Numbers 27:3-7
3 “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the Lord, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.”

5 So Moses brought their case before the Lord, 6 and the Lord said to him, 7 “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them.

---

Over the last number of weeks the Bible Project Podcast has been working through the scroll of Numbers. It is part of a larger project that has been walking through each scroll beginning with Genesis. Much of it has been eye opening and deeply enriching. This latest podcast (episode 321, or episode 7 in the Numbers series titled Five Women and Yahweh’s New Law) has been lingering with me since I listened to it.

It raises a couple of really important questions-

1. How is it that Yahweh is persuaded to change a law after hearing the case of these women
2. What is the significance of this law being changed in light of these women’s story?

Not only does Numbers get skipped over more often than not but moments like these tend to get dismissed or missed when we do engage it. How striking is it that in a heavily entrenched patriarchal society that these five women were brave enough to speak up and invite change in a system that otherwise ensured that they had no voice and no rights. Their legacy is present in this text because they sought social reform and challenged what, to them and for them, was an oppressive system.

As host Tim Mackie puts it,

“Why should our branch of the family tree be cut off from the Eden land just because we’re women?” That’s their argument … What you have is this group of daughters who are bringing to Moses and Yahweh this fact that there’s a gap in the laws of the Torah. There’s this scenario that the laws don’t address, and the laws as currently stated will lead to what they believe is injustice … When these daughters bring their case, God says they are right … Within the logic of the Torah, these daughters are to be seen as appealing to God’s core original heartbeat for the partnership of men and women over the land … If this generation is like a new Adam and Eve, there is no coincidence that you have here a story about women saying, “We can possess and have responsibility over the land too.”

Beyond this striking fact that we find buried in the text, we also gain a greater sense of how these laws or regulating rules worked in the early formation of Israel as a nation. In scripture we find three main uses of the Law- ritualistic (circumcision), formative (Torah), and functional (the letter of the law, or regulations). Regulating rules surface as the people attempt to figure out how to live as the people of God in their world, but these rules are always subservient to the Torah, the source of life and knowledge. The ritualistic form of the Law is what bound one to the Torah from which they then engaged the word around them by way of the functional.

It’s worth noting that in the NT the primary use of the word Law, or the related word “works” is the ritualistic form, followed by the formative form (often taken together). The least referenced is the functional. Why? Because the function of the law always sits in relationship to its source where it can be formed, challenged, shaped, ect in relationship. This is how Israel saw its relationship to God. This notion of a God who revealed Gods true “name”, a God who came down the mountain to dwell with creation, exists in relationship to the created world, and as such the name of God becomes the very embodiment of Torah, which is life and knowledge/wisdom (the two trees in the garden) rooted in love. This is what sets us in relationship to the world around us as well, shaping laws according to the needs and concerns of the lowly and the oppressed and the marginalized ect.. This is the movement of the Torah shaped as it is by the larger story of God’s name revealed (and being revealed) in and for the whole of creation, condemning the oppressors and raising up voices for the oppressed. Here those voices were five courageous women who staked a claim in a revolutionary movement which reformed the way the women’s voice was seen and heard in the ancient world. And don’t miss this important note- god invites our challenges, invites us to make our case based on what we know about God’s true name, when we see something not right with the system.

Keep in mind that I still (I think) really like the film Everything Everywhere All At Once

And I am definitely elated to see the film single handedly carrying independent cinema on its shoulders with its surprising theatrical run. It is one of the more important film stories of 2022 on a number of levels.

The more the film persists in conversation however the more it intrigues me to see the ways it is translating to people with differing perspectives and worldviews in different ways.

One of the key aspects of the film on a thematic level, and a theme that I find people don’t always recognize is actually there in the film, is the problem of nihilism and it’s related form fatalism. Key to this theme is the question of meaning. If all of existence is inherently meaningless how then do we find meaning in this world. Do we create it? Do we make it where it otherwise wouldn’t exist? Is meaning an illusion? A simple trick of the mind that can be manipulated?

Where this film.has fostered division is in its wrestling with this question in light of the problem of suffering and evil. And I found this divide to exist irrespective of religious/non-religious lines. Some feel like in its efforts to answer the problem of nihilism it essentially romanticizes existence while ignoring the problem of evil and suffering, pretending like it doesn’t exist or suggesting that we can ignore the problem in favor of our own happiness. It appeals to the illusion of meaning by pretending it is true and creating a logical fallacy in its wake that can’t hold water when held up to the light of reality. Others find it to be message that says there can be meaning in this world, and that the answer to the problem of evil and suffering in the world is to be kind and enjoy life. This is, for some, what frees us to call existence meaningful.

Within this are people who had legitimate emotional responses to the film on both sides of the fence. Some walked away from it feeling duped and plagued by hopelessness. Others walked away feeling liberated and hopeful. Which is precisely why I think this film makes such a fascinating case study when it comes to how we tackle some of these big and weighty philosophical, and even theological issues. As I’ve been watching and engaging in some of these ongoing discussions, which have resurfaced in light of the films recent physical and digital release, I’ve been reminded a lot of Justin Smith’s A History of the Dark Side of Reason. In that book Smith argues that we all, religious and non-religious alike, depend on irrational claims when it comes to meaning making processes. It is when we ignore this truth that our meaning making processes become potentially dangerous and ignorant and, as Smith argues, more irrational in the negative sense of the term.

If there is a key takeaway from Everything Everywhere All at Once it is perhaps this- that we can’t tackle the problem of nihilism without appeal to irrational belief systems that allow us to assume meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. I have seen professed atheist critics suggest that this film is a polemic against religious delusions. What they miss by doing this is not only their own appeal in this film to a delusion of reality, but the potential of their view to deal with evil and suffering by ignoring the problem and pretending it doesn’t exist and is not a problem. Likewise, those who found the film to be an expression of hopelessness or, at the very least, dishonest in its whitewashing of reality, miss the film’s appeal to the idea that all of us, religious and non-religious, are engaged in necessary meaning making exercises that depend on irrational belief systems in order to be upheld. When this point is missed there is equal danger in using our claims to meaning and truth to ignore the problem of evil and suffering.

Somewhere between those two potential divides is a pathway to greater truth and greater meaning. Perhaps the most pointed observation contained within the film’s interest in nihilism is the fact that one of the very real outcomes of embracing Irrationality is that it holds the power to shift our focus from oursleves to the other. That seems to be the point where meaning is able to surface. I’m not convinced the film gets the relevance of its own message- it is possible it falls into the trap of romanticizing an idealistic vision of the self and the world at the expense of the very real problems inherent within, but it does present potential for further fruitful discussion to happen across divided lines.

I always find it a lonely space to occupy as a considerate Tolkien fan and follower. There remains an inevitable divide between those who miss his ability to critique his Christian worldview and allegiances while also very intentionally writing stories and creating treaties steeped in what he saw as the “true myth” of Christ which could make sense of all the worlds stories.

My deep and abiding love for the recent Tolkien biopic contrasts with criticisms from the Christian world saying it betrayed his Christian convictions, missing the ways it captures his critique of the Tradition he holds dear, while my deep and abiding love for LOTR and related stories contrasts with those who remain critical of christianity and/or those who do not believe in christ who write disertations and think pieces meant to distance LOTR from anything Christ-centered, missing how his stories also operated as a critique of the world at large that he occupied in time and space from within his Christian worldview.

The Inklings remain the product of the perfect confluence of time, space, culture, circumstance, and opportunity. Something unlikely to be replicated but which remain an inspiration, and for me Tolkien remains one of its most captivating voices, a timeless critique that slices through the center of our divisions with something more hopeful. This article captures some of that with the recent Amazonj limited series.

“Why does America need to remember Tolkien again? Because we’re mired in Westeros, playing the game of thrones. When you hear words like “fight fire with fire,” or “make them play by their own rules,” or “punch back twice as hard,” or “wield power to reward friends and punish enemies,” you’re hearing an ethos that declares, “win or die.”

“Tolkien wasn’t naive. He knew that world. He’d confronted it directly. That’s why characters like Boromir or Fëanor resonate so strongly. In the quest to confront the enemy, you become the enemy. Yet faithful people understand, in Faramir’s words, that they “do not wish for such triumphs.” Instead, they fix their eyes on the “high beauty” that is forever beyond the shadow’s reach.”

An interesting podcast episode on the history of the American Education system (with obvious overlap here in Canada, albeit with a slightly diffeterent emphasis) to kick off a new school year.

Interesting to note the religious roots and how secularization also emerged as a way of controlling ideology and assimilation.

Uncovers a common tension between the accumulation of wisdom and economic interest.

I was also reminded of Louis menand’s book The Free World: Art and Thought in the Cold War.

There he touches on the historical development of post secondary education and the creation of and rise in America of a distinguishable youth culture. The formation of later high school grades and post secondary college/universities were established so as to extend the market of youths who were seen as the engine of Americas economic machine and its enusing appeal to an emerging culture of individualism. Thus this formulated a culture that isolated youth from the same family systems which governed the rest of the world, the image of the “youth” becoming the new symbol of eternal life and the aged person being relegated to a burden.

A reminder that when we invest in educated societies we are investing in wisdom as a virtue, and wisdom as a virtue always leads to the betterment of the whole. That is the value of education that we find in the ancient world where art and theology and philosophy were seen as equal to and of the same mind as the maths and sciences. It is when we exchange wisdom for economic function and a need for progress that we end up with something quite different, which then tells us something about the ideologies lying underneath the systems.

Came across this article recently and I thought it provided a great discussion on the dangers of ideeolgy both within religion and within society at large. Sparked a question for me- how do we hold to the hope that Jesus represents in and for the world while also recognizing that true intellectualism asks us to uphold the necessary questions and uncertainty that can drive us to greater wisdom.

Here’s a paraphrased quote:

“We live in an age of ideology. The world is complex and hard to understand, so we look for a theory that can help make sense of things. This is understandable. Throughout history, people made sense of the world through cultural and religious traditions. But as the world has become simultaneously more connected and more secular, as our awareness of complexity has increased while religious and cultural traditions have weakened, people now exist with a heightened sense of uncertainty. Many of us are unmoored, finding it harder to make sense of the world—and making it more attractive to latch on to simple explanations. This need, along with several other influences, has created the conditions for increased ideological thinking and an inability to consider different perspectives…

What is ideology and what are its sources? Ideology is not merely a set of ideas or principles that one believes in. We all have that to some extent, and it is essential to live one’s life. By ideology I mean a theory that purports to explain reality. One way to understand it is: Ideology is the opposite of philosophy… Human beings don’t like complexity, and ideology provides the comfort of a sure answer.

Philosophy—philo-sophos—is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth.

Here I am addressing Christianity, though I think it applies equally to Judaism, religion does not claim to explain everything. God creates and calls us to participate in, and complete creation. We have to figure things out on our own. We have to use our intellects to engage in philosophical and scientific discovery. There is no full solution to the problem of life… properly understood and practiced, religion is not ideology, because by its very nature it is open to revelation. Religion is a simple response to reality. It may not be correct, but like philosophy, religion is a response to something outside itself, whereas ideology is a closed system.”

Some thoughts on this film partly inspired by this Podcast conversation

First, this is a perfect example of the kind of film you might not think requires the big screen experience, but if you have the chance i would say absolutely engage it in that setting, not only because it deserves and needs your support but because it’s built on a very intentional use of size, space and setting that cannot be fully appreciated (or understood) on the small screen.

Second, the use of size, space and setting becomes a way of building the films themes in a surprisingly emotional way, something the above Podcast helped to give words for. The film is both about loneliness and togetherness. Isolation and community. On the first front we get a series of scenes fleshing out how loneliness breeds fear in Marcels life, although this isn’t made immediately clear. The way he sees the world is with a contemplative and compassionate spirit that desires to see the best in things and in others. And yet what remains uncertain is his own expectation of himself.

There are a couple key sequences that help bridge the loneliness with this sense of togetherness or connection. One significant one is when Marcel is given a chance to see beyond the confines of his home. He is taken for a car ride where he is able to see the city from the top of the hill. It’s a scene that uses his smallness to contrast the bigness, at once exposing his smallness in relationship to his surroundings but also opening him up to the vastness of the world that does surround him. This scene operates in dialogue with an earlier one where he posts a video and watches it go viral. In this scene he seems big in relationship to the computer screen, inviting him to wonder about the vastness of these comments and its relationship to real community. This is a point where the full length feature film morphs into an interesting commentary on the shorts that inspired it.

As these two scenes collide it then moves us into a picture of togetherness and connectivity, imagining this process emerging from necessary points of transformation, something that comes when Marcel opens himself up to the possibility of change. What he longs for can only come when he learns how to let go of that which holds him in place. A way of seeing himself in relationship to a much bigger world, all of us bound together by way of the common spirit that draws all things to itself.

From N.T. Wrights On Eartb as in Heaven:

“If the earth is full of God’s glory, why is it also so full of pain and anguish and screaming and despair?

Isaiah has answers for all these questions, but not the sort of answers you can write on the back of a postcard. The present suffering of the world- about which the biblical writers knew every but as much as we do- never makes them falter in their claim that the created world really is the good creation of a good God. They live with the tension. And they don’t do it by imagining that the present created order is a shabby, second-rate kind of thing, perhaps (as in some kinds of Platonism) made by a shabby, second-rate sort of God. They do it by telling a story of what the one creator God has been doing to rescue his beautiful world and to put it to rights. And the story they tell indicates that the present world really is a signpost to a larger beauty, a deeper truth.”
– N.T. Wright

Call it Protestantism. Call it Reformed Theology. Call it American Evangelicalism. Call it Calvinism. Call it Western Christianity. Call it whatever you want.

But this is the version of the Gospel I grew up with- I sinned, my sin needs punishment, God took the punishment on my behalf so that I can be saved.

Now, we can spin this version of the Biblical story in both directions in order to say that the ultimate point of being saved is_____ (fill in the blank), but that doesn’t change the fact that the point of the story is shaped around me and my salvation. From this flows anxieties about assurance, theological systems intended to speak to these anxieties by way of implementing a grace-works divide, and necessary depictions of Gods character and action needed to fit the punitive and penal form of such a Gospel.

But what if scripture is asking a very different question? What if in scripture the question surrounds the faithfulness of God rather than the individual? What if the central question we encounter is, how can we know God is faithful to who God has revealed Himself to be in name and action? In other words, how can we know that Jesus accomplished what He said He did “in the world”, which is liberating a world enslaved to the Powers of Sin and Death, a metaphor and an agency that allows us to give what is evil a face rather than making humanity the face of evil.

This is, I believe, what shapes the anxieties that we find in the lives of the Biblical authors, their audiences, and the characters contained within. What would happen if the Western Church decided to abandon its hyper focus on individual salvation and started to think bigger in terms of Gods saving work “in the world”. Would it heal divisions? Shape our hope differently? Shift the emphasis from us to them?

I genuinely believe this is the most crucial question concerning the familiar debates in the Western Church regarding “individual salvation”, something scripture never makes to be the main part of the storyline. A renewed creation is in fact just that- a renewed creation. Does this include individuals? Of course. But the questions and anxieties change when we set this in proper perspective, within the larger narrative of the Biblical story. It shifts our view from us as the central point to what God is doing in the world. It shifts our view from the future to the present. It shifts our view from faith as a necessary and defining doctrinal statement to faith as participation in what God is doing.

The ancients would never have questioned whether grace was a gift or whether faithfulness was necessary. Both were assumed by those formed by Law (Torah). The question for them was, rather, if this is who God said His name was by way of his acting in the world, how can we know this is true when the world appears to look the same as it was. If this is what Gods covenant promise said God would do, how can we trust this when reality looks different. This is a fundamentally different concern than “am I saved” in the modern sense of the question. Those asking this question in scripture were asking it because of what they had seen and heard regarding Gods name and work in the world. And in scripture they are asking it from two different directions- as those faithful to the Torah and as those standing outside of those boundary markers. What must I do to be saved is fundamentally attached to the question that would have been clear to anyone in the ancient world- the defining marks of loyalty to a patron god or ruler. This is what makes the revealed nature of Israel’s God in name and action so powerful- this is a God who came down the mountain to dwell with the creation, the God with us incarnated in flesh and blood, the God who breaks down boundary markers in order to demonstrate a name and action that is “for the world”. This is what gets missed when we make the Gospel all about individual salvation. The free invitation to individuals and communities and nations and collective parties to participate in the saving work of God is actually what flows from the salvation story.

Romans 7:7-20
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”a]” style=”font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;”>[a] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.b]” style=”font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;”>[b] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”

I’ve been relatively quiet for a while on my continued journey through Paul’s letter to the Romans, mostly because I found that much of my study has been challenging and reforming old paradigms and belief systems as I go. Better to let it settle.

This is one learning that has been sticking with me however, relating to the above verse. It came from Jackson Wu’s wonderful book Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission. He tackles the confusing and much debated shift in chapter 7 from we to “I”, challenging common readings that attribute this passage to Pauls own confession and experience. To do so, Wu writes, is to lose site of the larger narrative concern Paul is painting and can lead us to hear Paul setting his Jewishness against his belief in Christ as well as feeding theologies such as the “total depravity” of the human race unnecessarily.

Wu sees the “I” as assuming the voice of Israel and maintaining the collective vision of Israel’s story. He writes,
“Why does Paul use “I” to refer indirectly to Israel? How does the extended monologue of Romans 7:7-25 relate to the “you” and “we” of Romans 7:4-6? Paul is mindful not to give wrong impressions about fellow Jews. By speaking in the first person, he lumps himself with Israel, needing Christ’s redemption like all who come from Adam.”

This in effect has three primary implications-

1. Wu writes,
   “What gets lost amid the shuffle of proof texts supporting one view or another is the fact that “I” presents himself as sin’s victim, not merely a perpetrator of sin. He is deceived by sin. He has no ability to do the good he desires but is compelled to do what he hates.”
   To put it in other terms, Paul is not shaping some systematic doctrine regarding the depravity of the individual but rather articulating the story of Israel as a means of addressing the present Greek-Gentile-Jew divide within the Roman Churches in a world that shares their enslavement to the problem of capital letter Sin
2. It shifts our focus from placing humanity as the primary opposition to God, common with Reformed circles, and places the focus on the problem facing humanity in its divided state- capital letter Sin, which is itself the very expression and agency of Evil that stands opposed to the goodness of God and God’s creation. Wu writes,
   “Paul in effect puts sin on trial. ²³ Having upheld the rightness of the law, he now vindicates the “I,” who represents Israel in exile due to sin. Sin enslaves them just as Pharaoh did their ancestors. The prophets foretold a new exodus that would bring God’s righteousness. As with Pharaoh, God uses a sacrifice to condemn sin (Romans 8:3). This reflects a purpose of the Passover lamb—to “execute judgments on all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4). Once sin is put to shame, the Spirit of Glory leads God’s children not back to Canaan but into a renewed world (Romans 8:9-30; 4:13). In short, Paul looks forward to the ultimate hope of the “I.”
3. It prevents us from equating flesh with the world as though this is the Evil we in the Spirit must oppose. In fact, a crucial part of Paul’s argument regarding the Law is that the Law reflects the inherent good that exists in a world enslaved to Evil. This is why God’s revealed nature/image comes by way of God’s action in the world and God’s call to the whole of humanity to recognize their true nature as image bearers for the sake of the world. This tendency within Reformed Theology to erase distinctions so as to reassert a theology of the total depravity of all humanity misses what Paul is doing in Romans in erasing boundaries for inclusion in the Kingdom of God. This is why the phrasing “all in Adam” runs into a wall with the phrasing “all in Christ”, and why some Christian Tradtions supply interpretative moves by interpreting the all differently. The problem is such a move undermines both the problem and the hopeful solution by applying one universally and one only partially. This collapses the necessary parallel, What Wu’s careful analysis does is reframe the “all” to describe two competing realities laying claim to the true identity of God, humanity and creation rather than allowing the I to turn humanity or the world into the necessary enemy of God. The Law is the expression of fundamental, rudimentary truths evident in the world that give definition to what is good and what is evil according to its potential to oppress and liberate. Adherence to the Law in a formative sense within the life of Israel is both to locate goodness in God and thus in God’s creation and to proclaim the hope that God’s faithfulness to this goodness in name and action brings to a world enslaved, a world that seems forever mired in oppressor-oppressed paradigms. For the I to locate this very tension within the story of Israel is to move towards Paul’s larger concern for healing the divide between Greek-Gentile-Jew in the Roman Church, a healing he locates within the hopeful expression of Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s own story and the means by which we can trust that God is in fact faithful and true to the covenant promise to be and act for the sake of the world.

This quote stood out for me. I read it at the beginning of summer but it has been sticking with me. As it says, “how we look at other people also
shows our standard of honor and shame”, and so many of the sins we wrestle with daily come down to this. How we look at others affects what we strive to protect in ourselves. How we see others is intimately related to how we desire others to see ourselves which is the basis of much sin. And sadly we too often use Traditon, customs and history to mask this fact as Christians.

“Paul’s words challenge us to examine our
hearts to identify those whose opinions matter
most to us. Who, with a single comment, can
make or break our day? Who can most easily
change our mind or crush our spirit? These
questions reveal our motives and our moral
compass. How we look at other people also
shows our standard of honor and shame.
Whom do we criticize or praise, and why?
Shame is usually associated with noncon-
formity, yet conformity also can be an expres-
sion of sin. As long as we satisfy social expec-
tations, we can handpick certain sins to con-
demn while we ignore others. So long as we
gather with people who agree with us, we can
overlook our own vices. We face the subtle
temptation to use tradition, custom, and his-
tory to justify behaviors or attitudes as normal
and right.

Community, denomination, and cul-
ture mask our injustices and insecurities.
We scarcely hear the voice of conviction
amid the applause of a crowd. Those in the
church might confuse social conformity and
godly character. We secure good reputations
by following social rules. At the same time,
those norms can blind us to sin. No one is free
from sin simply because other people do not
know about it. Greeks boasted in wisdom, yet
this is precisely why they excused prejudice to-
ward “foolish barbarians.” ²⁰

As with wisdom, many of God’s gifts can
become reasons for shame.”

– Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission (Jackson Wu)