Random crumbs falling from a TED talk

An interesting TED talk here on the psychology of evil, by Philip Zimbardo, leader of the notorious 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment.

His basic premise is that there are three contributive factors to the production of evil in people.

1. Disposition of the individual - are they a bad apple?
2. The situation - are the apples in a bad barrel?
3. The system - the legal, political, economic and cultural background that creates the situation.

It is, I think, excellent analysis.  The individuals WILL bring good and bad to a situation, the situation WILL provide a varying degree of temptation to act out negatively and the milieu of law, politics, economic and cultural factors WILL systemically produce certain types of those situations.

It also, it seems to me, is a perfect match for the biblical account of sin.

1. According to Scripture, sin is an individual, responsibility bearing choice.
2. The Bible also says that different situations bring about certain temptations to sin that other situations do not.  (Though, fascinatingly, God seems to use these for good!)
3. Sin gives rise to systemic sin within a population, often until it results in a tragedy of such great magnitude that in God's common grace some of the errors of the age are realised.  Then new ones are formed...

Some fascinating quotes:

Starting with the idea that God created Lucifer, who then rebelled against God and 'became' the devil:

"Paradoxically, it was God who created hell as a place to store evil. He didn't do a good job of keeping it there though."

Some interesting angles there on the nature of the world into which God placed the garden and Adam and Eve.  Biblically, it sure wasn't a perfect world.  Adam and Eve, but particularly Adam, were charged with protecting that garden from evil and chaos, and even to extend the goodness of orderliness of the garden out into the world.

In regards to Abu Ghraib:

"So another report, an investigative report by General Fay, says the system is guilty."

But the question for me is, why do we blame the system?  That people act in certain ways in certain situations doesn't absolve a person of responsibility for actions.  That there is a rich complex of influences going on is worth recognising, but doesn't make the reality of individual responsibility a non-issue.

And this very interesting set of experimental conclusions: (I've added some bible verses in brackets afterwards, because I think there are some striking resemblances)

"So what are the seven social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil? 

Mindlessly taking the first small step (Psalm 1:1)

Dehumanization of others. (Disregard for Gen 9:6, or from another angle, Romans 2:1) 

De-individuation of Self. (Colossians 3:1 - be who you are!)  

Diffusion of personal responsibility.(Genesis 3) 

Blind obedience to authority. (Matthew 15:14 and Ephesians 4:14)  

Uncritical conformity to group norms. (Galatians 2:11-12)  

Passive tolerance to evil through inaction or indifference. (Genesis 3 - Adam, I'm looking at you.)"

Instances of Gen 3 - #5 - Genesis 39

One part of what I've been doing as I've been working through Genesis has been to see whether Genesis 3 (with my particular reading of it) could be acting as a type-scene against which many of the subsequent events of Genesis can be set.

I think Genesis 39 is also such a scene. Let's look for some parallels.  (Not because parallels are cool in and of themselves, but because they point to the author trying to see one scene in the light of another, which enables us to better understand what the author is trying to do.)

Firstly, both scenes involve a woman desiring something forbidden to her. Secondly, they both involved a man who has been given absolutely everything, and has been forbidden only one thing.*  Third, that man is responsible to rule and care for all those things.  Fourth, we get Yhwh's blessing and increasing that sphere of influence.

Here's one which may be a long bow, but let me know what you think.  Have a look at verses 6 & 7.

So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, "Lie with me." (Gen 39:7 ESV)(Gen 39:6 ESV)

Why did he mention food and eating?  Completely irrelevant detail!  Just coincidence that this story juxtaposes something that's desirable to the eye with food and eating?  ^raised eyebrow^

Sixth, Joseph does not 'listen to her', the act of Adam that Yhwh cites as the reason the ground is cursed.

Convinced?  No?  That's ok.  But indulge me a moment.

If I'm right to read ch39 in the light of ch3, then a very interesting thing happens to the main point.  Have a look at how Joseph resists the temptation to sin. (I'm assuming it's not just that Potiphar's wife is fugly)

But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge.

He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:8-9 ESV)

What was Joseph's weapon of choice against the temptation to take?  To remind himself of what he'd been given.  Joseph's weapon, was thankfulness.  Gratitude.

Which, if you'll recall, is the opposite of Gen 3 where the serpent turns the generosity of Yhwh in giving all things into the stinginess of God in withholding the one.

When faced with the choice to sin or not to sin, to take that which God has said not to take, thankfulness is a great weapon.  And I mean this in two ways.

Firstly, it reminds you of the fullness you already have.  How could you sin against the one who has given you everything?  Literally!  Is that other thing you want worth so much?
Secondly, it recalls the goodness, the generosity, of the giver.  The one who is reminded of just how much he/she has been given by God trusts that God will continue to do the right thing by them: both in giving, and in withholding.


To be continued...


* Yes, that conjunction is definitely meant to be 'and' and not 'but'.  The serpent would have used 'but', but.

Genesis intratextuality

I started out a set of observations from my reading through Genesis here and here.  The idea is essentially this:

There's a pattern emerging through Genesis where certain characters grasp at something that they already have, whether in actuality or by promise of Yhwh.  The result of the grasping tends to be the loss or spoiling of that which they have grasped for.  The prevailing theme is faith, or lack of faith, that Yhwh has given them that good thing.

For Eve, that was the knowledge of good and evil. Though she possessed it, she was tricked into thinking God had been stingy and so she grasped for it, and lost it, in the eating of the fruit of the tree.


For Sarah, it was having a son.  Though Abraham had received the promise of a son, she grasped at it by giving Hagar to Abraham, and ended up causing Isaac and his descendants the problem of their relationship with Hagar's son, Ishmael.

Now we come to Genesis 22 and the great test of Abraham's faith.  Will he give his only son back to God?  The one through whom God's blessings were promised to flow?  Or will he grasp at him, attempting to keep that which God has said he must give up?

It seems utterly impossible for Abraham to believe that Yhwh will provide for him an heir through Isaac.  The very act that Yhwh asks of him inherently destroys any hope of this.  Yet in a complete reversal of our previous scenes, Abraham trusts Yhwh in the impossible situation.  He freely gives up that which Yhwh had given him and in whom the rest of Yhwh's promises will stand or fall.  He entrusts himself to Yhwh's goodness in spite of all human logic.  (It thus makes sense that Hebrews 11:19 ascribes to him a divine wisdom that affronts all human experience and common sense.)

This scene is the ultimate example of trust in the providence of Yhwh, against all his human experience of possibility.  It is also the polar opposite of the actions of Eve and Sarah in grasping at that of which Yhwh had already assured them.  It is an anti-type-scene in every conceivable way.

The author sets Abraham's insane trust in the providence of Yhwh against the grasping of Eve and Sarah, whose lack of trust had varying degrees of "understandability".

There is so much pastoral application in these chapters that is really huge for our generation.  No time for it here, but perhaps I'll rant about it in another post.  This series is about establishing a pattern of scenes in Genesis, which in turn may enhance the case for my project's slant on Genesis 3.

Next stop, Genesis 27, where the scene reverts to type...

Intertextuality #2: the fun part

I posited here an argument for a strong thematic connection between Genesis 3 and Genesis 16.  While that's fun in itself, it was the possibilities that this connection unearthed that began to pique my interest.

I have suggested in some detail here that Genesis 3 is perhaps best understood as Eve grasping for something that she already possessed.  If this is right, then might that pattern also be repeated later in Genesis?

Indeed, it's worth asking why women are the focus in so much of the, if you'll excuse the pun, patriarchal narratives.

Genesis 16 is a case in point.  In what sense could Sarai be described as having grasped at that which she already had?

Well, if we understand Yhwh's promise that Abram would have countless descendants in its most natural sense (ie, that he would bear them through his wife), then in effect Sarai had already received the child she was grasping for: by promise.  The thematic links are strengthened somewhat in perceiving that lack of trust in God's word is a key operative in both cases.

Eve failed to trust that God had been good to her in what he had spoken to her.  Could we perhaps suggest that Sarai did the same?

The journey through Genesis should be interesting.  I'm holding out some hope that these intertextual links will provide some support for my reading of Genesis 3.



NB.  Feminists, don't get too agitated too quickly about where I'm going with this.  We'll get to Tamar who provides some narrative counter-balance and nuance.

Is there an 'inter' in this texuality?

I'm reading through the Bible cover to cover at the moment (much closer to one cover than the other) and am noticing some interesting things upon reading Genesis afresh.  For example, Genesis 16 seems to follow a familiar pattern.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
 3 So, after Abram ahad lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.
 5 And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May athe LORD judge between you and me!"
 6 But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Gen 16:1-6 ESV)

Seeing anything yet?

The driving tension involves a husband, a wife and Yhwh.  The tension is brought to a head as the wife becomes convinced that Yhwh is stingy and has short-changed her.  This is stated in a way that contains a certain amount of factual truth, while misrepresenting the character of Yhwh's actions.
The wife perceives a means by which she may gain that which Yhwh has allegedly withheld from her.  This course of action seems good to her, despite seeming obviously flawed to the reader.  And so the wife takes, and gives to her husband.  The husband, passively and without a reported word, listens to his wife and receives that which is offered.

Then the negative consequences become all too apparent to the man and wife.  Each party shifts responsibility for the situation to the other.  The final result, is that someone becomes an exile.

Sound familiar?  If there isn't significant reference to patterns set up in Genesis 3 I'll eat my exegetical hat.  Which is easy.  Because it's imaginary.  Unless you buy me a real one.

Implications for exegesis?  Probably lots, I'd have to think about it.  Or get you guys to tell me.  It really casts the Genesis 16 event in terms of the nature of Adam and Eve's sin.  It proceeds again from a wrong view of God and ends in a failure to trust his predictive word.

Now something that is also interesting to me is the fact that there are, perhaps, particular resonances with Genesis 3 when read as I have in my project.  I'll post on that soon, God willing.

The problem with envy and jealousy...

... is that they take a dissatisfaction with God and the circumstances that he's placed you in and project them onto a (often innocent) third party.

They turn love to hate. (Genesis 4, 1 Sam 18:6-9)
They distract disciples from following. (John 21:18-22)

Cain's problem wasn't Abel, Saul's problem wasn't David and Peter's problem wasn't John. Their problem was with God, and simply focussed on someone else.

Nasty, nasty stuff that, by the above definition, crouches at the door just when you're most down.

Summary of the 3-part gospel cure:

1. When we're dissatisfied or in trouble, the gospel says come to God directly to lodge your complaint. Let God have it (in both senses), don't take it out on someone else.
2. The gospel teaches us that God owes us nothing, but has given us grace upon grace upon grace. He doesn't owe us, he owns us.
3. The gospel is the message of a pearl more valuable than anything you've ever known. A person you'd sell everything you own in order to know. In a heartbeat and with a smile on your face.
   
   If you know Jesus, you've got the pearl. Why be jealous of someone holding a bag of rubbish? (Philippians 3:7-8)

I'm glad that...

God only reveals to me as much of my own sin as I'm able to cope with at the time.

:)

A clarification of a fun discussion

There's been a big bunch of discussion on all things sin and depraved going on lately between Simon (here and here + comments) and Nathan (here and here + comments) and myself.

My thoughts (here and here + comments) aren't actually centred on quite the same focus as Simone and Nathan's, from what I can tell. My point is merely to give an anthropology which gives an acceptable approximation of the Scripture's testimony about us. In so doing, I've dealt with the area of sin as a matter of necessity.

My point, though, hasn't been to create a method for dealing with temptation. No how-to guides here.

And so, in this way, I say a hearty 'amen' to many of the points made by both Nathan and Simone. Particularly, to many of the things that Nathan said from Romans 6 in his post on righteousness.

I'll try to engage with their thinking on temptation (which, to me, seems ultimately to be the context for Simone's thinking) and the 'stance' of the Christian life in general (which seems to be the context for Nathan's thinking) in the next couple of days.

What's going on inside (part 2 of 2)

See part 1 here.

This helps us to understand something about ourselves and sin.

When people talk about 'working out who you are', my answer was: I know who I am, a dirty, rotten sinner and pathetic to boot. So the process of self-discovery isn't actually a beneficial one.

Using the tripartite view of a Christian that we looked at in part 1 means that we can now investigate something of person 1 from the messed up combination that we have now become.

Example: A person has a strong desire to lust sexually. Now the devil never created anything good, but only twists something good that God has made. My hypothesis is that the desire for something wrong has its basis in a good desire that's been twisted.

It's like archery. When you shoot and hit the bullseye, it's fun for everyone. When that good thing gets pointed in the wrong direction, someone's bum gets an extra hole.

So, the process of trying to work out your God-given passions becomes a process of working out something: What good thing am I desiring that my sinful nature is twisting and making evil?

So, in the case of lust, an example could be that the person desires a fulfilling and intimate relationship, but is reaching for something else to scratch that itch, or reaching for it in a wrong way.

I find this way of thinking helpful because it allows me to give my humanity, sin and redemption the full recognition they deserve:

1. My humanity, because I recognise that God created me so well.
2. My sin, because I have messed up so thoroughly something that was so good.
3. My redemption, because it ... (this is a fuzzy area in my thinking, so I'll leave it until I've sorted through the implications of my thoughts.)*

Lastly, it helps me to work out how I can rightly 'be myself'. It doesn't mean just doing what I feel like. It means unravelling the threads that have been knotted by sin, correcting yourself and working to be the man I was created to be with the help of Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

*Yes, the redemption part hasn't been well-worked in this theory. Contributions towards that would be appreciated.

What's going on inside (part 1 of 2)

Over the last year or so, I've been reflecting on how I've often heard about the two natures struggling within us. That is, our sinful, fleshly nature and our new life in Christ by the Spirit. What I've realised is that I think that I've not heard as much as I should have about the third nature that we have, and how it relates to the others. That is, my original creation in the image of God, sustained by His common grace.

What I'm getting at is that:

1. I was created good. *
2. The good image of God was twisted in sin, and more as I sin more. **
3. I died to the second life, and was raised with Christ into a new life. ***

Thus, I actually have 3 natures, in a way. With me so far? I'll go further on the significance of this soon. (Or you could just spoil it for yourself and see what Simone reckons here. Or you could be patient and wait 'til tomorrow. I'm not going to decide for you.)

________________________________________

* Insert trite prooftexts here.

** No prooftexts required for an evangelical readership.

*** Also, perhaps, able to be viewed as a redemption of the initial nature, though exactly how that works is as yet unclear to me.

Hanging by a thread

I'm only this time reading through realising how heavy this sentence is. It's literally a death sentence.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Imagine the increasing tension in listening to that sentence as it was first uttered.

...

Also, something of the weight of that sentence dawned on me too. The consequences of the fall here are un-creation. The un-doing of the last 2 chapters. Not only that, but the un-making of something that is the image of God!

Everything that was set up in the last 2 chapters now seems like it's hanging by a thread. What next?

Bigger verse than I had realised before.

An interesting question to ask

From Genesis 3:

He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

What an interesting set of questions!

Firstly, why did God ask "Who told you? instead of something like "How do you know?"? (Note the correct use of question marks) The question doesn't even confirm Adam's statement that he's naked. What exactly was God anticipating in asking which person made the assertion? What is the answer to it?

Secondly, how does the first question give rise to the second? What is the necessary link between the two? If you play the imaginary mind-game that God didn't know what had happened, why is this the obvious second question after asking the first?

I'll post some thoughts in the next couple of days.

Seriously messed up

I was sitting there, thinking this thought which was, in a way, quite sinful. And then, suddenly, it hits me that my wife is about to start teaching her Scripture class. I hurriedly start praying for her, the kids and the truth of the message that she'll be teaching them. All the while, I'm feeling very weird about making such prayers, because of the immediately preceding thought.

Such contradiction in such a short space!

So after I pray, I want to continue thinking along the sinful lines that I had been previously. I genuinely wanted to. I really needed to distract myself with something productive to give that thought room to leave.

Jesus, I be a messed up follower.