God Asked Abraham to do WHAT?!?!?!???

[GordW]

It is a new week, and so those of us with worship leadership responsibilities move on to a new sermon to start mulling....

This week the RCL readings offer us the chance to preach on one of the most (IMO) confounding stories in Scripture -- the binding of Isaac. For those familiar with that phrase, this is the story in Genesis 22 where Abraham sets out to offer his long-awaited son as a burnt sacrifice.

Surely this is (to borrow a phrase from Phyllis Trible) a "text of terror". Why did the ancients hold on to this story? Why do we keep reading it? Given that I firmly believe we read the ancient stories because we believe God might have something to say to our present in the old stories, what might God be saying here?

Here are my early thoughts for the week, which this week are as much questions I might ponder as a clear direction to take:
http://ministerialmutterings.blogspot.ca/2014/06/looking-forward-to-june-29-2014-3rd.html

ANd here is the prayer of confession we are using, one I wrote many years ago (and rather like):
http://worshipofferings.blogspot.ca/2008/06/from-june-26-2005-6th-afterpentecost.html

What do you think? What do you find in this rather troubling story....

 

[chansen]

Thank you, God, for not asking us to sacrifice our children. Any more. Not since Isaac.

Oh, and Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11:29-40. Though that was more about bad timing and a technicality than anything.

Oh, and your own son, I suppose that counts, in a way, since you are all powerful.

But other than those three, you've been really good in the years since.

We assume, because parents keep killing their children, but when they say it's for you, instead of adding it to the bible, we now call them mentally ill. None of those could have been influenced by these stories, right? Of course not. Silly question.

 

[revjohn]

What do you think? What do you find in this rather troubling story....

For starters, I don't find the story particularly troubling. I do find it interesting.

If much is known about the gods that Abraham was to leave in order to follow his new God it isn't known by me.

I am aware that the concept of human sacrifice is not an unusual element of many world religions. It would not surprise me to find out that Abraham was familiar with such practice and may not have even been repulsed by it.

So when God asks him to sacrifice Issac I can't imagine the idea was foreign to him.

I can imagine that he would be somewhat puzzled after everything everyone went through just to get Isaac in the picture. It may have even confused him how God would be able to fulfill the promise inherent in Isaac if Isaac were to die before the promise could be fulfilled?

Still, whatever doubts may have arisen Abraham seemed content to be obedient. He had taken God to task for the plan to destroy Sodom and now he keeps silence when the plan to dispatch Isaac is made and he is to wield the knife. Isaac can do the math and has detected a short-coming in the plans to go and offer a sacrifice. Did anyone else catch it? If so why did nobody say anything? Isaac brings up the point about the sacrificial animal being missing.

Abraham seems unfazed, "God himself will provide the lamb." Is that an attempt at denial? Is it a very passive challenge in the face of such a horrendous plan? Is it a desperate prayer that might forestall proceedings? Is it a faith statement which speaks to a truth greater than the plan set into motion by God. Beats me. It just turns out to be true.

Isaac is bound and laid on the altar. Abraham's knife is raised and his practiced hand is prepared to strike.

Suddenly a messenger from the Lord intervenes and a rustling nearby betrays a ram caught in a thicket by his horns.

Who provided this ram if not God? Like it or not Abraham spoke true and perhaps that reveals that Abraham (also referred to as God's friend) knew more about his friend than we do.

We'd like to think we know more about how God operates than Abraham did. I don't think we'd be so confident if we didn't have several millennia of faith narrative at our disposal than Abraham did.

Some believe that God was testing Abraham's faith. I wonder if Abraham was testing God's.

Abraham does not appear to be getting the short end of many sticks in the narratives.

 

[Waterfall]

It makes me wonder why Abraham didn't plead with God and offer himself as the sacrifice.

It makes me wonder why God would allow the miracle of Sarah giving birth, only to take it away.

And it makes me wonder if Abraham misinterpreted God's words.

 

[Inukshuk]

Some believe that God was testing Abraham's faith. I wonder if Abraham was testing God's.

I think that Abraham was indeed testing God. We read that God had promised a great nation to Abraham through Isaac. We also read that, before leaving the servants, Abraham says 'Isaac and I are going over there, then WE will come back to you'. Both God and Abraham clearly passed the loyalty/obedience/faith test.

 

[Inukshuk]

also, I think the symbolism of Isaac carrying the wood to be used in his sacrifice -- which is repeated in the New Testament, with Jesus carrying the wooden crossbar to be used in his crucifixion - is worth noting.

 

[Seeler]

First off, I don't think that Isaac was a child at the time. I think there is at least a hint that he might have been as much as 40 years old.

I still find it a strange story. When I was a child in Sunday School it was explained to me as a test of Abraham's obedience. I couldn't buy that answer then, and I don't now.

A protest story against child sacrifice??? I used that explanation in a sermon in my first year or so of pulpit supply. I wouldn't now. Not if Isaac was an adult or even a twelve-year-old. I think child sacrifice usually involved infants or very young children - maybe first-born males. Females would simply be exposed.

I think probably it was a meaningful story at the time it was first told - and even centuries later when it was sealed in writing. It was part of our forefather's attempt to explain the continuing search of mankind for a relationship with the Holy that he sensed around him but didn't understand. Sometimes people came close to seeing the glory of God and experiencing God's love. Sometimes they catch glimpses. And sometimes they see through the glass darkly. I think this story is one of those dark times.

It's there. It has to be recognized as part of our scripture - like the story of Jephthah's daughter, and the stories of rape and murder - but I don't dwell upon it. The past was a violent time; let us hope that we are more enlightened now and guard against slipping back to some outdated ideas.

 

[Seeler]

Gord - I loved your prayer. It's a keeper.

 

[Pinga]

me too

 

[chansen]

First off, I don't think that Isaac was a child at the time. I think there is at least a hint that he might have been as much as 40 years old.

I still find it a strange story. When I was a child in Sunday School it was explained to me as a test of Abraham's obedience. I couldn't buy that answer then, and I don't now.

Can you not buy it because the answer seems far-fetched given the actual words, or because you don't want to believe that about your god?

A protest story against child sacrifice??? I used that explanation in a sermon in my first year or so of pulpit supply. I wouldn't now. Not if Isaac was an adult or even a twelve-year-old. I think child sacrifice usually involved infants or very young children - maybe first-born males. Females would simply be exposed.

I think probably it was a meaningful story at the time it was first told - and even centuries later when it was sealed in writing. It was part of our forefather's attempt to explain the continuing search of mankind for a relationship with the Holy that he sensed around him but didn't understand. Sometimes people came close to seeing the glory of God and experiencing God's love. Sometimes they catch glimpses. And sometimes they see through the glass darkly. I think this story is one of those dark times.

I can buy that stories like this one are simply attempts to explain how people see their god. But all that really means is that scared people were trying to make sense of their world, so they created stories. Some of these stories were scary, because life was scary. Life expectancy was much shorter than it is now. People needed to make sense of it, and like we see today, many people need an answer more than they need that answer to be correct.

It's there. It has to be recognized as part of our scripture - like the story of Jephthah's daughter, and the stories of rape and murder - but I don't dwell upon it. The past was a violent time; let us hope that we are more enlightened now and guard against slipping back to some outdated ideas.

I'm with you there. So why are we still obsessing about the bible if the goal is to be "enlightened" and "guard against slipping back to some outdated ideas?" If we don't want to believe in a god who would order or approve of the deaths of our offspring, the bible seems like exactly the wrong book to be reading.

 

[Seeler]

Can you not buy it because the answer seems far-fetched given the actual words, or because you don't want to believe that about your god?

It's not whether or not I want to believe that about God. It is simply not in the nature of the God I trust to ask a parent to sacrifice a child.



I can buy that stories like this one are simply attempts to explain how people see their god. But all that really means is that scared people were trying to make sense of their world, so they created stories. Some of these stories were scary, because life was scary. Life expectancy was much shorter than it is now. People needed to make sense of it, and like we see today, many people need an answer more than they need that answer to be correct.

I do not look for truth in stories. I look for meaning. And stories can sometimes give meaning. And so can science. And sometimes science is wrong (think of the Piltdown man that I remember reading about as fact in my science texts).



I'm with you there. So why are we still obsessing about the bible if the goal is to be "enlightened" and "guard against slipping back to some outdated ideas?" If we don't want to believe in a god who would order or approve of the deaths of our offspring, the bible seems like exactly the wrong book to be reading.

If it was the only book I read and rely upon, or if I thought it a factual account of God's thoughts and action, it might be the 'wrong book to be reading', although I don't think there is any one right book.

 

[chansen]

Don't you belong to a club that is based on that book?

Any other clubs you belong to based on any other books?

 

[Jaebius]

Something I've always appreciated in this story is Abraham's faithful obedience to the Lord. I want to be that obedient to God too. When God asks me to do something I want to be able to just do it - no excuses.

 

[crazyheart]

How do you know that God is talking to you,Jae?

 

[Seeler]

Don't you belong to a club that is based on that book?

Any other clubs you belong to based on any other books?

Actually yes, The Seekers group I belong to seeks the truth in two or three different books each year.
And my book club reads ten books a year although they are usually novels, classics, and biographies. We seeking enlightenment, entertainment, new vicarious experiences, truth in all of them. Tonight my book club is discussing The Orenda by Joseph Boyden. Despite the violence it portrays in the story of the Huron people, I feel deeply effected by this book.

 

[chansen]

I do not look for truth in stories. I look for meaning. And stories can sometimes give meaning. And so can science. And sometimes science is wrong (think of the Piltdown man that I remember reading about as fact in my science texts).

Here is where you're hopelessly, catastrophically misguided in your approach: Science is willing to admit when its textbooks are wrong, and somebody will re-write that book, then publishers overcharge for it in university bookstores.

Religion doesn't change the book. Some Christians will admit that a bit of the bible sounds bad, but give you a fun new interpretation! Other Christians will rejoice in these same stories of a cosmic a**hole. The book doesn't change. The book can't change. Either we have to perform mental gymnastics to make a good moral fit the story, or we are expected to dial back our thinking to a place and time where blind obedience was a good thing.

Your post is more of the sort of science vs. faith wedge approach that many "liberal" Christians are avoiding at all costs, because when you put things like you just did, Christianity loses thinking people. I can understand the religious frustration with science, because science has never validated Christianity, and where they've crossed paths, science has won out every single time. That should give you cause to stop doing that, to stop pitting religion against science, but you and many Christians can't help it. You have to bring up science's historic errors, under the misguided impression that this is scoring points against science, when really, the fact that science admitted its mistake makes religion look more like the inflexible dinosaur that it is, headed for extinction because it can not adapt. The book refuses to evolve, and while you may maintain that Christianity is evolving, the bible will continue to be an anchor around the neck of Christianity, becoming ever more difficult to explain away to an educated audience.

 

[chansen]

Actually yes, The Seekers group I belong to seeks the truth in two or three different books each year.
And my book club reads ten books a year although they are usually novels, classics, and biographies. We seeking enlightenment, entertainment, new vicarious experiences, truth in all of them. Tonight my book club is discussing The Orenda by Joseph Boyden. Despite the violence it portrays in the story of the Huron people, I feel deeply effected by this book.

You're a better read person than myself. That's great. But you will move on from The Orenda. I maintain that the fascination with the bible, or with any one book, is unhealthy. When that one book is the bible, that's worse, because the bible is the basis for the sort of cult thinking that people can obsess over, and start letting it control their lives and decisions.

 

[Lastpointe]

Yes, certainly people obsess over the bible and there are cults and weird groups with weird ideas.

But there are weird groups with weird ideas for all sorts of things. Parenting weird ideas, vaccinations, guns, diets, food, fake medicines........

For me , the bible tells the story of people. It is not a science book, it shows what early people thought about the mysteries of our world and ourselves. Stories, fables, factual events....... It is our job to relate those words to our lives and how we live.

We. Still see violence in the name of religion Of course we also see extreme violence in the name of secular life. Humans seem to have a great appetite for violence to move their personal ideas forward.


Abraham was trusting that GOD had a plan And that he And his son Were part of it. He had spoken to GOD.

And believed. So if the covenant with god was that he would be the father of the nations, he knew that the covenant was safe and secure. A binding agreement. Was the scene played out to show Isaac something?

 

[Jaebius]

How do you know that God is talking to you,Jae?

How do you know that God is talking to you,Jae?

God speaks to me in a number of ways crazyheart. First off - of course - God has said a whole lot in his love letter to humanity The Holy Bible. Second - he speaks to me at times through the wise council of other Christians I know and trust. Third - I can sometimes discern his voice through the providential circumstances that he brings into my life. Fourth - he speaks to me via the inner voice of the Spirit of God. I'm not one of those who has ever heard God's audible voice - nor have I ever had a vision. God has spoken to me before through dreams. How does God speak to you crazyheart?

 

[Pinga]

Your post is more of the sort of science vs. faith wedge approach that many "liberal" Christians are avoiding at all costs, because when you put things like you just did, Christianity loses thinking people..

The faith exploration and approach to the Bible as I have experienced in the ordained ministers of the United Church of Canada is what has increased my faith. The actual looking at the texts, as GordW does in his opening post.

I am thankful for the individuals who have spent time exploring and looking, and ripping away all the layers of literalism that were put on it through my parents generation. I don't think that my grandparents had the same literal understanding, which is interesting. I wonder why that is...

Sure there are faith groups out there that are stuck in the literal translation stuff, but, I have not found that to be the majority here or in my church. I don't need to spend time on those conversations unless they try to use their faith as a weapon against others....then again, that is no different than if someone uses anything as a weapon.