Day 1: part 1: lecture and lunch

Our first full day in South Africa was a doozy. This is only half.

We spent the morning in lecture with Prof (I'll-get-his-name-from-my-notes-later), a doctor of Theology in the Dutch Reformed Church. His story was one of a man, notably a white, well educated man, who had realized that he was part of a great evil against his fellow man. And it was quite moving; his understanding that he, too, was trapped in a system of racial segregation that made everyone less human. But at the same time, you could see that he thought and hoped that his realization would somehow absolve him of the fundamental racism that was bred into himself. He struggled to connect the racism of society and within the church to the ways in which to actively make himself un-racist. How do you remove this poison from yourself?

**it is here that I should make my first personal note. It's an excellent question, one that's I'm struggling with too. How does one honor one's own past while acknowledging the sin of your forebears? How can one become an antiracist when it has possibly--horribly--become as much as part of your being as your very DNA? It's within your childhood, your environment, a portion of the fabric that sustained your life before you were born and continues to nurture you today. It's sickening. And I saw in this man a life that had acknoledged the evil, fought courageously to end apartheid, and now stood inert, confused as to why the work of the past wasn't good enough anymore. He had helped to end apartheid, and had been a loud voice for the movement of the Dutch Reformed Church as well, but 15 years out of the end of apartheid, the system remained and he couldn't figure out why.

So 50 years after the end of our apartheid, after the passing of Civil Rights, how do I respond to the fact that civil apartheid continues in America? That the color of your skin still affects how much you will earn, where you will live, and the quality of your life? This battle is much more insideous, because it is harder to see the system once its gone underground. In this regard South Africa and the U.S. seem eerily similar. And I must find a better answer for myself.

After the lecture we went to lunch at a restaurant known as "Roots". This restaurant is in the little shantytown of Khayamandi. It's not exactly a township per se, as it is more like a very poor suburb of Stellenbosch itself. It's more prosperous than most, as it is basically located within a larger and wealthier city, making it more possible for its inhabitants to get jobs, transportation, food, water, healthcare, etc. But more on that later.

Roots is owned by a young man who grew up in Khayamandi, and wanted to give back to his community. The restaurant, let me first say, was fantastic. Now that I can look back on the whole experience, it was the most authentic and good food that I had during the entire trip; homemade, like something Id've found in a great soul-food spot somewhere in the Arkansas river bottoms: Simple food made well. The young man who owned the restaurant actually introduced himself as Roots, so I don't want to be confusing--Roots WAS Roots.

Roots was situated on top of a hill not far from the main entrance of the community. I think it is a nice spot, overlooking the better portion of the community; the actual small homes with brick walls, real roofs and a small yard enclosed by a fence. It looked a bit like what my grandmother would call "base housing", in that most all of the homes were built the same (by the government, incidentally) for higher class 'coloreds' during Apartheid.

Ah, FYI: During apartheid, all life was governed by the National Party (NP) of South Africa according to strict racial lines, of which four were most clearly recognized. Each had subsets of class within them, but the major ones were (in order of importance)

Whites

Coloreds (depending on who you talk to, these were either native Cape Townians, or people of mixed heritage. They were literally darker than white folks, but lighter than black folks).

Indians (As in, East Indians, from India)

Blacks (specifically NOT referred to as natives or South Africans).

Apartheid was developed within many Acts of Government over several decades. You can read about most of them here: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blsalaws.htm

Of these I foudn the most damaging to be:

""Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Act No 55 of 1949

Prohibited marriages between white people and people of other races. Between 1946 and the enactment of this law, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages.

Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950

Led to the creation of a national register in which every person's race was recorded. A Race Classification Board took the final decision on what a person's race was in disputed cases.
Group Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950Forced physical separation between races by creating different residential areas for different races. Led to forced removals of people living in "wrong" areas, for example Coloureds living in District Six in Cape Town.

Group Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950

Forced physical separation between races by creating different residential areas for different races. Led to forced removals of people living in "wrong" areas, for example Coloureds living in District Six in Cape Town. " http://africanhistory.about.com/library/bl/blsalaws.htm

Apartheid didn't end officially until 1994.

The continuing social damage of these Acts were still very apparent in society, literally drawn on the streets of Khayamandi. On one side of Roots were these tracts of decent housing, if dull. But on the other side were the shacks--I am told, good shacks.

There isn't an easy way to describe what they looked like other than to say that most shacks were one story and one room, although some had two or even three rooms added to a main one. Some buildings were obviously once trailers or storage blocks, but the vast majority were cobbled together from found objects: wood, fencing, sheets of corrugated iron, shipping pallets and recycled siding. This is not to say that they weren't well put together or neat; the insides were often quite tidy and clean. Some were clearly carefully constructed of well purchased materials, but most did not have electricity (if it did, it was from a line radiating off a pole like a bristle-brush...and certainly didn't look safe). I'm told the greatest danger in the townships is fire, and I believe it. The shacks reminded me of chicken coops and backyard storage sheds; thin structures that did the job, but not necessarily very well. We were also told that most people fall ill during the rainy season, because their homes cannot keep them dry or they literally wash away.

Although the road we entered was paved, many were not. We stuck to the paved roads. After lunch we headed up the hill to meet Joseph, the unofficial mayor of Khayamandi and the man in charge of leading and maintaining relations between the Khayamandi Legacy Center (day care, creche, meeting house and preschool), the soon-to-open HIV clinic, and the orphanage, as well as a host of other community organizations we did not see.

The picture I have posted (hopefully) is the best one I have of the moment of the view in front of the Legacy Center. It is of a pile of brick rubble from a destroyed building, backed by the security fence surrounding the center and school's playground. Razor wire is pretty common, and beyond it was both the excellent playground and the centers lush garden, which it uses to stock a market stall. Proceeds go to the Center's working budget I believe. And beyond all that is a phenomenal view of the valley and far off mountains. It's this kind of picture that I found myself before all the time in South Africa--a vista of breathtaking beauty behind a difficult human scene, but one in which resilience and humanity were vibrantly aware of itself.

There was no pity here. That's important. Pity was not a useful emotion, because this town was full of people working hard and doing the best they could with what they had. The thing that made me the most angry was that they had to try so damn hard in the first place.

Maybe it was because I had left my own young daughter behind, but I kept seeing small children, about two years old, wherever I looked. And its images of them-- playing alone, in a street full of glass, hugging mothers, running, laughing, barefoot, scarred and smiling--that I think of the most. Because as soon as I think of the kids, I think of their mothers.

I'm thinking a lot about the mothers.

just some philosophy

So James got the brunt of a theological discourse last night in the wake of the movie "Slumdog Millionaire". great movie, by the way, I highly recommend it.

Yeah, I'm still annoyed at God, but we're working on our relationship. It's understood that we're going to disagree sometimes, but we can still be friends.

I realized that all my education and life lessons haven't done anything to disturb the basic rock of my childhood faith, which admittedly was pretty basic.

God is my friend, and God loves me. That's it. That's all I've got.

There's a lot else that's come and gone and that I've wrestled with, but those to things, thankfully, remain. I think I can add one more:

God feels this way about everyone.

But as I'm not God, I don't know that one for sure. It's a hunch.

But as for the theological whirlwind that attacked James last night, the thoughts went like this:

The world is broken, so broken.
God created the world.
Q. 1 Did God create a broken world or did humanity break it?
Suppossing humanity broke the world (ala sin). did God create humanity sinful or did we rebel and do it ourselves?
Supposing God did NOT create humanity sinful, we rebelled, then how did we manage to rebel?
God created us with the ability to rebel and be sinful.
So why did God create us to be breakable and sinful?

Q. 2. Can God sin?
Supposing that no, God can not sin because sin is outside the mind of God; sin is the opposite of God's will, then did God sin anyway in the creation of something that God knew would rebel and sin in of itself? Did God create sin by creating the creation that would create it itself?

Q. 3. Are we rightly to be judged for being sinful, if we cannot help it?

Oooo, that last one's a doozy.

Thank goodness we're still friends.

Hope has two daughters: Anger and Courage

First, let me begin with two simple statements.

I am very grateful that I went to South Africa.
and
I am very angry.

Getting to the root of my anger will take a little time, and I don't wish to bombard anyone who hasn't been in my head during the trip (which pretty much encompasses the known world). So then, as I reflect on what I learned, perhaps the best place to start is actually at the ending.

Tuesday, Jan. 20th was our last day in South Africa, and was marked by Pres. Obama's inauguration-- no small affair in South Africa either. We watched the inauguration and the address from a hotel room after the bar's feed broke down. This was our last day in Stellenbosch, and I for one was determined to make the absolute most of it.

We'd spent the morning with Prof. Allan Boesak, a very influential member of the Uniting Reformed Church of South Africa and former member of the ANC. He spoke quite candidly on his role in politics, his incarceration and later exoneration on (false) fraud charges, and his opinion of the church and it's role post-apartheid. I really appreciated his candid answer to my question, "What is the white Dutch Reformed Church doing to make reparations and restitution for its role in supporting apartheid?" It was the DRC theology that really propped up the institution of separating races as a legitimate God-sanctioned policy. The church had signed the Belhar Confession--which I will need to detail later--but this 'confession' is also a serious call to action, and I did not know what actions the church had taken. They had rejected apartheid as a heresy, but what theology had replaced it? Some form of liberation theology? Anything?

Boesak's answer was, unfortunately, exactly what I feared: the white church hadn't done much. It seems stuck in itself, claiming the Belhar as a new confession but not moving forward. Of course, this is his opinoin, but I had surmised as much myself.

And one is constantly reminded that apartheid ended in 1994, only 15 years ago. The attitude with which one states this fact alternates it's emphasis; "it was ONLY 15 years ago" (as if to say, look at our progress in such a short time) or to say "it was 15 YEARS ago" (to say, we have not come far.) And both intonations are correct.

And on this day, the last day of our trip, I was very angry. Angry most of all for two reasons:
I had seen, again, the diabolical pattern of human destruction, the complete willingness to harm another human being for one's personal gain. Let's go through the short list, the ones I can recall easily off the top of my head, in no particular order:

American Slavery.
African/European Slave trade.
American Jim Crow laws.
The German Holocaust of Jews, undesirables and dissenters.
Native American holocaust and colonization
Australian colonization
The Newark protests
The Civil War
District 6 in Cape Town, South Africa
South African apartheid
East and West Germany
The entrance into the Holy Land, as described in Judges and Joshua
North Korea
Political prisioners in China
Ireland
Scotland
ah, well, you might as well name just about every country.

At this point I was mad. The pattern seems unstoppable. One group has more power than another, and uses it to get the land, money, lives, whatever of another group. Throughout all of human history, this ugly fact reveals itself in grandiose and microscopic ways: humans are jerks. This was the first source of my anger.

What could stop this onslaught?

I was, after all, attending as a member of a seminary, a theologian who would obviously summon up the answer, "Why, Jesus of course. Only God can save humanity from herself, only the grace of forgiveness can pull us out of ourselves and towards a higher calling."

Except that the role of the church, in the vast majority (arguably all) of these cases was one of silence, complicity and even outright support of injustice.
This was the second source of my anger. And I won't lie, it really upset me. It upset me that my tradition was suspect, my very skin was complicit, and it stood to argument that even God presented some terrible questions.

So in all of this, where was the hope?

I was at the end of a hard week of questions, and I knew both what I wanted the answer to be, and what I felt that it couldn't be, or at the very least, what the answer was not. Where was the Church in all this? God was there, to be sure, but...words fail. I was, and am, mad. That's all we need to know now.

-------------------

The inaugration was great; the oath got bungled a bit but the speech was, to me, inspiring. People in our room had tears in their eyes; people on the street congratulated us for electing "the right man". We were told, repeatedly, that Americans had finally done the right thing. That Americans had given back hope to a world we had stolen it from. That was humbling.

The next day in the Cape Town paper, as we loaded up our vans to leave the country, was this letter to President Obama, printed directly below the full page inaugural spread--a whole edition devoted to President Obama whose headline read "Obama puts the boot in: President orders hald to all Guantanamo Bay tribunals"'

Paper: The Star
Cape Town, South Africa

Headline: Madiba salutes “new voice of hope”

Dear Mister President,

We are greatly honored to join the millions around the globe congratulating you on taking office as the President of the United States of America. We believe that we are witnessing something truly historic, not only in the political annals of your great nation, the United States of America, but of the world.
Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done. Amid all of the human progress made over the last century, the world in which we live remains one of great divisions, conflict, inequalities, poverty and injustice. Among many around the world, a sense of hopelessness had set in as so many problems remains unsolved and seemingly incapable of being resolved.
You, Mr. President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make it a better place.
We are in some ways reminded today of the excitement and enthusiasm in our own country at the time of our transition to democracy. People, not only in our country but around the world, were inspired to believe that, through common human effort, injustice can be overcome and that together a better life for all can be achieved.
Your presidency brings hope of new beginnings in the relations between nations, that the challenges we all face, be they economic, the environment, or in combating poverty or the search for peace, will be addressed with a new spirit of openness and accommodation.
There is a special excitement on our continent today, Mr. President, in the knowledge that you have such strong personal ties with Africa. We share in that excitement and pride.
We are aware that the expectations of what your presidency will achieve are high and that the demands on you will be great. We therefore wish you and your family strength and fortitude in the challenging days and years that lie ahead.
You will always be in our affections as a young man who dared to dream and to pursue that dream. We wish you well.

Sincerely,
Nelson R. Mandela

----------


I'm angry, and I'm hopeful. I know that much of this hope rests in a world that does not follow the will of God, so I'm looking for a better way to hope. I know that my hope must rest in God,
but I'm angry, not just a little at God.

This might take a little time.

Off to South Africa

Well, I've officially been terrible at posting regularly, and this post won't help my track record a bit. I'll be gone for at least two weeks...

In South Africa!

I'm taking a course in "Critical theology in a post apartheid post civil rights era" which I am extremely excited about. I cannot cannot cannot wait to get there. Our agenda is as such:

January, 11. Arrive in Stellenbosch. Check – in at bed and breakfast

January, 12. 09h30 Depart to University of Stellenbosch for Lecture.
10h00-12h00. Lecture (Stellenbosch). Prof. Jurgens Hendricks, Director for Netact.
12h00. Depart to Khayamandi – An informal settlement. Eat Lunch at Roots; A Restaurant owned and managed by the community. Tour through the community. Dinner at a Sosatie Restaurant in Stellenbosch. Specializes in meat dishes.

January, 13. 09h30. Depart to University of Stellenbosch for Lecture.
10h00-12h00. Lecture (Stellenbosch). Prof. Nico Koopman. Director of Beyers Naude center for Public Theology.
12h00. Depart for lunch at Oewer Resturant located next to the first river in Stellenbosch. After Lunch we leave for a community project en route to Somerset west. Next, Cotlands, an AIDS hospice for Children manned by volunteers. Dinner at Spur in Gordon’s bay with a spectacular view of the sea.

January, 14. 09h30. Depart to University of Stellenbosch for Lecture.
10h00-12h00. Lecture (Stellenbosch). Prof. Dirkie Smit, Professor of systematic theology and ethics.
12h00. Depart for the J. L Zwane community hall in Gugulethu – group will be exposed to projects supported by NGO’s and also provide food, shelter and medical assistance to victims of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Next, Lutheran church in Phillipi which provides the community with services of a crèche. Dinner at Moyo Resturant.

January, 15. 09h30. Depart to Cape Town for Lecture.
10h00-12h00. Lecture (Cape Town). Dr. Fanie Du Toit, Director for the institute of justice and reconciliation.
12h00. Leave for Cape Point’s nature reserve after which we leave to visit an informal settlement outside of Kommetjie. Group will be exposed to the recent xenophobic attacks and its effects. Depart for hout bay for lunch. From that we visit Table Mountain and see the sun set.

January, 16, Whole day outing, personal shopping and visits to the flea markets.

January, 17. 09h30 Depart for Cape Town and visit the district six museum. Leave for Robben Island. Dinner at the Blue Peter in Blouberg strand

January, 18. Church visits, Lunch at Boschendal and a visit to the historic town of Franschoek for Lunch

January, 19. 09h30. Depart to University of Stellenbosch for Lecture.
10h00-12h00. Lecture (Stellenbosch). Prof. Allan Boesak.
12h00. Lunch at Morgenshof wine farm. Visit Muratie for wine tasting. Talk with the farmer about his role in the empowerment of the workers on the farm

January, 20. 09h30. Depart to Faculty of Theology at the University of Stellenbosch for Lecture. 10h00-12h00. Lecture (Stellenbosch). Prof. Allan Boesak. (Whose book we are reading!!)

Should be back Jersey by the 22nd. See you then!

Cain's Choices: my first exegetical paper

© 2008 Kathryn Marie Mainard O'Connell
**disclaimer: this is my first exegetical paper, so I'm certain that it has flaws. Feel free to point them out, but remember that I reserve the right to edit comments and anything mean will be ignored and set on fire, on principle.

Cain’s Choice

A man kills his brother in a fit of jealousy, then denies his crime in the face of overwhelming evidence. At his sentencing he pleas for mercy, which surprisingly, is granted. This isn’t the next episode of Law and Order, its Genesis 4:1-16. Cain’s choices define this text: he chooses his sacrifice, to allow anger control of his emotions, to kill, and he chooses to leave the presence of God. Throughout, however, God responds to redeem Cain from himself: God offers advice concerning how to do right, gives Cain the opportunity to confess, determines his punishment and provides a means of protection even as Cain leaves God's presence. The most surprising aspect of this text is that it is not God who banishes Cain, but Cain who chooses to banish himself from God’s presence. What does this mean for our struggle with sin today?

The text can be understood as a series of action pairs between humans and God, where human action is reciprocated by divine action (verse numbers overlap).

4: 1-2 Eve bears Cain and declares “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord”[1].
4: 3-5 Cain and Abel bring sacrifices to God; God does not choose Cain’s offering.
4: 5-7 Cain becomes angry and God offers advice regarding anger and sin.
4: 8-9 Cain slays his brother and God immediately asks his whereabouts.
4: 9-12 Cain replies with a lie and God declares both the truth and the punishment.
4: 13-15 Cain laments the severity of his punishment; God says ‘Not so!’ and marks Cain.
4: 16 Cain leaves the presence of the Lord.

Only the first and last verses don’t fit the action-reaction pattern. Eve brings forth a man “with the help of the Lord”, and Cain leaves God’s presence to dwell East of Eden; the text moves from human collaboration with God, to actions parallel to God, and finally to action without God. In this brief story of narrative prose, the first children of humanity are born, sin and die, and the text is easily framed as a series of scenes between actors. Using a scenic framework, it is interesting to note that only the characters of Cain and God have any spoken lines after the first verse; Abel is heard only after his death in the form of his blood crying. In fact, the story emerges as not simply a tale of sibling rivalry or mismanaged offerings, but of the actions and consequences of one key player, Cain. But before the text can be further explored, it is important to note some of the surrounding historical and literary context.

The reader will note that this story falls immediately after the expulsion from Eden and just prior to the establishment of the first city, and as such occupies a pivotal place at the beginning of the biblical account of human existence. Many scholars have focused on the literary emphasis provided by word repetitions of “brother”, “earth”, and “land” and all the allegorical possibilities behind the professions of farmer and herder[2]. Historically considered a work of Moses, most modern scholars believe the book of Genesis underwent a long period of communal compilation and revision during the Persian Period from approximately 539-331 B.C.E.[3] Although this story ostensibly takes place at a time before Hebrew sacrifice laws, the writer seems to assume that either these laws are understood by the reader or that the offerings were internally motivated by gratitude from the brothers[4]. A great deal of scholarship has focused on why Abel’s offering was accepted over Cain’s, with reasons ranging from God’s assumed preferences for first fruits over other fruit, or shepherding versus farming as a profession, to Levin’s interesting suggestion that a meat sacrifice smelled better than vegetables.[5] I think this last idea is amusing at the very least.

Another possibility is that God’s decision making is completely outside the realm of human management, and God’s reasons for preferring one sacrifice over the other is peripheral to the point of the story. Attempts to understand why God preferred Abel’s sacrifice meet with three serious objections: 1) the query stems from a desire to avoid Cain’s mistake in offering sacrifices, assuming that he made a mistake and that such cultic laws of sacrifice are still in operation. 2) Knowledge of how to make a proper sacrifice leads one to assume that God’s decisions can be manipulated with the correct formula, and attempts to make God into a known quantity, thus denying the intrinsic mystery of the divine will. 3) The text itself does not offer any reason for God’s decision to favor Abel, and it may be prudent to accept this fact at face value.

It is also helpful to note the social practice of avenging murder as described in Numbers 35:12-34—the established cultic law upheld capital punishment for murder, executed by “the avenger of blood”. Normally the avenger would be a close relation to the victim, a social practice also alluded to in Deuteronomy 19:6, with the establishment of refuge cities where the avenger of blood could not execute justice. In the case of familial murder, the punishment was often banishment from the clan and ancestral land.[6] In this context it is understandable that the curse from the ground might have a double meaning to a Hebrew audience; being cursed from the land, which had such strong familial ties and meaning in God’s covenant with the Hebrew people, was akin to being banished from the family and possibly from God. This also provides the prospect that Genesis 4:17 is not only the first establishment of a city, but also the concept of a city as a place of refuge. Given this context, let us return to the text for further analysis.

Considering Cain as the primary actor in the story, it becomes easy to see a pattern wherein Cain makes a destructive decision and God responds in a way that invites healing. For instance, Cain makes his choice of offering fruit, and is angered by God’s response, and God offers Cain advice regarding how he might do better in the future and master sin (Gen. 4:5b-7). When Cain chooses to kill his brother, God immediately offers the opportunity to confess what he has done, but Cain instead then chooses to lie (Gen. 4:9). God responds to Cain’s flippant retort with a pronouncement of the truth, “Listen, your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (Gen. 4: 10) God then pronounces a curse onto Cain from the ground, namely, that it will no longer provide him with a livelihood: “And now you are cursed from the ground… it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4: 11-12). Just as Abel was deprived of his life, so now too is Cain deprived of the only life he has ever known.

It is as a result of the curse that Cain must become a wanderer, as he has no other livelihood beyond farming and the reader is not textually aware of any other possible professions. Perhaps Cain could not stay with his family because of social traditions regarding banishment and revenge; although this practice is not explicitly in the text of Genesis 4, it can be deduced from later scripture as a part of the common lexicon of an early Hebrew audience. In any case, God pronounces Cain’s wandering as a consequence of his sin, although not necessarily the punishment itself. Cain outlines a fourfold punishment that extends beyond what God had pronounced, and only two of his assertions can be construed as true, having been voiced by God. Cain laments, “Today you have driven me from the soil and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth and anyone who meets me may kill me” (Gen. 4:14; emphasis mine). The previous italics highlight the punishments that were adduced by Cain (why does he add these?) and not explicitly noted by God. God responds to Cain’s plea with an emphatic !kel':: “Not so!” (Gen. 4:15). It is uncertain as to whether this refers to banishment from God’s presence or to his chances of being killed—in either case God reacts with mercy.

The translation of the Hebrew lamed-caph-nun (nkl)is worth some exploration. A prominent suggestion is that this combination of letters is a reduction of the Hebrew "lamed-holem-aleph" and "kaph-nun" (or nk xl), meaning “not so”.[7] Another translation reads it as a combination of lamed “to/for/in” and kaph-nun “so” for a translation of “if so” or “therefore”, which emphasizes agreement with a previous statement. While both translations are acceptable, the first one offers the most insight into the text and is more widely accepted.[8] The NRSV translation of “not so” plausibly corrects Cain’s overblown statement of his punishment. God answers Cain’s fear of death by giving him a mark of protection, and it would fit that the first half of God’s statement also corrects Cain’s assumption that banishment from the land is also banishment from God’s presence. God does not press the point, however, as Cain has decided for himself to leave God’s presence. The mark God provides may itself be a way in which God can remain with Cain without his knowledge, for although Cain moves away from the presence of God, God’s blessings follow him into exile in the form of successful progeny (Gen 4:17-22). In addition, the text does not indicate that Cain may never return to God’s presence in the future, or that the physical exile from the land must result in a physical exile from God’s presence. When Cain assumed his own banishment, God did what God could to provide protection to him outside of a relationship.

The important question for the text is simply this: so what? What hold does this text have on readers today, who are not under Hebrew laws of cultic sacrifice, and likely have not committed fratricide? It seems that this text, both as a cautionary tale and an allegory, functions to remind the audience that the goal is a close relationship with God, and that sin drives us away from God’s presence even as God does not desire our punishment. Just as Cain made the choice to leave God’s presence, it is a human choice to consider whether to recognize the presence of God in our lives, and it is a human choice to sin. God, for God’s part, continues to work in our lives to promote healing, growth and relationship even when we choose not to acknowledge it. Despite our sins, God is with us, and has marked us for protection even in our exile, desiring our confession and a return to close relationship. Perhaps it is that we—like Cain—do not believe that we deserve to be in God’s presence because of our sins, but God would beg to differ: “Not so!” When we sin, we choose to leave God’s presence, exiling ourselves from God’s love in addition to the natural consequences of sin. We may choose to leave God, but does God leave us? It is part of God’s amazing grace that God may well go with us into our self-imposed exile, that even when we deny God, we are marked as God’s children.

[1] All scripture citations are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
[2] Gordon J. Wendham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books Inc, 1987), 96.
[3] Richard H. Lowry, “Genesis.” in Chalice Introduction to the Old Testament, ed. Marti J. Steussy, (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2003), 31-32.
[4]Terence E. Fretheim, “Genesis,” in The New Interpreters Bible, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 1:373.
[5] Saul Levin, “The More Savory Offering: a Key to the Problem of Gen 4: 3-5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 no. 1 (1979): 85.
[6]Gordon J. Wendham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books Inc, 1987), 107-108.
[7]John Joseph Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 16.
[8] E.A. Speiser, Genesis. The Anchor Bible. (New York: Bantam Doubleday, 1964), 31.

Ack, how did I miss November??

So I missed most of November...it had a holiday! TWO in my family, as my hubby's side celebrated Christmas as well, in order to capitalize on the high concentration of siblings in one location. So it was a big deal.

And it was my first Thanksgiving-in-charge! I didn't do the turkey (we mostly-vegetarians clearly know nothing about cooking such an important meat dish; I was happy to abdicate it) but I did do most of the rest of the cooking for 15 people! It was wild. And I had a lot of help, but by the end of it, it all came out at the right time and we all ate ourselves stupid. I was quite pleased with it, and would gladly do it again. Hooray!

This is going to be a brief shout out to my new bud Maurice (I hope I spelled your name right). May you start reading the Bible with joy, buddy. Cause it's a big thing, and kinda complicated in many respects. I mean, when you consider that it's really the love story between God and the Israelites (well, the first half at least, it's a love story for everyone by the time you get to the end of it all) you have to accept some pretty interesting concepts. Like maybe it's not...it CAN'T be a word-for-word literal history. Because the ancient Hebrews just didn't think like we do about history, they weren't necessarily interested in proving events happened or citing specific dates or numbers...it's like asking you to retell your life story; it's true because it's yours, but some details might be a little different than from how they actually happened. That, in fact, doesn't make them less true. I know people might not agree with that, but I think this opinion is pretty solid.
I mean, have you read it in Hebrew??? I've only read bits, but it's a fascinating language--and mind set! They just didn't think like we do, have concerns about details like we do...they were much more physical and visual in their words and experiences, whereas we value concepts and ideas. I mean, it's basically the difference between a literate and an oral culture, really.

And the beauty of it is that it's still true, and good, and the wonderful Word. Even if, no, it may not be literal historical proveable fact...it is still true. I love that paradox!

I think my next post will just be my latest paper. I'm pretty pleased with it, and would be happy to take comments.

Midterms are over, how are we doing?

So, with midterms fully behind me, how am I doing so far?


Hey, pretty good! I don't want to jinx myself by admitting my mid-term grades, but all of them are what I'd call "really decent" and I'll be sitting quite pretty if I can maintain them all...we'll see. One thing that I'm concerned about is that my favorite class, Ministry Studies, is ironically the one that demands the least amount of daily work, and I'm worried that I'm giving it short shrift in it's study time. This class usually has a reading for each period, sometimes an article, sometimes a book, but NEVER has quizzes and only occassionally has a writing assignment due. Otherwise it is a very intellectually stimulating class--the kind that riles me up and gets me ranting late into the night--and has just one major paper due at the end...and that's what has me worried.


I think my paper is going to be on the study of campus ministry and how to introduce it to my congregation at Covenant (that's the point of the class: the study of ministry, thus our final 15 page paper is how we would introduce our congregation to a study of ministry in the hopes that we develop a new one.) And after some serious consideration of my call to ministry, and a call that is being only partially answered by Covenant, I think that this is a very appropriate paper topic. I'm pretty excited about it, done a lot of thinking...but no research and no writing as yet. And that worries me. I fear I'm procrastinating already. yeah, I know. You haven't procrastinated YET Marie...and yet, if I don't do the work ahead of time, it's already behind. Does that make any sense?

But for those of you playing along, that'll be my paper topic, and I'm writing it with an eye to sharing it with Covenant, as I really do think we're particularly situated in Staunton to do some wonderful ministry at Mary Baldwin College...and not the kind of ministry you might think. In fact...we already do it! We're just not quite as organized and intensional as we could be...and if we were, more people could be involved. Allow me to illustrate:

Things Covenant Presbyterian Church of Staunton, Virginia already has going for it in regards to campus ministry at Mary Baldwin College (in no particular order):

- existing relationships: we've got lots of faculty and staff members of the college that are members of our congregation, who (whether they realize it or not) are already doing some ministry by virtue of being their authentic selves in the classroom. Chief among these are (and yes, I'm naming you!) Rod Owen and Lynn Gilliland, but there are many others. I know that some folks have expressed a desire to distance their spiritual lives from their work lives, but I've witnessed some powerful work combining the two, and I don't think it needs to be necessarily uncomfortable. But this is the chief area for discernment of our congregation, so I shall go on:


- Existing programs: With the new civic engagement focus on MBC campus, we've already seen some activities, such as the joint mission trip to the Katrina Zone and bringing the Labyrinth to campus (yeah, that was my personal project, and it went very well. Students were very intrigued that a mainline protestant chuch would have a walking labyrinth, so I took the opportunity to let our name be known as the sponsor. It went well; this sort of spiritual exploration is needed on campus (from a developmental standpoint!) and again, we've got some stuff to offer.


- a freaking awesome associate pastor, who would totally connect well with MBC traditional students: Amy is just plain perfect as a mentor for these young women. I could go on, but I won't now. End of subject.


- Ok, me. This is definitely an area of passion for me, as well as academic and professional study. Since college I've been interested in the spiritual development of college age students, and there is a lot that can be done for students through an outside agency such as ours.


Further Ideas:

- sharing our Taize and Wholeness/Healing services. There is a chapel on campus that often stands empty, and no regularly scheduled worship services in this space.

- Blood Drives! They happen on campus, and we've already held two of our own...why not combine efforts? We could host one on campus, or intentionally invite students to our church.

- So students can eat free on TOW nights, but do they know that? What else could we offer to students as support?

- There are a few student organizations on campus that are student led, and they can always use more financial and moral support. We could designate funds and leadership to get more involved in a mentoring capacity to these self-designated students.

- There are students interested in the ministry on campus, and what they really need is exposure. We could open our sanctuary to guest student preachers, the student gospel choirs and student themed services, whether on Sunday or otherwise.

- There are several student performance groups (from choirs to theatre and music) that would love the opportunity to perform or practice in our fellowship or great hall.

- Rev. Andrea Cornett-Scott already has a store-front church near MBC that might really be intereseted in an inter-denominational partnership (at least, from my experience with her, I think that might be very interesting). It could certainly expand an existing ministry!

- And First Pres. Church, across the street from MBC, might be very interested in a partnership for a college ministry. They've got a convienient space and location, and might just need more energy and innovation to become a great partner.



And now I feel I must address something that I've heard often in class lately, and I'm sure must be on the mind of anyone reading along...

--------
Will this ever work? Isn't this too hard? Aren't there a hundred reasons why this won't succeed?

Ahem. This issue has reoccured in my life of late, and I feel I simply must say...

How DARE we doubt?? I'm sorry, maybe I've misunderstood, but are you DOUBTING that God can make this possible? Where have you been?! Have you read the book? You know, that one, the book with all the miracles and promises in it? THAT ONE??

I can understand hesitation. I can understand fear. But when the future and current leaders of the church have the audacity to claim that something won't ever be fixed, that a problem is TOO BIG, I get a little livid. How dare we doubt!

Do we not serve the God of Creation, maker of all things seen and unseen? The limitless stars, unfathomable time, depth of space and atoms innumerable? More concretely, do we not serve the God who proclaimed I will make of you a great nation, and in you ALL the peoples of the world will be blessed? Who took the stuff of creation to use not one, but TEN plagues to demand the slaves be set free? Do we not serve the Divider of the Sea? The Great Sound that made the walls of Jericho fall? Who was that guy up on the cross? Some poor sap, pinned and bleeding for being a rabble-rouser or was he our God Incarnate, dying and resurrecting to destroy the power of death over our souls? To do what we couldn't EVER do, but God could do? Cause maybe I've got it wrong, but didn't this God, our God, take the impossible and MAKE it possible? And doesn't this God stand by us today? Doesn't this God tell us that if we follow God with faith, that we can do the impossible IN God? Because if we say that something is too hard, too difficult, too big or too unpleasant to do, we are essentially denying our very salvation. We're saying that God can't do it.

Oh how dare we doubt!

Why, oh why, is it that we look upon what is impossible and magnificient, and focus only on the impossibility and not the MAGNIFICIENCE!? Is it that we're afraid of failure?

I know what you're thinking. That perhaps I am being a little naive. Or romantic. Or just an inexperienced optimist. I am none of these. I know that any attempt to do God's will, especially when it is both amazing and grand, will likely be hard and even very unpleasant. But isn't that part of the point?

It took over two hundered years to end slavery in America; that's over two centuries of slaves praying and resisting, and ministers and other faithful Americans praying and hoping and doing, and the vast majority of them never lived to see it end. Does that make their prayers in vain? No! They entered into the long line of faith that believed it would change, that it could change, and even though they didn't see it happen, they made it possible in their very belief.
Moses knew this with every step he took in the wilderness, knew he wouldn't ever set foot in the promised land and yet he walked forward anyway. The Israelites in the wilderness never saw the promised land, but they walked forward for their children, that they might see the promise. We must step forward to make change, not because we might see it in our lifetimes, but because it might happen in the lives of our children or grandchildren, that some future generation will see a justice that we have yearned for.

We cannot deny that our God can make the impossible happen, and we must be willing to try. We must be willing to fail. For the simple act of trying is a success, it is a step in the right direction. A direction for hope and faith and the belief that someday, although I might not see it, God's kingdom on earth with reign.

So that's my little rant for the day. It kills me, really kills me a little, each time I hear someone scoff at justice or beauty or goodness simply because it isn't easy, or it hasn't happened yet. Where is our faith? Where is our hope?
Where is our trust that in God all things are possible?




....



I guess that's it. It was better the first time I wrote it, before the misty waves of Internet-ether swallowed the best part of this post. Ah well. Note to self: save more often.

how true!