occult practices (Deut 12:31; 18:9-12). Note that it is particularly abhorrent rites, and not beliefs, that prompt this policy. By itself, worship of astral bodies and other gods by Canaanites and and other pagans it not counted against them as a sin, since Deuteronomy holds that God assigned such worship to them (see 4:19; 32:8 . . .). Exodus, too, requires ridding the land of the Canaanites to prevent them from influencing Israel, though it prescribes expulsion rather than annihilation. The aim of these policies is defensive, and no action is prescribed against idolatry or idolaters outside Israelite territory. These policies are not based on ethnicity; Deuteronomy prescribes the same treatment for Israelite cities that lapse into idolatry (Deut 13:13-19)." - Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 470-471.
There are several other arguments dealing with the issue, but most of those are too circuitous or else do not deal with the biblical story with a correct amount of respect.
To create an illustrative hypothetical case: if I were president of the United States, and I had the power to prevent infanticide or genocide in a foreign country, would not the moral thing be to stop the killing, even if I were required to do a certain amount of killing to do so? (This was discussed in a West Wing episode some time ago.) God, in his infinite wisdom, has raised and lowered kingdoms, usually based on their morality or lack of it. So, on the basis of moral consequences and of halting infanticide, God had at least two reasons for these instructions that we can understand, and very probably others that we can not understand.
The important thing to remember is Jason's caution about being too quick to apply the Joshua text to our current situation because (1) things have changed, and (2) we don't have God directly telling us to take such an action.
Thank you both for the good discussion.
Post a Comment