Genesis--Book of Cursing or Love

Growing up in the institutional church, I thought that the book of Genesis was filled with "bad news"--the Fall of Man, the banishment from the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and many other stories of God's cursing of man.  Instead, the book of Genesis is filled with "good news"--it tells of God's gracious response to the sin of man.  This was brought home to me once again this past week through an Internet sermon and a discussion in a brewery tap room.

At my 25th law school reunion, one of my good friends told me about her pastor's sermon on Jacob and Esau and how God blessed the second son (not the first) who just happened to be a trickster.  So, thinking this fellow might understand the Bible, I looked him up on the Internet and listened to several of his sermons.  I was not disappointed!  He proclaimed that, when Adam and Eve sinned, God clothed them with animal skins, a better covering for their shame than what they had made for themselves--a garment of leaves.  He preached that, even though God had said that they would "surely die on the day that they ate of the tree," God let them live, and indeed the woman was named "life."  He then showed how God allowed Cain to live even though he was a murderer.  So, God favors life over death for mankind.  God is gracious to sinners--even murderers.  In one of his sermons, he pointed out that, sometimes, discipline from God is the kindest thing that He can do.  So, God is gracious, but also just.  His justice in the form of discipline is usually, if not always, for our benefit.  This is brought home most beautifully in one's understanding of the curses which God ordained in response to the Fall.

In response to the Fall, God ordained that man would encounter thorns and thistles in man's tilling of the field.  So, man's agricultural efforts (his means of sustaining his and his family's life) would now be filled with difficulty.  With respect to women, God ordained that women would have pain in childbirth.  What gives?  Neither of these curses sounds like "good news."  But, is it true that God's discipline is loving?

The measure of God's love in ordaining these curses was confirmed by my taproom conversation with two divorce attorneys.  I told them that, once I learned that God was a god of love and not condemnation, 

I began to read the Bible differently.  We discussed the various curses in Genesis including the two in response to the Fall.  I told them my belief that God cursed work, because man is inclined to place his work above his family, God, and everything else.  I told them that I believed that God cursed childbirth, because women tend to put their children above their husbands, God, and everything else.  The two divorce attorneys looked at one another, and one said:  "that is brilliant."  They both then began to discuss how, in their practice, the women always complain that their husbands are wed to their work, and the men always complain that their wives are wed to their children.  So, both sexes are guilty of putting other matters above God and their spouse.  God's curse, therefore, was gracious.  God gives men difficulty in their work, and gives women difficulty in child-bearing and rearing, so that they won't find their ultimate identity in those endeavors.  God's curses are designed to open us to the possibility of relationship with Him, and thereby with our spouses, children, and everyone else in our lives.  

To me, the profundity of Genesis confirms its divine origin.  How could the writer of Genesis have thought that working too hard in growing food for his family was a bad thing?  How could the writer of Genesis have thought that placing too much emphasis on the children (when children were everything to the Jews) was a bad thing?  The book of Genesis is "simply brilliant."

P.S.  One of the divorce attorneys grew up in a SBC church.  She is now an agnostic.  She said that, while she loved the Jesus described in the Gospels, she did not like St. Paul.  I told her to focus on Jesus, and to read the Bible for herself, rather than relying upon what she had been taught in the IC.  Presumably, for her, Paul was a "bearer of bad news," as he had been for me until I truly began to understand God's character.  

Jesus was a political enigma

My Republican and my Democratic friends both claim that Jesus would be a member of their political party today.  How is this possible?  How can both claim him?  They can both claim Him, because he was a political enigma.  They can both claim Him, because he held views which are held by each party.  But, importantly, neither party can claim Him exclusively if they can claim Him at all.  What's more, Jesus did not become embroiled in the political goings-on of his day, so I don't think he would become embroiled in the American political mess that we find ourselves in.

The Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah for several reasons, but one of the most significant was that he did not provide a resolution to their political problems.   The Jews believed that the Messiah would deliver them from the political bondage of Rome.  So, when Christ did not do this, they deemed Him not to be the Messiah.  As my son Mathis said in Second Grade:  "The Jews were smug.  If Jesus had thrown the Romans out, the Jews would only have become more smug."  Mathis was right.  Jesus' main complaint against the religious people of his day was that they were self-righteous.  So, liberating Israel from Rome would have been a negative consequence towards the sanctification of the Jews.

This is the same today.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that they hold the moral high ground, as advocated by Jesus.  The Democrats claim that, by upholding social programs, they are carrying out Jesus' admonition  to "feed the poor."  But, these programs don't seem to be delivering what they promise, and they are bankrupting America.  So, I don't think Jesus would be a Democratic social activist.  What's more, if Jesus were a Democrat, the Democrats would become more insufferable in their claim to the moral high ground.

But the same is true for the Republicans.  The Republicans want to claim Jesus as the moral authority for regulating the conduct of American citizens.  They want to claim that the churches should help the poor, and not the government.  Yet, there are valid social programs which should "help those who cannot help themselves."  I don't see the churches stepping up and fulfilling this role.  What's more, the middle class Republicans are "shooting themselves in the feet" by protecting more wealthy Republicans from paying higher taxes.  We all look back on the Clinton presidency and long for those days of financial strength.  Yet, most Republicans steadfastly refuse to go back to the tax structure which produced that prosperity and fiscal stability.  Oh, by the way, Jesus doesn't want us to have higher taxes--this is what so many  claim.  Yet, Jesus took the Roman coin and said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

So, it's fair to say that Jesus would not be a Democrat nor a Republican.  As Americans, we need to stop claiming that only our political party holds the truth and moral high ground.  We need to shed our political smugness and treat others with respect in our political dialogue.  Then, and only then, can we lay claim to  Christ.