The Cosmology of sacrifice

"One thing is clear. It is being dead, rather than being killed, that seems to be uppermost in the disposition and meaning of these particular burials. Not only is there no evidence of public display, or even knowledge, of the enactment of sacrifice, but it seems possible that it was indeed carefully hidden, at least at Ur, where the wounds to the head were masked by helmet and headdress and turned to the floor of the tomb. Power may or may not be a consideration, and those sacrificed may or may not be retainers. But that sacrifice is a route to, or expression of, power is a question of function, not meaning. Systems of power can only be constructed on understandings of how the world works, and understandings of how the world works are based in notions of cosmology: where humans fit in a larger scheme that involves a host of supernatural beings, including the dead."—Ann M. Porter in Sacred Killing , page 211

-<idle musing>
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what she is saying here—but it seems pretty profound.
</idle musing>

Once they are dead...

"[it is] clear in all the materials relating to death and the afterlife here, that the dead have continued roles to play long after their demise. The dead establish the position of the living in time and space and their consequent interactions with others, human and otherwise. The dead have otherworldly status, even if they are not quite divine. Certain of them, often ancestors, act as intermediaries between all forms of being. In this framework, it may be the body, therefore, that is of central concern, and so how the body is treated and then disposed of after death is as important as, if not more so than, the moment of death itself.")—Ann M. Porter in Sacred Killing , page 194

<idle musing>
Interesting thought. I have always thought of the moment of killing as being the most important moment in sacrificial systems—and in many it is—but here (Ur) is a case where the way the bodies are handled after death is more important...food for thought. Now I'll have to look at the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament with different eyes and see if it is true there as well at times. I suspect it might be...
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Be still before the LORD
and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when people succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes. 
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
  For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.—Psalm 37:7-9 TNIV

<idle musing>
This set of verses jumped out at me this morning. The whole Psalm is great, but these verses were for me today.
</idle musing>

Why sacrifice works...

"Meaning inheres in why provisions, feasts, and gifts are considered appropriate, in what they are thought to accomplish, in what relationships they establish. Similarly with sacrifice, itself both function and meaning. Sacrifice cements alliances, creates passageways between this world and the next, and is a political tool, but its meaning ultimately lies elsewhere. It is why sacrifice is understood to be the proper way to do these things that is the ultimate object of inquiry."—Ann M. Porter in Sacred Killing , page 193 

<idle musing>
And we don't really know why, do we? "It just works" seems to be the default answer. Is there something inherent in humanity that thinks we need to offer something up? The Christian would answer yes and point to the cross.
</idle musing>

Salvation from what?

"Salvation, to be real and available, must be salvation from sin. Everything else fails. Any system of religion which does not break the power of sin, is a lie. If it does not expel selfishness and lust, and if it does not beget love to God and man, joy, peace, and all the fruits [sic] of the Spirit, it is false and worthless. Any system that fails in this vital respect is a lie—can be of no use—is no better than a curse."—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
How does your religion stack up on that basis? Is your salvation a deliverance from sin? Or is it "bed frame" salvation—great at the beginning as forgiveness (headboard) and a great at the end with the promise of heaven (footboard), but it sags in the middle?
</idle musing>

The leaves they are a turning

This last week, the leaves started to turn down by the lake. I guess that means fall is coming...so, it's time to plant a garden :) And that's what I did.

Renee had the kids pull the peas that were done. Then I planted spinach, chard, kale, and beets on Tuesday in a cold frame, and a salad mix on Thursday inside a hoop house. Because the nights are getting colder, Joel and I put the tops on the two hoop houses on Friday night. They are predicting 33 degrees on Monday and Tuesday, so the ends will have to go on soon, too. I guess that means we will have to build doors, doesn't it? It doesn't do much good to have a hoop house if you can't access the produce...

On a related note, I picked a patty pan squash last Monday. I planted them on July first and wasn't sure if we would get any. It was a bit small, but too cute not to pick. Debbie said we should just let it sit on the table as decor :) I ate it the next day; it was sweet and tender. I hope we get more before they give up for the year.

Why sacrifice?

"...sacrifice is effected to permeate the borders between the worlds of human and divine, natural and supernatural. Regardless of its immediate purpose, sacrifice is ultimately transformational. Sacrifice may have been a necessary step of display in the ritual of the “royal” funeral to gain community legitimization for inherited power. The display was not only for the living audience, but also the audience of the gods whose sanction was a necessary part of community acceptance of the social order and succession"—Jill A. Weber in Sacred Killing , page 162

<idle musing>
She is talking about the sacrificial killings at the Royal Cemetery of Ur. The king was buried with a lot of his retainers in a complex layout that imitated his everyday floor plan—guards and all.

Not a whole lot has changed in the last 4,000 years, has it? We still try to get to the divine by sacrifice—we call it something else, like self-denial, or the like. But, the bottom line is we are still trying to earn salvation! It won't happen. Now how, no way. We can never earn it. It is a free gift. Accept it, live in it, and rejoice in it.
</idle musing>

Taking the short-term view

You have gone on as if the motives to sin were all-persuasive, and as if sin's promises of good were more reliable than God's. When God spread out before you the glories of heaven, made all attractive and delightful in the beauties of holiness, you coolly replied-Earth is far better! Give me earth while I can have it, and heaven only when I can have earth no longer!—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
He's got humanity pegged, doesn't he? Take the short-term view and ignore the long-term cost. We aren't good at looking at the consequences of our actions and decisions; we need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit!
</idle musing>

The life force is what counts...

"Ethnographic and historic examples such as the private farms, temples and public structures in Romano-British England where foundation deposits of animals and infants have been found suggest the release of a life force, anima, or last living breath is important to have value as a sacrifice, rather than the deposit of an already lifeless body (Green 2001). In order to create reciprocal relationships with deities or ancestors, consecrate spaces, or bring about apotropaic effects, the release of the life force or living blood spilled is usually necessary in rituals where human beings or animals are the “gift” or supernatural intermediary."—Sharon Moses in Sacred Killing , page 72

<idle musing>
There is a sermon in there somewhwere...
This book is fascinating. If you are interested in the latest theories about sacrifice, this is "must-have" book.
</idle musing>

And the answer is...

The whole question is, will you please God, or please yourself? Will you give your heart to Him, or give it to your own selfish enjoyment? So long as you give your heart to selfish pleasure and withhold it from God, it will be perfectly natural for you to sin. This is precisely the reason why it is so natural for sinners to sin. It is because the will, the heart, is set upon it, and all they have to do is to carry out this ruling propensity and purpose.—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
The whole reason we don't really believe it is possible to live without sin—we don't want to. Sad, isn't it?
</idle musing>

A different point of view

"Sacrificial victims who were selected not from captive groups or slaves but from within the community, were often regarded as inhabiting roles of honor; this is a crucial concept we must embrace in order to move forward with examining human sacrifice. Too often we correlate marriage with happiness and celebration and sacrifice with sorrow and loss, when in actuality sacrifice was a time of celebration as well in the cultures that practiced it."—Sharon Moses in Sacred Killing, page 71

<idle musing>
Certainly a different point of view from our narcissistic society, isn't it? Probably closer to the biblical one, too...
</idle musing>

Miscellany

I haven't been real good about updating this blog since we moved. There are multiple reasons for that: We are living in a small cabin with one bedroom; the computer has to sit in a corner of the living room that isn't terribly convenient, otherwise I can't get the wireless to work. So, when it does work, I generally try to do as much Eisenbrauns work as I can. That doesn't leave much time for blogging. Second, I've been busy with the cabins and with building a garden at Joel and Renee's. Third, the spare time I have is used for hiking and biking.

Speaking of gardens, we are in the process of putting up two hoop houses. I'm terrible about pictures—as you well know!—but I'll try to get some. We filled in the boxes with a pickup load of aged horse manure. I planted some green beans, peas, and carrots right away. The weather was warm enough that they sprouted almost immediately. Hopefully we'll get some beans before the weather turns cold. We should; I've got row cover and the hoop houses to keep them warm.

And, speaking of hiking and biking, we've done a good bit of that the last few days. On Friday, after taking care of the cabins, we went hiking in the afternoon at Temperance River State Park and then continued on for a mile or two on the Superior Hiking Trail. One of my bucket goals has been to hike the entire trail (not all at once!). We got a bit closer to that on Friday and Saturday.

On Saturday, again, after taking care of the cabins, we went hiking. This time we went to Magney State Park and hiked to the kettle. From there we took the Superior Hiking Trail west. At the beginning of the trail was a bear trap; Debbie wasn't too sure she wanted to hike the trail with a bear trap there. I told her it wasn't baited; if a trap is baited, it smells very strongly of licorice. This one didn't have even a hint of it. Nevertheless, she was a bit skittish. We walked for a good bit, then turned around and went to the Kadunce River, which is a spur train on the Lake Superior Hiking Trail. Noticing a pattern? Because we couldn't start until late afternoon, it was getting dark, so we didn't go very far. It will be a regular on our list, though.

On Sunday, we didn't do any hiking, although I rode my bike to Lutsen and back—about 40 miles. Day of rest and all, you know :)

Today, Monday, I got done cleaning the cabins and Debbie asked me if I wanted to ride the Gitchee-Gami bike trail. It will be a bike trail eventually connecting Two Harbors to Grand Marais. Right now, there is a section about 1/2 hour from us that we have always wanted to do when we would visit Joel and Renee. I said, sure. So, I loaded both bikes into the Prius and off we went.

It was a blast! We only rode about 20 miles, round trip; that's all that is done in this area right now. Ironically, we rode right through the Temperance River State Park that we had been hiking in on Friday. We stopped on the bridge—you can never see a waterfall too often or too long!—before continuing on. We both decided this would be on our list of regular occurrences, as well.

So, that's why I haven't been posting as much as usual. Oh, and the fact that the books I've been reading aren't electronic so I can't cut and paste...besides the fact that the ones I've read lately haven't lent themselves to excerpts very well.

Truly great

"Enduring great companies don't exist merely to deliver returns to shareholders. Indeed, in a truly great company, profits and cash flow become like blood and water to a healthy body: They are absolutely essential for life, but they are not the very point of life."— Good to Great, page 194

<idle musing>
Indeed! In the Theory of Constraints, a continuous improvement philosophy laid out in The Goal, there are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. Necessary conditions are not the end in themselves, but contribute to the goal; without them, you can't get done what you want, but they are simply supporting the actual goal. That is exactly what he is saying here. Unfortunately, for most companies, it seems that making the almighty dollar is their goal and not just a necessary condition.
</idle musing>

Thought for today

“...what is being a Christian? Giving your heart to God. And what is giving your heart to God? Devoting your voluntary powers to Him; ceasing to live for yourself and living for God".—Charles Finney

<idle musing>:
Nice little nutshell description of Christianity, isn't it? Everything else is extras—not infrequently distracting extras, at that!
</idle musing>:

Holy or holey?

“The hole in our holiness is that we don't really care much about it. Passionate exhortation to pursue gospel-driven holiness is barely heard in most of our churches. It's not that we don't talk about sin or encourage decent behavior. Too many sermons are basically self-help seminars on becoming a better you. That's moralism, and its not helpful. Any gospel that says only why you must do and never announces what Christ has done is no gospel at all.”—Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in Our Holiness, pages 11-12

<idle musing>
Just saw this book in an e-mail and managed to read a few preview pages. This little snippet jumped out at me, though. Sadly, he's right; most of what passes for "holiness preaching" is little more than moralistic self-improvement. I have become firmly convinced that the practical theology of most american christians is just Pelagianism.

We really think we can do it, don't we?!
</idle musing>

Interesting comparison

God didn't send me out to collect a following for myself, but to preach the Message of what he has done, collecting a following for him. And he didn't send me to do it with a lot of fancy rhetoric of my own, lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words. (1 Corinthians 1:17 The Message)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:17, 18 TNIV)

<idle musing>
Interesting
</idle musing>

On the beach

That's the title of a 1960s dystopian novel about the end of the world because of nuclear holocaust—also made into a movie. But, that's not what I'm talking about here. On Saturday night, Joel, Renee, the kids, Nancy (Joel's mother, who is visiting for a week), Debbie, and I went to the beach by Durfree Creek (about 5 miles from Grand Marais). We planned on having a fire, popping some popcorn, and then heading home once it got dark.

When we got there, Joel was talking to some one and they mentioned that Saturday night was a predicted meteor shower, the Perseids. Joel and family decided it would be fun to spend the night under the (falling) stars. So, Joel and Nancy went back to town to get sleeping bags, etc. Debbie and I decided we would only stick around until about 3:00 AM.

Once it got dark, the kids wanted to go to bed—after all, what can be more fun than sleeping under the stars? Debbie and I volunteered to wake everyone up once the show started.

There were some nice meteors here and there, about one every 5-15 minutes. That went on for a while with some very spectacular ones, but not the heavy shower that was predicted. Around midnight, I went back to town to get sleeping bags for Debbie and me. The beach was getting cold!

I think both Debbie and I dozed here and there—at least she nudged me for snoring too loudly and I heard her snoring, too :) When 3:30 AM rolled around, we decided it was time to call it a night and go home. As we were walking to the car, a bright meteor flashed across the sky as if to say good-bye to us. We drove home and crashed.

Sunday afternoon, I read that the shower started in earnest right after we called it a night...of course!

Everything else is first

The farmer pleads, "I can't be religious; I can't serve God--I must sow my wheat." Well, sow your wheat but do it for the Lord. O but you have so much to do! Then do it all for the Lord. Another can't be religious for he must get his lesson. Well, get your lesson, but get it for the Lord, and this will be religious. The man who should neglect to sow his wheat or neglect to get his lessons because he wants to be religious, is crazy. He perverts the plainest things in the worst way. If you are to be religious, you must be industrious. The farmer must sow his wheat, and the student must get his lesson. An idle man can no more be religious than the devil can be. This notion that men can't be religious, because they have some business to do, is the merest nonsense. It utterly overlooks the great truth that God never forbids our doing the appropriate business of life, but only requires that we shall do all for Himself.—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
Why does everything seem so much more important than the things of God? Actually, everything is to be a "thing of God" if our focus is on God. It's too easy...we are the ones who make it difficult.
</idle musing>

Rules and regulations

I went to the friends of the library sale here in Grand Marais last Friday. I like going to look; I rarely buy much anymore—especially now, with very limited space! But, I did find a book on business that I have been meaning to read for a few years now: Good to Great.

The book is over ten years old and some of the companies highlighted are in serious trouble, but the concepts he talks about are timeless. In fact, the reason those companies are in trouble is because the strayed from the things that made them great.

Anyway, thought I would share this little tidbit with you:

“Most companies build their bureaucratic rules to manage the small percentage of wrong people on the bus, which in turn drives away the right people on the bus, which then increases the percentage of wrong people on the bus, which increases the need for more bureaucracy to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which then further drives the right people away, and so forth.”—Good to Great, page 121

<idle musing>
Yep. I've seen it many times over the years and in several companies. It's endemic to our fear of letting misfits go; we try to manage them or at least minimize their negative impact. The result is we lose or at least dishearten the rest of our people.

I've done it myself. I feel sorry for a person or think I can transform them, so I don't let them go. The end result is almost always misery for them, me, and their co-workers. There's a HarperCollins book (now available from Zondervan, too) about that very thing. It's called Necessary Endings. I think I might have excerpted from it in the past. If not, I will be in the future :)
</idle musing>

Psalms and tense

Above (4.2.1. ), I argued that temporal succession is semantically effected by boundedness but is the pragmatically default interpretation of narrative discourse. What I propose here is that the association of this pragmatic-based temporally successive meaning with the narrative wayyiqtol allows the poets of Psalms to draw on the form to overtly mark temporal succession within a context dominated by static (temporally speaking), parallelistic poetry. The contrast between Hebrew narrative and poetry can be well appreciated in light of Jackobson’s famous definition of poetic function as transforming sequence into equivalency (1960: 358): “equivalence is promoted to the constitutive device of the sequence.” In other words, the relationship between predicates in successive lines (i.e., parallel stichs) in poetry is one of equivalency—that is, they refer to the self-same event—in contrast to prose narrative, in which successive predicates refer to successive events. Thus, to force a sequential reading of events in poetry, the wayyiqtol form is employed with its implicature meaning of succession from the prose narrative.—John Cook in Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb(forthcoming from Eisenbrauns)