Noah and the Preachers

(Warning: intemperate rant follows.)

One of the leading Missouri Synod clergy-bloggers has posted the following lectionary gem for November 29 about the Old Noah the Ark Builder.

Noah, the son of Lamech (Gen 5:30), was instructed by God to build an ark, in which his family would find security from the destructive waters of a devastating flood that God warned would come. Noah built the ark, and the rains descended. The entire earth was flooded destroying “every living thing that was on the face of the ground, both man and beast” (7:23). After the flood waters subsided, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. When Noah determined it was safe, and God confirmed it, he and his family and all the animals disembarked. Then Noah built an altar and offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God for having saved his family from destruction. A rainbow in the sky was declared by God to be a sign of His promise that never again would a similar flood destroy the entire earth (8;20). Noah is remembered and honored for his obedience, believing that God would do what He said He would.The world had become extremely corrupt, so God instructed Noah, the son of Lamech (Genesis 5:30) to build an ark to provide security for his family and selected living creatures from the waters of a devastating flood that God warned was coming (Genesis 6). Noah built the ark, and the flood came soon after its completion (Genesis 7). The entire earth was flooded, blotting out “every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. (7:23)”

What's wrong with this potted bio? Well, nowhere here is there any indication that the Noah story is anything other than a tall tale, an elaborate fiction, crafted in a pre-modern age to explain the origin of - among other things - rainbows. Nor is there any indication that this high-ranking clergyperson is aware that it's used goods from start to finish, a retelling of even more ancient Near Eastern tales, the best known variant being the Epic of Gilgamesh. How exactly do you get away with living in the twenty-first century, and still read this stuff as literal history?

But here's the weird thing. Whereas this guy, a dyed in the wool literalist, seems to believe what he writes - or cut 'n pastes - there are clergy of a more progressive stripe and more refined literary sensibilities who also wouldn't blush to write this same drivel. Among such enlightened types it's perfectly okay to parrot these claims (and yup, claims they are) as long as - nod, nod, wink, wink - those in the loop know that it's not what it seems. Shall we tell the dumb sheep? Not directly; gently does it, we wouldn't want to offend anyone. Let 'em live with their treasure trove of beddy bye stories undisturbed. Let's sing them a liturgical lullaby while sharing knowing adult glances with "our kind" of Christians.

It's a strategy for people - however progressive and metaphorically-minded they might be when in the privacy of their own studies - who have clearly mistaken deceitfulness for subtlety, patronising behaviour for sensitivity, duplicity for depth. If you truly love and honour the scriptures, you're not going to lie about them, not even via the time honoured method of conveniently omitting full disclosure lest the troublesome truth rise up and bite you back. To hide behind sophisticated 'theologising' is just contemptible. Some of these individuals could wrestle theological profundities out of the telephone directory!

Even the Missouri Synod blogger, who I'm sure knows all about "sins of omission", has more integrity than that.

Behold these walls

Jerusalem's Western Wall may not be what everyone thought. Those pesky archaeologists have been digging up the dirt at "Herod's Temple", so to speak, or more specifically the coins in the dirt. Here's the report on Yahoo! and one bloggers take.

This is one of the planet's most revered sacred sites. So, if the latest findings are borne out, does it make a difference?

"[The coins] show that construction of the Western Wall had not even begun at the time of Herod's death. Instead, it was likely completed only generations later by one of his descendants."

Mile High Herb?

I've been slowly working my way through Ben Mitchell's The Last Great Day. It's a novel, "based on a true story." Mitchell grew up as a PK (pastor's kid) in the Worldwide Church of God. Despite some tinkering with names (Armstrong morphs to Abraham etc.) it's recognizably the movement many of us once knew and loved - even if the verb has now changed to loathe.

Chapter 23 tells the tale of a trip on board the Apostle's Gulf Stream II. The time setting is shortly after the release of David Robinson's book Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web, and rumours are spreading like wildfire. It's a time I remember particularly well, having acquired one of the few early copies - and a signed one at that - to reach the shores of New Zealand. In the story, Abraham (Armstrong) while visiting his Australian operation, has invited the none-too-bright minister Henry Conroy, along with his wife Elizabeth, for a joy ride over Perth in the GII. Henry is invited to sit in the cockpit with the pilot - a great privilege - leaving Elizabeth alone with the old goat.

What happen's next? The Apostle lays hands on the hapless Elizabeth.

"Why did you lock the cockpit door?" asked Elizabeth. "Isn't it dangerous? What if they need to tell us something or ask you about our destination?" Abraham sat next to Elizabeth, putting his hand on her knee.

"We are all going to the same place, my child." He skulled his Scotch, running his eyes over Elizabeth's legs as he did... Abraham looked in her eyes, with his ferocious and full of single-minded intent.

"There is no need to be alarmed, my child. In the coming Kingdom of God, all our fears and sins will be forgiven. We are what we are, as God made us, Elizabeth."

"And as God told us through Paul, wives should submit to their husbands only," said Elizabeth, holding the full glass of Scotch with both hands - some kind of pathetic barrier between them...

Abraham thrust his hand up Elizabeth's knee-length skirt, fingering at...

Well, you get the idea. Slimeball Abraham's ardour is doused when Elizabeth drops the glass, which breaks, and Henry rattles the locked door. The saddest line in the chapter is Elizabeth's, and appears toward the end.

In her mind she repeatedly asked herself the same question: How did I lead him on?

Now, okay, this is fiction. But there's a clear autobiographical and family history element in the text; Henry and Elizabeth are closely modelled on Ben's parents. So, one has to wonder whether the incident isn't as far fetched as it sounds. In many ways Herb Armstrong profited from his son's hugely profligate reputation, a barrier that deflected concerns away from himself. In the real world, at this time, there were indeed dark rumours about Herb's own moral choices, particularly when the Apostle was away on his boozy globetrotting sprees with Stan Rader and Osamu Gotoh. Those old enough to have followed the scandal at the time will remember stories about the 'flog log', the dildo in the Hermes pouch, the lusty junior members of the Japanese diet (Herb's 'Japanese sons') who 'partied hearty' on the GII, the stay-over at the Romanian sex clinic... and on it goes.

Maybe Mitchell has conflated Herb and Ted (Garner Ted Armstrong). After all, none of this would surprise us if it was Ted who was portrayed as trying his luck - the evidence about his 'mile high' behaviour is undeniable. But perhaps, like father like son... The man is no longer available to defend himself of course, but then when he was available to defend himself against the allegations in Robinson's book - and from his son - he said nothing. Not even when the allegations turned to incest.

It was Phillip Adams who may have provided the most apt epitaph for Armstrong, writing in the Weekend Australian Magazine in February 1986.

It must come as a great shock to both of them, but Herbert W. Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard are dead. These god-like gurus, who dominated the lives of countless disciples, have carked it, snuffed it and kicked the bucket. And the world is a better place for their passing.

Mitchell's book brings back none-too-pleasant memories. But then, those who ignore the past are most certainly condemned to repeat it.

(Outside Australia Mitchell's book is available from Amazon in a Kindle edition.)

Does Bart Ehrman's Mythic Book Exist?

Bart Ehrman is writing a book on the Christ Myth theory - or, better said, theories. He's a skeptic. Not a skeptic about the Historical Jesus, but a skeptic about the mythicist position.

I've heard Ehrman rant about this on a couple of podcasts and, with no exaggeration, he went feral on both occasions.

So the chance to get his views in a coherent, non-confrontationalist form should prove interesting. Equally interesting is the publisher's strategy of launching the volume only as an e-book. HarperCollins, which is still producing hard-copy-only versions of some of its titles, is seemingly testing the e-waters. Here's the skinny:

For years Bart Ehrman has been routinely bombarded with one question: Did Jesus exist? As a leading Bible expert, fans and critics alike have sent letters, emails, posted blogs, and questioned Ehrman during interviews wanting his opinion about this nagging question that has become a conspiracy theorist cottage industry the world over. The idea that the character of Jesus was an invention of the early church -- and later a tool of control employed by the Roman Catholic Church -- is a widely held belief and Ehrman has decided it’s time to put the issue to rest. Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshalling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the popular mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

Those committed to the “non-existence” theory will need to read this formidable scholar’s counter argument while the more traditionally minded will enthusiastically support Ehrman’s definitive answer to the question. Perfect for the vigorous online debating community, this eBook original will be a must read for anyone interested in Jesus, the Bible, and the birth of Christianity.

To be released in March next year.

Church Shopping With Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann wants to be President of the United States.

Well, Americans can choose whoever they like. This weekend Kiwis go to the polls to elect a new government of their own, and that's tribulation enough for me.

But Bachmann's latest flip flop on religious affiliation is just bizarre. It's all documented here.

The Big Ten

The third in the Channel 4 series The Bible: A History screened tonight on SBS1. I missed the first fifteen minutes, tuning in just before this week's presenter, Ann Widdecombe, arrived at St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Tonight's topic, the Ten Commandments. Widdecombe, a Tory MP and convert to Catholicism, reminds me a lot of one of those formidable childhood aunts that were common in the 1960s, committed to common decency to the core, and quite unable to imagine any society that wasn't wedded to mainline Christianity being able to avoid anarchy and rampant wickedness in low places.

Highlights? A brief chat with Henry Wansbrough, a testy face-off with Francesca Stavrakopoulou, an acid reference to 'trendy skeptics' immediately prior to a heated encounter with first Christopher Hitchens (a fellow fan of Marcion, much to my surprise), then Stephen Fry.

Low points? The naive treatment of the 'Books of Moses', which Widdecombe clearly prefers to think of as written by Moses himself, despite a ton of evidence to the contrary, and the whole world-denying mindset. Was there any advance here, I wondered, over the poisonous tract I read as a teenager called The Ten Commandments promoting the near-fascist fundamentalism of its author, Roderick Meredith?

Quote of the evening: "Perhaps we could do with a touch of Puritanism today."

Next week promises to be a bit of a contrast as Bettany Hughes sets out, flaming sword in hand, to discover "that far from being a 'sexist' book, [the Bible] is packed full of brave, heroic and ruthless women who still have a lot to say to the women of today."

Wright or Wrong?

It's one of those key texts that everyone knows, the first verses of John: In the beginning was the Word.

But what does one make of N. T. Wright's new translation in The Kingdom New Testament, released last month?

The Word "was close beside God"?  And yet "was God"?  How does that work? To be "close beside" still implies distance (just not a lot) and separation.

The variation between "was with" and "was" doesn't seem quite so striking in other translations, but here it hits you - or at least it does me - full on.

The more common translations seem to slide the emphasis in verse 2 to the time frame: He was in the beginning with God (NAB). Wright's choice puts the stress on the second part: In the beginning, he was close to God.

Wright also translates this whole section as prose, whereas many would regard it as a hymn, better rendered in verse (and so less open to dogmatic speculation.)

You do have to wonder what the Johannine author was trying to communicate, though of course we're never likely to know. Strip away the anachronistic Trinitarian bias though, and I wonder if Hugh Schonfield didn't come close.

In the beginning was the Word.

And the Word was with God.

So the Word was divine.

It was in the beginning with God.