Natalie Burris

3 years ago: the Bible story you never heard in Sunday school

From May 2011:

Timothy Beal, in The Rise and Fall of the Bible, points out the story of Phineas, found in Numbers 25.  Israel is suffering from a plague, and Moses' explanation is that God is punishing them for their inter-ethnic marriages. A priest, Phineas, discovers an inter-ethnic couple, and impales both of them on the same spear.  As a result, God then lifts the deadly plague, blesses Phineas, and promises him an everlasting priesthood.  Today, many white supremacist groups rely on this story to bolster their ideas of racial and ethnic purity.

Chapter 7 of Beal's book paints the Bible as a library, a collection, rather than one univocal book.  In fact, the Greek word for Scripture was "ta biblia," which is a plural form of book or scroll.  Due to mistranslation, a word that was supposed to signify a collection of biblical literature now represents a single, unified, authoritative text. 

Beal quotes the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who fleshed out the idea of "impoverishment by univocality."  When we force a text to be univocal, having one voice, then we miss out on its richness.  Beal writes, "To interpret with the goal of 'getting to the point' about what a text really means is an act of impoverishment" (p. 147).  Not allowing the contradictions, tensions, and ambiguities to stand is making the Bible out to be something that it isn't.

Beal highlights the polyvocality of the Bible, to avoid forcing our univocal expectations on it.  He points out many instances of contradictory stories in Scripture - too many to name here.  Many are well aware of the contradictions.  

But Beal makes an excellent point that hit home.  This polyvocality can become difficult for those of us who emphasize the Bible's message of love and nonviolence.  

The Bible has been used to both support and abolish slavery.  It has been quoted to both oppress and liberate women.  It has served as fodder for both warriors and peacemakers.  As a progressive Christian, I get very uncomfortable, especially when I read stories like the one in Numbers 25.  Beal notes:

Countering such atrocious uses of biblical literature is not so simple as calling them misrepresentations of the Bible.  We must face the fact that stories like that of Phineas are there, generating suspicion of ethnic otherness and motivating violence against others in our midst. (p. 156)

Reading the text honestly, Beal remarks, it's difficult to deny that the text is a source of both oppression and liberation from that oppression.  If I'm going to accept the God-is-love message of the Bible, I have to come to terms with all of the Bible, even the parts that I want to push away.  I can't pretend that the verses that seemingly support a white supremacy movement aren't there.  Beal explains:

When we pretend that, deep down, all the voices are really saying the same thing and ought to be able to get along, we forfeit our responsibility as inheritors of this richly, sometimes disturbingly, contradictive literature. 

I am posting my thoughts about this book as I'm reading it, so I don't yet know where Beal will go after this.  It's times like these I wish I weren't a layperson, and that I had a biblical studies and/or theology background.  However, I don't think it should take a seminary degree to work out one's faith in the face of a Bible that can be disturbing to that faith at times.  

I will be sure to share what, if anything, Beal proposes. (Ah, how I so want everything to be all figured out and presented to me in a tidy box.  I'm afraid it won't be the case here...)

2 years ago: Pro-life evangelicals and prior inconsistent statements

From February 2012:

The Gospel Coalition blog recently rounded up some evangelical leaders' calls for civil disobedience. Requiring religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception (regardless of who actually pays for it), is effectively forcing pro-life Christians to violate their conscience. These evangelicals claim that some of the drugs to be covered are abortifacients.

Such violation of religious liberty will not stand.  These men, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are so concerned about human life that they will not tolerate even the most remote connection to birth control that results in the ending of even the most basic forms of human life.  Innocent, defenseless lives are at stake here.

Chuck Colson says he loves his country, "but I love my God more . . . I've made up my mind---sober as that decision would have to be---that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."  

Rick Warren so bravely proclaimed, "I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do."  

Richard Land and Barrett Duke wrote an impassioned call to Christians to oppose this measure, which is an "affront to all people who are pro-life" (emphasis added).

I'm in my last semester of law school, and have been trained to impeach witnesses up on the stand because of a little something called a "prior inconsistent statement."  Our justice system is so concerned with the credibility of witnesses that we have carved out an exception to hearsay rules, which normally prohibit out-of-court statements, so that those words can be used against witnesses if they make previous inconsistent statements.  Once the witness is confronted with the inconsistency, she is impeached and her word is no longer credible.  

To me, Colson, Warren, and Land have lost credibility based on their prior inconsistent statements about their support of innocent, defenseless human lives and whether they would put the state before their faith in God.

In 2003, when the Bush administration was preparing to pre-emptively invade another country, many evangelical leaders offered their support, or at least helped justify, this military action, which resulted in over 100,000 documented Iraqi civilian deaths.  When allegations later surfaced that the U.S. military was using an especially heinous form of torture on prisoners of war, some evangelical leaders again stepped up to help justify torture.

Chuck Colson reasoned that "if a competent authority honestly believed that [torture] was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."  Yes, this is the same Chuck Colson that you just read about above, who proclaimed that while he does love his country, he wouldn't let his state get in the way of his stand for the Lord.  

Rick Warren, in 2008, performed some post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, despite the Bush administration's later-disproved reasons for invading in the first place: "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point."  Yes, this is the same Rick Warren who valiantly rails against a government who makes us violate God's commands.

Richard Land stated in 2006 that the Iraq war "was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done."  Yes, the same Richard Land who, as we saw above, so passionately protested against government action that is an affront to people who are pro-life.

None of these men offered such an unequivocal statement in support of innocent, defenseless human lives when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq and later sanction torture.  No one called for civil disobedience when reports started pouring in of civilian deaths, or of the U.S.'s best and brightest being blown up by roadside bombs, or of those same best and brightest being driven to suicide once they're home, or of the estimated 900,000 Iraqi women who are now widows.

Such duplicity disgusts me.  I know no one is perfect and that stances change, and I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect.  But such pompous calls for civil disobedience simply make my stomach turn.  I can't help but think of the death and destruction in Iraq that was abetted by some U.S. evangelicals.  The juxtaposition doesn't sit well with me, and I have a feeling it doesn't sit well with many other people in my generation.  

If you want to make valiant, impassioned, public calls to put your faith in God before your obedience to the government, at least be consistent.  Because if not, even an inexperienced law student would have you impeached on the stand in a heartbeat.

Photo copyright 2013 by From Sovereign to Serf

Pro-life evangelicals and prior inconsistent statements

The Gospel Coalition blog recently rounded up some evangelical leaders' calls for civil disobedience. Requiring religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception (regardless of who actually pays for it), is effectively forcing pro-life Christians to violate their conscience. These evangelicals claim that some of the drugs to be covered are abortifacients.

Such violation of religious liberty will not stand.  These men, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are so concerned about human life that they will not tolerate even the most remote connection to birth control that results in the ending of even the most basic forms of human life.  Innocent, defenseless lives are at stake here.

Chuck Colson says he loves his country, "but I love my God more . . . I've made up my mind---sober as that decision would have to be---that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."  

Rick Warren so bravely proclaimed, "I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do."  

Richard Land and Barrett Duke wrote an impassioned call to Christians to oppose this measure, which is an "affront to all people who are pro-life" (emphasis added).

I'm in my last semester of law school, and have been trained to impeach witnesses up on the stand because of a little something called a "prior inconsistent statement."  Our justice system is so concerned with the credibility of witnesses that we have carved out an exception to hearsay rules, which normally prohibit out-of-court statements, so that those words can be used against witnesses if they make previous inconsistent statements.  Once the witness is confronted with the inconsistency, she is impeached and her word is no longer credible.  

To me, Colson, Warren, and Land have lost credibility based on their prior inconsistent statements about their support of innocent, defenseless human lives and whether they would put the state before their faith in God.

In 2003, when the Bush administration was preparing to pre-emptively invade another country, many evangelical leaders offered their support, or at least helped justify, this military action, which resulted in over 100,000 documented Iraqi civilian deaths.  When allegations later surfaced that the U.S. military was using an especially heinous form of torture on prisoners of war, some evangelical leaders again stepped up to help justify torture.

Chuck Colson reasoned that "if a competent authority honestly believed that [torture] was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."  Yes, this is the same Chuck Colson that you just read about above, who proclaimed that while he does love his country, he wouldn't let his state get in the way of his stand for the Lord.  

Rick Warren, in 2008, performed some post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, despite the Bush administration's later-disproved reasons for invading in the first place: "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point."  Yes, this is the same Rick Warren who valiantly rails against a government who makes us violate God's commands.

Richard Land stated in 2006 that the Iraq war "was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done."  Yes, the same Richard Land who, as we saw above, so passionately protested against government action that is an affront to people who are pro-life.

None of these men offered such an unequivocal statement in support of innocent, defenseless human lives when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq and later sanction torture.  No one called for civil disobedience when reports started pouring in of civilian deaths, or of the U.S.'s best and brightest being blown up by roadside bombs, or of those same best and brightest being driven to suicide once they're home, or of the estimated 900,000 Iraqi women who are now widows.

Such duplicity disgusts me.  I know no one is perfect and that stances change, and I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect.  But such pompous calls for civil disobedience simply make my stomach turn.  I can't help but think of the death and destruction in Iraq that was abetted by some U.S. evangelicals.  The juxtaposition doesn't sit well with me, and I have a feeling it doesn't sit well with many other people in my generation.  

If you want to make valiant, impassioned, public calls to put your faith in God before your obedience to the government, at least be consistent.  Because if not, even an inexperienced law student would have you impeached on the stand in a heartbeat.

Health care v. defense spending

The health care bill (the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act) will cost $1 trillion over 10 years.  However, as the below video illustrates, the proposed defense budget for 2011 is $1.6 trillion - for one year.  The video also shows how 53% of the U.S.'s budget finances the military.  Let's remember this during the presidential debates this year.

 

 

 

And James McGrath shared this great cartoon last week:

Last chance!

August is coming to a close, but there's still time to help out in the Horn of Africa.  It looks like only I've donated so far, so I would be honored if, before August ends, anyone else would be willing to pitch in as well.  It only costs 17 cents to provide one person with a nutritious meal...  

For more info on the crisis, please check out this page.

Please click here to give.

Could you give up a coffee or a meal out this week?

My birthday has come and gone, but I still want to bring awareness to the crisis in the Horn of Africa, via the organization One Day's Wages.  An estimated 29,000 children under the age of five have died in the past three months, and 3.2 million people in Somalia remain in need of immediate, life-saving assistance.

It only costs 17 cents to provide one person with a nutritious meal.  Please consider giving up a coffee or a meal out this week, and donate instead.

For more info on the crisis, please check out this page.

Please click here to give.

Want to do something about the crisis in the Horn of Africa?

It's my birthday month, so I thought I would use that as an excuse to bring awareness to the crisis in the Horn of Africa, via the organization One Day's Wages.

I'm just a middle-class person in the Chicago suburbs, but heart-broken over the famine and resulting hunger in the Horn of Africa.  

While affecting such a far-away place might seem hopeless, I'm convinced that if we each try to feed just one person, we can do a lot.  In fact, it only costs 17 cents to provide one person with a nutritious meal.  That's doable, right?  

For more info on the crisis, please check out this page.

This year, it would be the best birthday gift in the world to know that a few more people will get a nutritious meal.  I've given, as the hunger and desperation in the Horn of Africa has just broken my heart.  Join with me to support my birthday campaign for ODW's Horn of Africa Relief Fund.

Even if you're only able to give for one meal (remember, it's only 17 cents!), I'd be thrilled with such a great birthday present!

Please click here to give.

Morality and the margins

A recent controversy that erupted in the Chicago area involved a proposal to subject Chicago Housing Authority residents to mandatory drug testing.  The testing would be required for all residents over the age of 18, including the elderly.  The idea is that if residents live in publicly-subsidized housing, the government then has the right to subject those residents to drug testing in efforts to rid these communities of drug use and the violence that often accompanies it.

Opponents of the mandatory drug testing called this proposal humiliating, a slap in the face, and a complete lack of regard for the dignity of these residents.  I agree.  This issue is very nuanced, but I view the desire to subject bodies to the will of a more powerful majority for moral reasons as a complicated, multi-faceted problem in our country.  And I see parallels with anti-abortion efforts and the U.S. military.

The impetus behind the anti-drug, anti-abortion, and military (nation-building?) movements may be noble. No one wants a neighborhood to be ravaged with the problems of drug use and drug trade, and if we can find a home for a child as opposed to terminating a pregnancy, we all win.  As a pacifist, I see no justification for military efforts, but the way I see low-income and minority soldiers used for a "moral" reason reminds me of the drug-testing and abortion controversies.

photo © 2010 ChicagoGeek | more info (via: Wylio)

These are just some unfinished, scattered thoughts I've had lately so please bear with me:  the way that a powerful majority goes about eliminating what they view to be certain wrongs can render a form of violence and dignity-stripping on others.  To subject a group of people to drug testing--including the elderly--simply because they don't have the means to live in non-government-subsidized housing just rubs me the wrong way.  Low-income housing residents are not statistics that must bend to the will of policy-makers.  Fighting for an issue because it will improve our society is great, but that doesn't mean we can deny the humanity and dignity of others in the process.  Imposing your moral will on the bodies of others, without their consent, doesn't seem to accomplish much.

In the same way, these thoughts reflect the struggle that I have with abortion.  Wealthy white males, who are members of the most powerful group in our country, telling women what they can and cannot do with our bodies just doesn't sit very well with me.  That's the feminist me talking.  The Jesus-follower side of me (not exactly opposed to the feminist side, mind you) recognizes that our bodies are new-creation-bringing temples, and are meant to reflect the redemption that was/is/will be wrought in our world.  Part of this new creation is a rejection of the centuries of fallenness that have allowed the powerful to control women's bodies.  Again, while keeping the fetus in mind is a noble goal, it comes across too many times as a denial of (often low-income and minority) women's own humanity and dignity.  The imposition is underlined when rape or incest are involved.

As for the military (again, bear with me here - there's a connection...somehow), Jim Wallis shared an excellent post at Red Letter Christians a few weeks ago.  He wrote that the economic promises that accompany military recruitment come at a high price, especially for low-income young people with few other options:

So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide.  Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.

Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military.  Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong.  Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about.  Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business.  It gets them promotions and advances their careers.  And they often distort the facts to stay in business — claiming progress in order to justify continued war — when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. 

Wallis' last paragraph, although referring to business goals as opposed to moral goals, helps illustrate my point.  There are no wealthy people in government-subsidized housing, in danger of being subject to the latest round of invasive policies.  And there are probably few white people or other members of powerful, majority segments of our society.  Similarly, the Guttmacher Institute recently reported that "the proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008."  In addition, "[g]aps in unintended pregnancy and abortion between poor and more affluent women have been increasing since the mid-1990s."  The lack of family-planning access and education affects low-income communities disproportionately.

Framing these issues in terms of the hegemony imposing its will on a marginalized community makes them appear less like cut-and-dried moral--or even Christian--issues.  What would happen if those in power recognized the humanity in "the least of these" and worked together with them?  Simply forcing what appears to be the most moral solution on the bodies of those who lack political and economic power may hurt more than help.

Thoughts?  Agree?  Disagree?

Can an American Christian support U.S. military efforts?

Happy 4th of July to U.S. Americans!  I have struggled with this holiday--and my status as an American in general--since my view of the gospel has transformed into one of peace and preferential treatment of the weak.  Below, I have reposted some of my thoughts from 2006, which I still find applicable.  The original post was titled Weak and Strong.

_________________________

The Verse and Voice daily emails from Sojourners have been pretty good, kind of like a replacement for the now defunct Bruderhof Daily Dig! They have been challenging, as well. Today's email featured a quote from Howard Thurman:

"Too often the price exacted by society for security and respectability is that the Christian movement in its formal expression must be on the side of the strong against the weak. This is a matter of tremendous significance, for it reveals to what extent a religion that was born of a people acquainted with persecution and suffering has become the cornerstone of a civilization and of nations whose very position in modern life has too often been secured by a ruthless use of power applied to weak and defenseless people."

Although I'm sure there are many who would dispute that last part about our “ruthless use of power,” but we HAVE dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilians, and some reports of the civilian death toll in Iraq have been as high as 600,000. Warfare in itself is ruthless, anyway, no matter how noble the cause.

photo © 2008 Heather | more info (via: Wylio)

In any case, I think the quote is getting at something that bothers me: reconciling the fact that I am an American and a Christian. I live in a country that is built on a strong, powerful military, with presence in most parts of the world. The Christian faith, on the other hand, subverts what we think is logical (or is supposed to subvert), since we're following the upside-down logic of the kingdom. Jesus could have evoked his power when he was on the cross, but he didn't.

How, then, do we live as citizens of a country that works a lot like an empire? How do we live in a world where we belong to the above-and-beyond most powerful group, while others, including our fellow Christians, do not have the strength and power that we enjoy?

On the God's Politics blog, Brian McLaren wrote a piece on Monday that is along these lines. He shared a quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer from one of his sermons.

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong."

McLaren talks about the way that we are viewed by Christians who are from Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Australia, since he has recently toured those areas and has talked with Christian leaders: “They know we are against terrorism, but they don't know if we are against American empire and domination.” McLaren remarks that they hear us defending those who are powerful and strong, rather than the poor and those who are weak. The leaders from these countries are disturbed by our defense of the strong, and McLaren reminds us that we should be too. He wishes that we in the US could see that we can’t serve two masters at once.

A part of my struggle came to light in a conversation the other day. Someone told me that I was ungrateful to the US military veterans who have served in wars in the past. Don’t get me wrong, I went to Girl’s State, where the American Legion taught me flag worship (although since then, I feel as if such reverence is semi-idolatrous and putting things in a place where God should be instead). I’ve also read things like The Greatest Generation, so I’m aware of the sacrifices of prior generations, not to count relatives and friends who have served. However, I still do not think it is justifiable for a Christian to support military efforts, and to promote the interests of a nation instead of the purpose of the church. Like what Thurman, Bonhoeffer, and McLaren said: I don’t think we were meant to favor the strong and not the weak. The American church has lost sight of turning the other cheek and enemy-love because of our love affair with our country and "homeland security."

So the problem is this: it’s not that I’m ungrateful, it’s just that I strive to be a Christian first, andthen an American. I guess I’m just trying to express my disagreement with an issue (or with some people, it’s a way of life), while at the same time be tactful and respectful about it. Does anyone else struggle with this, too?

I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses... he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. II Corinthians 12

Kindergartners shouldn't have to go through this...

 

Yesterday I heard about this kindergarten teacher who was honored by the government of Nuevo Leon, a northern Mexican state, for her bravery and composure when her classroom was caught in the crossfire of the ever-present drug-related violence in Monterrey.  If you skip to minute 1:12, the actual video begins.  I'm going to assume that even if you can't understand Spanish, this scene will break your heart.  This teacher's heroism transcends any language, as do the blasts of gunshots... I'm amazed that she managed to video this.

Here is a link to the transcript of NPR's (English) report.  Maybe if we see more actual human faces, especially terrified kindergarten-aged ones, the "war on drugs" that is ripping Mexico apart will become a more urgent issue here in the U.S., especially since Americans are the ones fueling this drug trade.