Dogmatic

I recently finished How We Learn to Be Brave by Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopalian Bishop of Washington. I wanted to show support, as she has drawn wrath for a very mild rebuke of Trump. (She could say much harsher things and still be right).

I didn't enjoy the book as much as I hoped; I kept getting irritated with differences of scriptural interpretation.

That feels a little unfair; clearly the Bible means a great deal to her and she takes it seriously. I should also not be surprised that we have differences, but it bugged me.

Therefore, I am going to go over the top disagreements, as well as the things that I agreed with most.

The first one was a minor annoyance that Jesus came out of John the Baptist's followers.

No, John was preparing the way for Jesus. Jesus and John both knew it. Prophecy foretold it.

I suspect she is basing that on Jesus going to John for baptism, but that was a way of showing obedience, example, and with John's priestly lineage it would seem to me that it also fits in with fulfilling the law of Moses.

Secondly, she refers to the second Isaiah. 

Generally the reason I see given for the belief in two Isaiahs is that there are things written about in the later chapters that happened later, where the original author could not have known, except that future events can be known by prophecy.

I am not sure that she believes in prophecy. She references passages of Messianic scripture as if they are not prophecies of Christ. Those two things might go together.

In addition, she kept calling Jacob a cheat and conman, because of him disguising himself as Esau but apparently also for his animal husbandry practices with Laban, who did far more conning. (Remember, Laban is the one whom Perchik was talking about when he said the Bible told us to never trust an employer.)

I have my own problems with Jacob as someone who played favorites with wives and children and causing pain that way, though for an Old Testament patriarch he could have been worse. 

With Esau, Rebekah was the instigator, though clearly Jacob went along with it.

One thing that bothered me was that Budde said this was a blessing that Isaac could only give once. 

I take my position largely from Jerrie Hurd in Our Sisters in the Bible. She points out that the blessing that Isaac gives to Jacob when he thinks that Jacob is Esau and that he actually gives to Esau is pretty similar. Later, when Jacob is leaving to go to Laban, Isaac blesses Jacob with the blessings of Abraham, the birthright that Esau had already sold for a mess of pottage.

(I also don't like that Jacob did that, though I have to believe that Esau was not really starving and on the point of death at the time.)

Hurd's theory, if I recall, was that Isaac wanted to give Esau a blessing before Jacob as a way of providing some comfort to him (I guess Jacob came by his favoritism honestly) -- even though it was not going to be the birthright -- and that Rebekah was trying to prevent the confusion that would cause.

Is there room for criticism? Yes, but Budde is so hung on up Jacob being a con man. Part of that insistence is that God will still deal with him and bless him. That is a point, but which imperfections you have might indeed affect how God relates to and with you. That can be a thing.

Then there may be a disagreement about the significance of the Transfiguration, but more there is kind of a underplaying of the Atonement. That one totally makes sense; most of what we know about that does not come from the Bible.

It feels more like believing Jesus was a good man, but not the Christ.  

Maybe in some ways it is more admirable that she takes inspiration from these things with less knowledge, but it feels like missing so much, and less like living faith.

It bugged me.

But there were also some insights -- even amidst the frustration -- and that's where I will pick up next week.