John P. Webster Library First Church of Christ, Congregational, UCC 12 South Main Street West Hartford CT 06107

+Library home +Resources and services +News and events +New materials +Online catalog +Hours and location +Contact us

Online Summer Bible Study, 2004
Week 11 (August 15-21): Amos

Hi all,

I'm posting a piece of commentary on Amos. I will add my own comments later this week.

New Interpreter's Bible. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, c1994
Volume 7: Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Daniel, The Twelve Prophets
"The Book of Amos: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections" by Donald E. Gowan

"There is almost unanimous agreement that the book of Amos is the earliest of the prophetic books. As such, it marks the beginning of a unique tradition in the history of religion: prophecies of the approaching end of the existence of God's people based upon God's judgment of them for failing to live according to the divine standards...In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Amos has been appealed to regularly as the Old Testament's classic statement concerning social justice...prior to the nineteenth century...Jewish and Christian interpreters typically sought messages of comfort and hope in the Old Testament, and there is little of that to be found in Amos...The central message of the book, 'The end has come upon my people Israel' (8:2 NRSV), has not been something many theologians know how to use...Amos's announcement of the impending exile of Israel, interpreted by him as the death of God's people, [is] one of history's most profound insights into the true nature of the human dilemma and God's surprising--even shocking--ways of dealing with it. Amos speaks of death; he does not yet know of resurrection, about which the last of the line of judgment prophets spoke (Ezek 37:1-14), but he was the first to announce that Israel must die--the beginning of a new act in the Old Testament's story of redemption." (pp.339-340)

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

Hi David,

When pondering what to say about Donald Gowan's commentary on the Book of Amos, I realized that this discussion is in itself much of what I would say. As Gowan points out (see "[TheoTalk]Amos" for the citation):

"Amos speaks of death; he does not yet know of resurrection, about which the last of the line of judgment prophets spoke (Ezek 37:1-14), but he was the first to announce that Israel must die--the beginning of a new act in the Old Testament's story of redemption."

TheoTalk seems to be following Amos here. You are announcing that longheld Christian ideas and indentities of power must die, so that the faith of Christians might live, and Christians themselves might rightly live. Amos called for the end of Israel's nationhood, so that the faith of the Jews might live, and Jews themselves might rightly live. The underlying reason for the necessity of both "deaths" is the same: justice is absent, and leaders are defying God's will while invoking God's blessing. (Thanks to Nancy and Lyn for bringing up the Amos connection to American society, this past spring).

We seem to be disputing what the "resurrection" of Christianity might look like, more than the need for resurrection in the first place.

"I don't think a 'one religion fits all' is helpful or realistic in terms of how we approach religious beliefs now and in the future. I think everyone should keep their own religion with its comforting traditions and familiar customs."

The problematic bit is not what is comforting and familiar, but what is challenging. Different religions challenge adherents in different ways, in different directions.

"But in so doing, it is important that all religions are seen for what they are: an imperfect attempt to put into words and actions a response to the mysteries of life."

That doesn't sound quite right to me, but I can't put my finger on why, yet.

"It is easy enough for us to see the shortcomings in the structure of other people's attempts, but I think we must see our own in the same way."

We do. That's why we have denominations, ecumenism, and interfaith conversations. Obviously, as in every human endeavor, there is always room for improvement.

"We are no closer to God because we have the Hebrew Bible while someone else has the Upanishads or the Koran,"

It depends what we do with that Hebrew Bible--and the New Testament, and the history of Christian thought--and what someone else does with the Upanishads or the Koran.

"Humility requires a relinquishing of the illusion of superiority the Christian church has clung to for most of its history."

The Christian church? Sure. Christians of all people should always be aware of how far we miss the mark; that's a foundational concept of our faith. Christian tradition itself teaches that the "wheat and the tares" are all mixed up in the Church; in this understanding, the line of salvation will be drawn through the middle of the Church, not around it.

However, I'm not willing or able to give up the superiority and uniqueness of Christ. It's fine for others to give that up, or to have never had it. As the Koran says (and is so often ignored): there should be no compulsion in faith. By my own experience and my own study, though, I must believe what I believe.

"If that is true, then a universal God would make Him/Herself known in a variety of ways according to the particular culture."

Why does that logically follow? A sovereign God can do whatever God wants. If the idea is for each person in history to have an equal opportunity to gain knowledge of God, that would be true. Yet we see that people *don't* all have equal opportunity. Some die in infancy. Some are too developmentally delayed, severely depressed, pyschotic, or in comas. Apparently God either is indifferent to this inequality in consciousness, impotent in the face of it, or actively wants some people to be more aware while others are less aware. Can't this apply historically as well?

"So while God is being made known to ancient Israel as seen through the stories in the OT, God was at the same time, being made known just as authentically to the peoples of Polynesia and South America."

It is equally possible, logically, that God was perceived less authentically by Polynesians and South Americans. The physical world is equally observable by all people--yet advances in technology, medicine, agriculture and scientific knowledge didn't occur at the same times in all places.

"I agree. What is needed is for us to be conscious that commitment to faith practices can be just as sincere and realistic for my neighbor as it is for me."

Of course. But as in politics and other sticky aspects of human existence, we can acknowledge people's sincerity and legitimacy while considering them mistaken about things large and small.

"I am suggesting that we, in these first years of the new millennium, need to also look beyond the 'party line' of the institutional religion of Christianity and also see the Spirit at work in the religions and beliefs of those who are outside the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Sure. The question is, though, whether we see that work of the Spirit as moving towards a common endpoint--the completion of a single project, after however many aeons--or as representative of multiple, parallel projects that will never converge.

"To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what is meant by religious pluralism here. Are we talking about the UCC reaching out to Methodists and Baptists or is this a more wide ranging outreach?"

More wide-ranging. A good example--though it's actually by a Methodist, I think--is "Divinity and Diversity: a Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism" by Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki (Abingdon Press, 2003). Here's the Amazon description:

"One of today's foremost theologians presents the case for embracing religious pluralism as integral to the Christian gospel. Religious pluralism is a fact in North American society today. More than at any other time, adherents of different religious traditions live, work, and play side by side. Yet the fact of religious pluralism creates a tension for a large number of Christians. At the same time they have realized that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and members of many other religious groups have become their neighbors, they are also aware of Christian teachings that seem to exclude these groups. Statements such as 'no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'outside the church there is no salvation,' seem to imply that these new neighbors are not part of the family of God, or at least that their religious beliefs and practices are not viable avenues to human wholeness and salvation. In this insightful and irenic work, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki demonstrates that Christians need not ignore, nor even compromise, the teachings of the gospel in order to accept and rejoice in religious pluralism. She argues that the Christian doctrines of creation, incarnation, the image of God, and the reign of God make the diversity of religions necessary. Without such diversity the rich and deep community of humanity that is the goal of the Christian gospel cannot be realized. Along the way Suchocki rejects the exclusivist claim that there can be no relationship with God apart from the church, and the inclusivist idea that Christianity is the highest expression of the search for God, with other religions possessing in part that which Christians possess in full. She argues instead for a pluralist position, insisting on a full recognition of the distinctive gifts that all of the religious traditions bring to the human table."

I couldn't point to specific publications or committees or whatever in the UCC, but I know from reading the United Church News that these sorts of conversations are going on.

"I wonder how a devout Muslim would feel about being identified as a follower of Christ?"

It would depend on the Muslim, but considering that Islam officially recognizes Jesus as a great prophet (the last before Mohammed, so far as I know), I would hope that they would say something like "I am, but not the way you mean." That's the response I've seen in Muslim commentaries about Christianity, anyway.

"And if I follow your train of thought correctly, what you are saying about religion could be stated analogously by saying that for you, your wife is superior to all other women you could have married (on a good day anyway). But that would not mean that your wife is the superior wife among all wives. Is it something like that?"

Analogies have their limits. I would not be arguing that everybody would be better off if they had the good fortune to be married to my wife.

"I think that the way the Judeo-Christian tradition has been presented to the world has been more along the lines of that minister: 'This is the best there is. It's not just the best for those of us who are in this tradition; it's the best there could possibly be for anybody.'"

I think the Gospel is the best message there could possibly be for anybody. The actual relationship between the Gospel and the Church has been dissected by far brighter people than me.

"Dualistic thinking is at the center of our religious tradition and has been ever since God separated the light from the dark in Genesis."

So we should keep repeating that mistake? (Also, there are non-dualistic interpretations of Genesis out there).

"But Christianity proclaims itself to be the manifestation of God's plan for all humanity. If it is going to take that role upon itself, then it assumes a higher degree of responsibility for suffering it causes."

Judaism and Islam declare themselves manifestations of God's plan for all humanity. Buddhism declares itself to be the path to enlightenment for all humanity. Etc. etc. If we aren't letting other religions off the hook, fine; but Christianity is hardly unique in taking that responsibility upon itself.

"That's the most direct and quickest for you. But for me, living here in Westerly, it would be far out of the way."

In my analogy, we're *all* living in South Hadley. (Hey, who wouldn't want to?) But I'll go along with your extension of it.

"Let's say when the Bible was written, it was written only for people living in South Hadley... For the people of South Hadley those directions remain the best way."

Christianity is much, much more than the Bible.

"But does that mean that the people of Westerly should acknowledge that it is the one best way for them now that we know there are other ways that work better for us?"

The responsibility of the people in Westerly would be to look at South Hadley's directions and see what applies and what doesn't. It's one thing to say: roads are a great idea that South Hadley had, but the one they picked isn't going to work for us, so let's use this other road. It's another thing to say: roads, digging tunnels, balloons, whatever.

"As long as you get to Boston, does it really matter what route you take"

It depends on your tolerance for the inconveniences of the journey.

"'Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. That's a moral and ethical code that leads to a more coherent philosophical system and a more viable approach to truth, which then lead to a closer walk with God.' It could also be the universal spiritual truth that all religions point to."

Except the non-theistic ones (cf. Buddhism; no God to love or walk with), the individualistic ones (cf. some neo-pagans; no need to worry about your neighbor as long as you're not actively hurting them), and arguably the non-incarnational ones (cf. Islam; how do you completely love an entity you're forbidden to image?).

"This is circular reasoning. He uses the data to arrive at his hypothesis, and then claims the data supports the hypothesis."

It's not circular reasoning.

1. Personal experience of Jesus (non-exclusive, individual).
2. Search for what others have experienced of Jesus.
3. The Bible has been central to historical experiences of Jesus.
4. Accept the Bible as authoritative based on those experiences.
5. Accept saving power of Jesus (exclusive, universal) based on Bible.

It could be mistaken reasoning--I disagree with at least half of #4 and most of #5, myself. But it's not circular.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

Please visit the First Church home page!