The passage is titled, 'Southern cities conquered'. This is the story of Joshua on the offensive. It makes uncomfortable reading to modern-day readers. It tells of what would be referred to nowadays as 'ethnic cleansing'. Every moral fibre of our body cries out against each 'conquest'. With eloquent understatement, Mark described it as a 'difficult' passage from which to preach. Last summer as the sermon series followed the book of Acts, we encountered something similar: Saul persecuting the 'followers of the Way', seeking them out with murderous intent. Mark characterised the Saul of that time as a 'baddie', yet Joshua is generally regarded to be one of the heroes of the house of Israel. From where did he get his mandate for what he did? We are told he was doing all that Moses had commanded, all that Moses had left undone, in accordance with the commandment Moses had from the Lord. Non-believers aren't afraid to ask the question: how does this fit the picture of a benevolent and loving God? I think it's a valid question. Can we doubt that these violent acts were really commanded by God? Let's have a look at some other scriptures.
Psalm 40:6 tells us 'sacrifice and offering you did not desire'.
Hosea 6:6 'For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.'
Matthew 9:13 'But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Matthew 12:7 "If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."
Hebrews 10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"
and from Isaiah 66:2 "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit …"
In the light of these words, were Joshua's actions pleasing to a Lord who desires no sacrifice except that of our pride?
The prophet laments (Jeremiah 17:9) 'The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?' and immediately we have the response: "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind,
I would like to suggest something quite controversial. I would like to suggest that human beings (including the heroes of the Old Testament) are prone to error – sometimes we get it wrong. When we look at the world, we're looking at it with many preconceived notions. The experiences we have, we interpret according to our thoughts. If our thinking is flawed, so will be the conclusions we draw from our experiences. Those flawed conclusions will then affect our behaviour and decisions. Psychologists talk about projection. Here is an example of how it works: if I'm inclined to take what belongs to other people, it is likely that I will make the assumption that other people will take what belongs to me: to project my own faults onto others. Thus I will fear encounters, and be defensive when meeting others. If in my defensive state I misinterpret something, I may then go on the offensive. The problem is then compounded because this is likely to put others on the defensive – driven by their own fears.
The 'heart' (the core of our beliefs – the body of conclusions we've drawn from our life experience to date – all that affects our response to each encounter) may be deceitful above all things, but not beyond cure. That is why Jesus came. The Israelites had had the law for generations, but they were misinterpreting it, missing the point. Jesus came and taught that the real meaning of the law was only seen when interpreted with love: love for God, love for our 'neighbour' (which in the story of the Good Samaritan, he made it clear was defined as anyone whom we encounter on our journey) and love for ourselves. He modelled the way of love, every word and action motivated not by fear but by love. Then he went home and sent out his Spirit to search our 'hearts', to test our thoughts and to provide guidance and good counsel so that as we read and absorb the story of the Israelites and reflect upon it in the light of Jesus' teaching, we will be able to use it as a mirror and to check our own 'hearts'. When we spot something out of alignment with the image of a benevolent and loving God (as modelled by Jesus), we can 'take every thought captive to Christ' – confess our wrong thinking to each other and pray for each other. As we bring it to the light, the Spirit will be able to cure our 'hearts'. When we learn to embrace Jesus as the atonement, when we learn to extend the Kingdom of Heaven (where love reigns eternal) to our neighbour, to love as we are loved, then God's name will no longer be held in disrepute by non-believers.
This morning as I re-read the passage, my mind went off at a seeming tangent. I thought about the internet world – specifically about 'Usenet' or newsgroups, as they are called, where people (called 'posters') from all over the world are able to gather together in the virtual sense and have a conversation. In my early days on Usenet I would occasionally come across the word 'kerplunk'. I soon learnt that this was used by a poster to indicate that they had 'killfiled' another poster. A kill file was a way of ensuring that any conversational gambit written by the 'killfiled' poster would not be seen by the person making the kill file. In other words, it was a way of saying, "May it be as though you are dead to me". We may not go around putting a sword to every person or group of people we consider to be 'not one of us' (at least I hope we don't!), but do we walk the extra mile as Jesus asks – do we endeavour to listen to those whose words we may find offensive and look into the mirror with Christ's help to allow him to search our hearts and minds and purify them, refine them, so that every encounter becomes a testimony to God's love, bringing truth, justice, mercy, forgiveness, grace and healing to our world?
Our God is a God of relationships and calls us into relationship. If those relationships are flawed and not fully subject to the rule of love, I believe He wants to assist us in setting them right. He is, after all, the God of redemption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A good one here trish and alot to respond to. Just in response to whether or not we love as we should the answer is no we don't. Sometimes we think we do and perhaps we do, for a time. However, it is hard to truly love the unlovely. people assume the term unlovely means the poor or the drunks but no Jesus menat those who you personally find hard to love. That could be different to al of us. I personally find it hard to love middle class people because as a child I was taught to hate them. Hate their comfortableness, perceive them to be dull, closed emotionally or 'private' and shallow individuals. I have learnt that people are people and Gods loves us all.
Some may hate the poor, dirty or drunks - ahving grown up with such people, i perceive them to be my allies (so called). And as for the rich, the true rich that is, they are eccentric loveables (mostly)and strangely enough I havent a problem with them at all.
I dont have a problem at all with any type of person as I really am learning to 'love'.
It's hard to give soemthing that isn't there though I find. I mean, it's easy to love. There is affection, gift giving, words of affirmation, quality time, acts of sevice but to truly agape love we cant giv unless we have a store of it ourselves.
To have it ourselves we have to receive it ourselves. God is that agape love. He is not the fruit of love he is love in all it's entirety.
The fruit of love comes from us but wecan only give it if we have the holy spirit operating in us. alot of peole think that the fruit of God is love. But actually the fruit of our spirit is love but only because we have the holy spirit in us.
God does not bear fruit, we do. God does not bear love he 'is' love. God is the vine, we are the branch and the fruit comes from the branch not the vine but the branch has to be connected to the vine to bear fruit.
Therefore, if we are connected to God, and we receive from God who is love we then can give love, when we giv love, we dont overlook anyone, we cant, its not the way love is or works.
I do go on! LOL it makes sense to me - good piece of writing Trish.
I smiled when I read your thoughts on middle class people. This might amuse you: when I was in my early 20's I was on a diploma course in management studies. The marketing module included information about various ways in which advertisers seek to classify society in order to be able to target advertising. One of the classification systems used the old-fashioned terms: upper, middle and working class. I wasn't altogether surprised to learn I fitted in the 'lower middle class' bracket. The description of 'working class' included the stereotypical notion that a working class family lived in a council house with three plaster ducks flying across the wall. Around that time I had started seeing Vic. I have to say I very nearly laughed out loud when he first took me home to meet his parents in their council house ... and saw three plaster ducks flying across the wall!
Great to see you back here blogging again. Enjoyed reading your comment (which was a blog in itself)
Yes indeed, we do pigeon hole people. We meaning society.
i think it makes us feel safe - gives us sense of belonging. If everyone is the same, where is our unique identity?
But then do we need unique identity or jsu identity to fel we belong?
The good thing about this labour government is that we are gradually become one class. Of course we will always have rich and poor but the fundamental attitues are becoming one and the same.
More and more people share experiences that are similar. Of course there are exceptions, for instance there are still children/families who have never experienced a holiday of any sort.
I still know adults like this and who have never been abroad - ever!
But with the ever increasing enemy or allie (depending how you perceive it) of credit, most have a reasonably okay lifestyle.
It is a rare day to see true slums or the inability to work out of poverty.
As I write this I think of several estates I have been away to, Cwnbran (S Wales), Glasgow and parts of London where my family live.
With exception to those who can't work and are not eligible for disability benefit (perhaps those who are dislexic or discalculate - unable to read, write or even use figures in any way)Most people with an address can work and therefore keep from poverty. If however soem choose to not work or choose to live off credit then its not the governments fault they are in poverty.
With child tax credits and family tax credits and contraception, I dont think there is a valid reason anymore to live in conditions which may warrent a people group being called 'true working class'
I have lived in an upper middle class situation and I lived a good lifestyle. I have also lived as a full time single mother bringing up children with no maintenance support from their father. Although we didnt have the best clothes or food my children and I didnt suffer.
We didn't live in a slum, we had running water, a toilet that worked and washing facilities. We didnt get into debt either, if we didnt have we went without, plain and simple. But we din't suffer, it was hard but we didnt suffer.
Georgina is studying the class system or lack of in sociology at the moment. she says the class system doesnt exist anymore. Im inclind to agree.
I believe its an attitude that we hold inside ourselves these days. are we down to earth and accepting of all or are we poncy or haughty or think our poop dont stink? Do invite a certain type of person to our homes or is it always the same ones and why?
Hmmmm food for thought.
Post a Comment