Skip to main content

doing theology in reverse

Due to a hectic reading schedule and a trip to the apple orchard on my day off, I didn't have time to post anything this week, but go ahead and check out the blog I wrote for a practical theology forum here. It talks about what I have been reading lately in Christian ethics and how a different reading of the story of Cain and Abel challenged me to think about how we naturally gravitate towards positions of favour instead of willingly taking on the role of humble servant.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Perhaps the most difficult revelation to accept from the story of Cain is that his righteous acts form the initial substance of his separation from God.

Cain is first rejected because of his goodness, his inventiveness, his ingenuity, his ambition. He tills the soil with success. Cain does not need God's blessing - he can provide for himself. It is, in essence, both culture and technology that separate Cain from God. He is not naked or vulnerable before God (like Abel). He is greater than Abel.

Abel, on the the other hand, is not more righteous. From our perspective today, he is less righteous - he has no ingenuity.
But Abel is more helpless and he is forced to rely on God. God, being merciful and loving, has no choice but to show favor to Abel. Abel is not able.

When Cain kills Abel, it is man who kills the last thread of his vulnerability: man kills his need for God, his dependance on God.

Cain's line prospers as the line of culture and technology. He goes-off to form cities. His line forms bronze tools and musical instruments.

The line of Seth is that of those who "call on the name of Lord".

Like you say in your review, we are definitely Cain. From the material perspective we have absolutely no need for God. We can provide for ourselves.

Turning towards the way of Abel is impossible for us, because we are able. We would have give-up everything that constitutes our society and culture. Perhaps this is the meaning of the story for us - that we can't turn towards God, that we can't willingly give-up our place.

What then are we to do? If we can't move to dependance on God, perhaps we can first realize in what ways we aren't dependent on Him. Perhaps we should study our strength, our technology, our culture in order to see what God isn't.

Perhaps before we can hear what God wants, we should look and see where we really are.
Anonymous said…
This would be "theology in reverse".

Instead of discussing who/what God is, we should discuss what It isn't.

Because perhaps that's all we really can see/know of God - what he isn't - because all we can really see is ourselves.

The God of the Hebrews is the imminent unknowable - YHWH. He can't be discussed. But we can discuss what He isn't.

Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

building the church

Imagine two scenarios: 1) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Ask them to come together and put their sticks onto a table. Invariably, you end up with a random pile of sticks on a table. 2) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Show a picture of a popsicle stick bird feeder and ask people to come together and put their sticks on a table according to the picture. You will end up with the beginnings of a bird feeder on a table.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both, each person brought what they had and contributed it to the collective. However, in the first scenario, there were no guidelines, no plan, and no right or wrong way to pile the sticks. People came, placed their sticks on the table, and walked away. In the second scenario, people were given a plan to follow and as a result, something specific was built. Instead of walking away after they made their contribution, people huddled around the table to watch what was being built. Some were…