(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

The violent God

with 13 comments

  • Sharebar

I was watching this video of the 2004 Emergent Conversation the other day and I was immediately struck by a quote from Walter Brueggemann about the violence attributed to God in the Hebrew bible.

“God is a recovering practitioner of violence.”

If you watch the video, the quote comes at about 29:00.  For some of the context behind what he is saying and the question he is responding to start at about 25:00.  Or watch the whole thing.  It’s definitely worth it.  There’s also a part two here.

But I want to return to that quote.  The problem of God and violence, be it in the Hebrew Bible or in the atonement, is not new.  And I am by no means have the answer, or an answer at all really.

I have to admit that I was put off by that quote when I first heard.  But I’ve been thinking about it since then and it has grown on me.  This of course questions the traditional view that God is static and completely unchanged.  I know that.  To be honest,  I don’t really have much vested interest in defending that claim that God is wholly static.  But I want to set that and any knee-jerk reactions we might of God being disrespected aside here if we can.

The main rebuttal of any suggestion that God might be participating in violence is that an text that attributes violence to God is simply the projection of human desire onto God.  So, the x group of people wants to kill and dominate y group of people.  So x group imagines that God commands them to kill y group.  That may make sense, but I don’t know that I am satisfied with that answer.  Neither is Brueggemann.  He thinks, and I tend to agree with him, that such an argument is a very slippery slope.  So, at what point do actions/virtues attributed to God in scripture cease to be human projections?  Or, are all attributes to God projected?  That may very well be true.  But we still have to deal with the violent projections.  What makes a projection of love better than a projection of violence?  The answer to that seems obvious, but it must be dealt with.

Things start to get really hairy really quick.

What do you think of Brueggemann’s quote?  Do you think that God might be “a recovering practitioner of violence?”  Is there any truth to that?  If so, what does what are the ramifications?  If not, why not?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Written by Blake Huggins

January 28th, 2009 at 7:30 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , ,

«
»
  • http://johnmeunier.wordpress.com John Meunier

    I'm not sure about recovering. That sounds like God was an addict.

    The biblical evidence suggests to me that God can and does change. Read the Noah story. At least one of the creation stories suggests woman was not thought up until all the other ideas did not seem to fit the bill. Over and over, the Bible suggests a God who changes and responds in new ways to new things. God's steadfast faithfulness does not change, perhaps. But God does seem to – dare I use this word – learn as he goes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    I agree about the biblical evidence. Especially in the Hebrew text. In fact, I might goes so far as to say that that is a recurring theme in God's relationship to the Israelites.

    I think you may be right about "recovering." I'm not sure about the idea of God being addicting to violence. A past practitioner maybe. What would you word would you suggest using instead?

  • http://blog.hackingchristianity.net UMJeremy

    I have a biblical criticism and a theological response.

    Biblical criticism: I have to keep in mind that these are stories of how people interacted with God. In some ways, they might have written of their experience what was true for them, even if it was not fact. I'm inclined to give God in the Hebrew Bible a pass given that what the Hebrew people may have remembered about God is true, but not fact.

    Theological criticism: I wonder…since humanity is always in the process of becoming, then why not God being in process as well? And if so, does that mean our goalposts of becoming one with God are constantly changing?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jakebouma Jake Bouma

    Perhaps it is better to say "The story of God is one which is recovering from a history of violence"… I'm not sure whether or not we can hoist that accusation upon God (and yes, I'm well aware it's right there in the OT). I would also prefer "redeeming" to "recovering"; that is, we as God's people are seeking to redeem the violence in our collective history, which is found both in the scriptures and in historical Christianity.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    I think you're spot on with the theology part. When God is conceived as being in process with us, a lot of the extra baggage of God being implicated in violence is avoided. The violence itself isn't avoided, it' just dealt with differently.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    I like that a lot Jake. After all, the bible is a narrative. And adding "redeeming" as a qualifier implies that current cycles and spirals of violence can and must be redeemed, instead of merely explained away.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    I like that a lot Jake. After all, the bible is a narrative. And adding "redeeming" as a qualifier implies that current cycles and spirals of violence can and must be redeemed, instead of merely explained away.

  • http://www.leftofselfcenter.com Brett Marko

    This is a recurrent criticism of the bible. People say how can you justify a God who engages in genocide or kills people. Yet if we look at the Bible in the terms of God seeking a relationship with his people, then it makes more sense. The peoples that are "victims of violence" are people of violent or sinful natures. One thing I have always know is that those who are violent often suffer violent ends. Consequences happen to those who perpetrate violence. Just as a rabid dog is put down to protect people, often rabid people suffer the consequences for their actions as well. God has a history of reaching out time after time to people despite their not deserving it. Then people cry foul when their actions cause them suffering. Some things have never change.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    Hi Brett, thanks for stopping by.

    "The peoples that are "victims of violence" are people of violent or sinful natures. One thing I have always know is that those who are violent often suffer violent ends. Consequences happen to those who perpetrate violence."

    I want to push back on this a little. First, I think that claim only works in favor of the Hebrews. They pay very little consequences when you consider the amount of violence that they perpetrate. And most of the time they only carry out violence to expand their territory and resources, not because their perceived enemy is violent or sinful.

    But even more important is this: how is more violence a just consequence for those who perpetrate it? It seems to me that that only continues the spiral of violence. And if we're still talking about divinely sanctioned violence and genocide here then I shudder at what that might say about the nature of God regardless of how sinful a people might be. It turns into a vicious cycle of more and more violence.

    I guess my question to you would be is divine violence and appropriate response to human violence and sinfulness?

  • http://www.leftofselfcenter.com Brett Marko

    I have to disagree with you that it only applies to the Hebrews. God throughout the Bible has been seeing relationship with us. So let's look at some of the "violence" that God has brought upon people. Many look at the slaughter of the Amalekites as one such event. Yet who was Amalek other than the son of Elphaz and a concubine, who himself was the son of Esau. So therefore he is part of the covenant between Abraham and God concerning his heirs. The covenant between Isaac and God concerning his heirs. Yet the Amalekites abandoned this.

    Let's take another. What about the killing of the Canaanites. Well Canaan was the son of Ham and he is heir to the covenant of Noah. Yet Canaan fell away from God. They are said to have become evil.

    Moabites and Ammonites were born of incest with Lot and his daughters. Lot was an heir to Abraham's covenant.

    So I am not certain if your argument applies. So I pose a question. Where is the line between being under judgment or being disciplined and "violence"?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/blakehuggins Blake Huggins

    I still think it at least works for the Hebrews benefit. The get to carry out the "punishment," by and large, yet they themselves are never annihilated. They were hardly without sin. So why the exception? I think that is curious.

    More importantly, I do agree that God is seeking relationship with us. That is crucial. God is seeking relationship with everyone. And the overall narrative of the bible bears witness to that for sure. But it's hard to have a relationship with someone if you decide to punish them by killing them.

    I think it's very dangerous to conflate divinely sanctioned violence, or violence at all, as a form of just discipline. I believe that there is always room for redemption and right relationship. Violence simply doesn't allow for that.

    Is divinely sanctioned violence compatible with a God who is always seeking relationship? Or, do only some of us get to be part of that relationship and others simply placed under judgment via God's violence?

    Thanks again for the comments. I'm really enjoying the dialogue.

  • Thomas

    All the covenant relationships seems to remind me of kings and their covenant relationships with other kings. When one king violates a covenant, like no longer honoring the gift of one of the Kings daughters as a wife then one king will speak ill of the other king and his people and the cycle violence hence comes forth and the projection of God allowing and giving direction on how to go about this violence is given. (I am new to this) .

  • Thomas

    All the covenant relationships seems to remind me of kings and their covenant relationships with other kings. When one king violates a covenant, like no longer honoring the gift of one of the Kings daughters as a wife then one king will speak ill of the other king and his people and the cycle violence hence comes forth and the projection of God allowing and giving direction on how to go about this violence is given. (I am new to this) .