Walter Brueggemann is of course, of a largely different perspective theologically than the holiness movements of which I am a part. Brueggemann was an ordained minister of the UCC, one of the more theologically left of the mainline protestant churches in the United States.
Shot through modern civilization we find a concept of reinterpretation of established truths. This concept has swept through civilizations and shifted the foundations of the western world's concept of basic ways of viewing reality itself. Many once well established concepts are now up for reinterpretation. Some view this as a good thing, as a sort of collective evolution. While others like myself see it as a fundamental undermining of shared values that once stood at the basic bedrock of civilization.
In Brueggemann's work God, Neighbor, Empire, we see in chapter 4 Brueggemann essentially promoting a conception of the interpretation of scripture which sees scripture as a “living document” that can be interpreted and re-interpreted to mean what we decide it means over time.
We should be very cautious about seeing scripture as something that can be changed or adjusted to fit modern sensibilities.
We see several times in chapter 4 where Brueggemann tells us that God was wrong.
According to Brueggemann, “Thus Yhwh, in giving law, has a history of barbarism. In my judgment, Yhwh must be called to account for that…” (p. 114).
Never, in my years of being a Christian, have I ever thought to myself, “God is wrong and I’m going to call Him out.” That just doesn’t compute to me. God is perfect. God is holy. If I see something in scripture I don’t like, I simply assume I am wrong. God is righteous. I believe that about Him completely.
Brueggemann continues, “Perhaps anxiety in Yhwh’s life evoked laws of exclusionary harshness” (p. 115). So essentially, Brueggemann claims God had anxiety, and that’s why God put such harsh laws in the Torah.
We know from scripture one of the clearest statements made by the Bible about God is, “I am the Lord, I do not change…” (Malachi 3:6). And in Hebrews, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8). God does progressively reveal himself over history to humanity, first through Torah, then through Jesus, but God doesn’t change in any of that. God didn’t grow or adjust his attitudes or perspectives. The God of the Old Testament is the same eternal God of the New Testament.
And yet Brueggemann states, “It is the narrative drama that changed Yhwh and that made Yhwh changeable…” (p.116). So again, Brueggemann contradicts the word of God.
Brueggemann then asserts that because of God’s changeability and the interpretation and reinterpretation of scripture, “…the Torah consists not in a set of rules but in fact in an ongoing conversation that takes into account new times, new circumstances, and newly awakened social sensibilities.” (124-125).
Now, did Torah always find new applications in life for the Jews? I’m sure that’s true. But the commands themselves never changed. Brueggemann seems to assume that because there are numerous and endless applications of the Torah, that this necessarily includes the Torah itself being subject to change, along with apparently, God himself.
Brueggemann cites several scriptures in which Israel is told, “Hear O Israel!” And he uses these declarations, that Israel was commanded to continue to hear, must in fact mean that interpretative dynamism must be embraced. But continuing to listen does not mean reinterpreting or changing the Torah for Israel. Never do we see Israel changing Torah, or removing items from the law. It always stayed the same. The way it was applied grew and developed. But it was progressive, a progressive revelation, a book slowly opening toward the coming of Jesus, not one that changed or shifted over time. A book can open wider and wider, that doesn’t mean it's foundation ever changes.
We can see how dangerous it could be to apply modern preferences to the word. What if our current preferences are wrong? There was a time in our country when eugenics were the trendy thing. Recently there was a scare in Canada about child assisted suicide. Odd things come into vogue, which is why we have a scripture that doesn’t change. We can test and discern what is right and what is wrong. If we begin to change, interpret, and reinterpret, we could easily approve of something God despises, or despise something God approves.
Brueggemann runs into a wall, because he keeps noticing a command in scripture to “not turn to the right or to the left” in following the commands of Torah. So Brueggemann, following his own rule of reinterpreting what he finds objectionable, simply discards this concept.
He makes the statement, “This is “settled law” always to be unsettled by more speaking and more listening” (p 131). The mental gymnastics are astonishing. A settled law is actually unsettled? It doesn’t make sense. A law's principle applied to a modern issue is wonderful. But again, the law doesn’t change. The application adjusts to changes in society. But the command remains the same.
Next, Brueggemann makes quite a claim, he indicates that Deuteronomy, the book of the Bible is a copy. But he says, what if it’s not? What if it’s a revised version?
His conclusion is, “Every reading (including this one) is a new account of Torah, and it will not do to imagine that these new readings are simply reiterations. They are replications changed to the right and to the left, by translation, by application, by interpretation, by shaping old laws in a dozen conversations” (p. 132).
Again and again in Torah God gives Israel the reminder, “Don’t move to the right to the left of the law.”
Brueggemann flips the scripture and says, actually, it is being changed to the right and to the left, as we see fit. We’re changing it over time to fit what we believe is right, in the church. And that is essentially the philosophy of movements like the UCC.
Brueggemann continues to study Deuteronomy and he sees many commands and boundaries. These are things to “set apart” Israel for special use before God. This troubles Brueggemann, so he chocks this up to errors in the text, it must’ve been “push back from the totalizers.” (p.133). Apparently, there were people who rewrote Deuteronomy to add all the difficult scriptures about civic order, the war ethic, and other things he finds objectional.
Can’t we see though, that if we were to use the approach Brueggemann is using, to interpret and reinterpret scripture to essentially fit modern viewpoints politically, socially, and economically, if we did that, we would end up mishandling the scriptures and distorting what God was already saying? Isn’t it clear, that we could end up changing God’s word so as to misrepresent God entirely?
Just as Brueggemann views the scriptures as a living document open to change and adjustment, to fit the morality of the moment and the politics we prefer, Brueggemann also levies a few attacks on the Supreme Court, and justices who hold the view of originalism, that is, viewing the Constitution as having an original meaning couched in history.
Brueggemann criticizes a comment made by Chief Justice John Roberts, when he said, “I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
That is the correct view of interpreting a legal document. It should be viewed from the perspective with which it was written. The same is true for history, archaeology, science, math, all of it requires we simply take the raw facts and scientific truths and historical realities, and not reinterpret them to fit our preferences or what we think is right, but try to discover what is actually being said and what the original author actually meant.
Brueggemann states, “…Law is essentially an ongoing interpretive conversation that requires courage, freedom, imagination, and candor, one that refuses simplistic “application” of the “one meaning” of the law.” (p. 139).
Brueggemann I think is saying, I want us to go up to bat. We need to change what we find objectionable. We need to reinterpret law to fit our own political opinions, and the written law is nothing but a starting point, a place to launch off from, to change the world into what we want it to be.
As the serpent said to Eve, “Did God really say?” The serpent invited Eve to reinterpret right and wrong, make it in her own image, because she knows best, not God. Let us refuse such a faux bargain, that we know better than God’s word. God’s word sits over us, we don’t sit over it.
My goodness, can’t we see the danger here? If the Supreme Court, or the President of the United States, or a Governor of a State took laws on the books and simply decided, because they wanted to, they would reinterpret the law to mean something else, or get rid of the law without legal process, it could destroy civilization itself. A Supreme Court that uses their imagination to change law, could easily make themselves dictators, able to push down on the people whatever whim they felt was right in the moment. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to restrain government from crumbling into a tyranny of oligarchs who push their own views at the expense of the people.
Now consider the same issue surrounding the Bible. What if bible teachers, theologians, and pastors started taking scripture and changing it, to fit the viewpoints of the moment? We’d get rid of gender. We’d get rid of hell. We’d probably change the cross because Jesus dying on the cross seems dark. We’d get rid of half of Paul’s letters, he’s just too intense. We can add in other religions. We can add in greed and avarice and pride. And pretty soon, there is no longer any Christian faith, just the whims of a group of elite pastors, teachers, and theologians who have decided they know better than God, and they are going to fix the Bible. God help us to never fall into that trap of seeing the Bible as a living document, open to change and adjustment based on our whims and passions and emotions.
Now I realize I’m taking Brueggemann’s views to an extreme. I know he would never want to discard the Old Testament or change the nativity story or cut the book of Revelation from the canon, but can’t we see how opening the door to apply modern perspectives and preferences to timeless scripture, and charging God with wrongdoing and adjusting Torah to the right and left can lead us down a dark path? God help us if we can’t see the dangers. Let us dare toward a bold faith, that looks at scriptures that are hard, scriptures that make us scratch our heads, and say, I don’t understand, I don’t even like it, but if God’s word says it, I believe it, and I trust God sees from a greater perspective, one far, far above my own. I trust God. His word is true. I won’t change it.
In Brueggemann's work God, Neighbor, Empire, we see in chapter 4 Brueggemann essentially promoting a conception of the interpretation of scripture which sees scripture as a “living document” that can be interpreted and re-interpreted to mean what we decide it means over time.
We should be very cautious about seeing scripture as something that can be changed or adjusted to fit modern sensibilities.
We see several times in chapter 4 where Brueggemann tells us that God was wrong.
According to Brueggemann, “Thus Yhwh, in giving law, has a history of barbarism. In my judgment, Yhwh must be called to account for that…” (p. 114).
Never, in my years of being a Christian, have I ever thought to myself, “God is wrong and I’m going to call Him out.” That just doesn’t compute to me. God is perfect. God is holy. If I see something in scripture I don’t like, I simply assume I am wrong. God is righteous. I believe that about Him completely.
Brueggemann continues, “Perhaps anxiety in Yhwh’s life evoked laws of exclusionary harshness” (p. 115). So essentially, Brueggemann claims God had anxiety, and that’s why God put such harsh laws in the Torah.
We know from scripture one of the clearest statements made by the Bible about God is, “I am the Lord, I do not change…” (Malachi 3:6). And in Hebrews, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8). God does progressively reveal himself over history to humanity, first through Torah, then through Jesus, but God doesn’t change in any of that. God didn’t grow or adjust his attitudes or perspectives. The God of the Old Testament is the same eternal God of the New Testament.
And yet Brueggemann states, “It is the narrative drama that changed Yhwh and that made Yhwh changeable…” (p.116). So again, Brueggemann contradicts the word of God.
Brueggemann then asserts that because of God’s changeability and the interpretation and reinterpretation of scripture, “…the Torah consists not in a set of rules but in fact in an ongoing conversation that takes into account new times, new circumstances, and newly awakened social sensibilities.” (124-125).
Now, did Torah always find new applications in life for the Jews? I’m sure that’s true. But the commands themselves never changed. Brueggemann seems to assume that because there are numerous and endless applications of the Torah, that this necessarily includes the Torah itself being subject to change, along with apparently, God himself.
Brueggemann cites several scriptures in which Israel is told, “Hear O Israel!” And he uses these declarations, that Israel was commanded to continue to hear, must in fact mean that interpretative dynamism must be embraced. But continuing to listen does not mean reinterpreting or changing the Torah for Israel. Never do we see Israel changing Torah, or removing items from the law. It always stayed the same. The way it was applied grew and developed. But it was progressive, a progressive revelation, a book slowly opening toward the coming of Jesus, not one that changed or shifted over time. A book can open wider and wider, that doesn’t mean it's foundation ever changes.
We can see how dangerous it could be to apply modern preferences to the word. What if our current preferences are wrong? There was a time in our country when eugenics were the trendy thing. Recently there was a scare in Canada about child assisted suicide. Odd things come into vogue, which is why we have a scripture that doesn’t change. We can test and discern what is right and what is wrong. If we begin to change, interpret, and reinterpret, we could easily approve of something God despises, or despise something God approves.
Brueggemann runs into a wall, because he keeps noticing a command in scripture to “not turn to the right or to the left” in following the commands of Torah. So Brueggemann, following his own rule of reinterpreting what he finds objectionable, simply discards this concept.
He makes the statement, “This is “settled law” always to be unsettled by more speaking and more listening” (p 131). The mental gymnastics are astonishing. A settled law is actually unsettled? It doesn’t make sense. A law's principle applied to a modern issue is wonderful. But again, the law doesn’t change. The application adjusts to changes in society. But the command remains the same.
Next, Brueggemann makes quite a claim, he indicates that Deuteronomy, the book of the Bible is a copy. But he says, what if it’s not? What if it’s a revised version?
His conclusion is, “Every reading (including this one) is a new account of Torah, and it will not do to imagine that these new readings are simply reiterations. They are replications changed to the right and to the left, by translation, by application, by interpretation, by shaping old laws in a dozen conversations” (p. 132).
Again and again in Torah God gives Israel the reminder, “Don’t move to the right to the left of the law.”
Brueggemann flips the scripture and says, actually, it is being changed to the right and to the left, as we see fit. We’re changing it over time to fit what we believe is right, in the church. And that is essentially the philosophy of movements like the UCC.
Brueggemann continues to study Deuteronomy and he sees many commands and boundaries. These are things to “set apart” Israel for special use before God. This troubles Brueggemann, so he chocks this up to errors in the text, it must’ve been “push back from the totalizers.” (p.133). Apparently, there were people who rewrote Deuteronomy to add all the difficult scriptures about civic order, the war ethic, and other things he finds objectional.
Can’t we see though, that if we were to use the approach Brueggemann is using, to interpret and reinterpret scripture to essentially fit modern viewpoints politically, socially, and economically, if we did that, we would end up mishandling the scriptures and distorting what God was already saying? Isn’t it clear, that we could end up changing God’s word so as to misrepresent God entirely?
Just as Brueggemann views the scriptures as a living document open to change and adjustment, to fit the morality of the moment and the politics we prefer, Brueggemann also levies a few attacks on the Supreme Court, and justices who hold the view of originalism, that is, viewing the Constitution as having an original meaning couched in history.
Brueggemann criticizes a comment made by Chief Justice John Roberts, when he said, “I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
That is the correct view of interpreting a legal document. It should be viewed from the perspective with which it was written. The same is true for history, archaeology, science, math, all of it requires we simply take the raw facts and scientific truths and historical realities, and not reinterpret them to fit our preferences or what we think is right, but try to discover what is actually being said and what the original author actually meant.
Brueggemann states, “…Law is essentially an ongoing interpretive conversation that requires courage, freedom, imagination, and candor, one that refuses simplistic “application” of the “one meaning” of the law.” (p. 139).
Brueggemann I think is saying, I want us to go up to bat. We need to change what we find objectionable. We need to reinterpret law to fit our own political opinions, and the written law is nothing but a starting point, a place to launch off from, to change the world into what we want it to be.
As the serpent said to Eve, “Did God really say?” The serpent invited Eve to reinterpret right and wrong, make it in her own image, because she knows best, not God. Let us refuse such a faux bargain, that we know better than God’s word. God’s word sits over us, we don’t sit over it.
My goodness, can’t we see the danger here? If the Supreme Court, or the President of the United States, or a Governor of a State took laws on the books and simply decided, because they wanted to, they would reinterpret the law to mean something else, or get rid of the law without legal process, it could destroy civilization itself. A Supreme Court that uses their imagination to change law, could easily make themselves dictators, able to push down on the people whatever whim they felt was right in the moment. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to restrain government from crumbling into a tyranny of oligarchs who push their own views at the expense of the people.
Now consider the same issue surrounding the Bible. What if bible teachers, theologians, and pastors started taking scripture and changing it, to fit the viewpoints of the moment? We’d get rid of gender. We’d get rid of hell. We’d probably change the cross because Jesus dying on the cross seems dark. We’d get rid of half of Paul’s letters, he’s just too intense. We can add in other religions. We can add in greed and avarice and pride. And pretty soon, there is no longer any Christian faith, just the whims of a group of elite pastors, teachers, and theologians who have decided they know better than God, and they are going to fix the Bible. God help us to never fall into that trap of seeing the Bible as a living document, open to change and adjustment based on our whims and passions and emotions.
Now I realize I’m taking Brueggemann’s views to an extreme. I know he would never want to discard the Old Testament or change the nativity story or cut the book of Revelation from the canon, but can’t we see how opening the door to apply modern perspectives and preferences to timeless scripture, and charging God with wrongdoing and adjusting Torah to the right and left can lead us down a dark path? God help us if we can’t see the dangers. Let us dare toward a bold faith, that looks at scriptures that are hard, scriptures that make us scratch our heads, and say, I don’t understand, I don’t even like it, but if God’s word says it, I believe it, and I trust God sees from a greater perspective, one far, far above my own. I trust God. His word is true. I won’t change it.
