In teaching the Old Testament to children in the 7-15 age range I have myself in the past emphasised the drama and action of the narratives. They are really well told stories and they make for good reading - and frankly, anything to get kids to read the Bible will do.
But I have noticed a tendency to glorify the gory aspects of it, or, to make them cartoonish so that kids will find them appealing in some way.
As an ad for one Bible for boys puts it:
Finally, a Bible just for boys! Discover gross and gory Bible stuff...
Shouldn't we be teaching our kids to be troubled by the destruction of Jericho and Ai? The terrible fate of household of Achan? The highly symbolic violence of the book of Judges? And so on? Not that these should be edited, or seen as in some way compromising the character of God, but it just troubles me that we teach these texts as if they are Itchy and Scratchy cartoons ...
16 comments:
My little 3-year-old daughter has loved the David and Goliath story for the past 12 months or so -- if I let her choose the Bible story before bed, it's always David and Goliath. And when she play-acts the story, she always wants to be Goliath. Even though the poor giant gets slain in the end, he's the real hero as far as she's concerned....
Heh. I am slowly reading through the children's bible, one "story" at a time. About every third night I get asked when we'll get up to David and Goliath again. (We're somewhere in the gospels at the moment.)
The issue of editing is interesting though, as this children's bible is edited. Jericho's destruction gets a mention, but I'm not sure it's made clear that (almost) all the inhabitants are slain, or why.
On the question of "editing": all Bibles for young kids are edited, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (in fact, it's essential: who wants to explain adultery or genocide to a 5-year-old?).
I guess it's different for older kids, who like the adultery and genocide -- but I still don't see why "editing" would be a bad thing in principle. In fact, the quality of children's Bibles depends largely on how much theological skill and sensitivity has gone into the editing -- i.e., on how carefully they've selected what should be left out.
I have one at home that goes from Palm Sunday to 'after Jesus died' and the empty tomb!
"Empty tomb?" I think should be "empty cave"....
MPJ: No way!
"I will sing unto the LORD for he has triumphed gloriously, the horse and rider are thrown into the sea!"
So sing, with actions, tambourines and bubbling noises.
Oh, in case you didn't figure it out, that was in answer to your question
Shouldn't we be teaching our kids to be troubled by the destruction of Jericho and Ai?
By troubled: I don't mean 'so as they doubt God in it.' More, I meant, so as they see the seriousness of it.
I think there are at least of couple of narratives where we are positively meant to enjoy all the gore. Why else does the author of Judges so wonderfully describe Ehud's sword sinking into Eglon's belly, and its tip (along with a certain amount of excrement) coming out behind?
I think we're meant to be guffawing along, and that doing so doesn't undermine the pathos, but adds to it. After all, if this is how silly Israel's enemy was, what does it say about Israel that she was in servitude to them for 18 years?
1 Samuel 5 - Dagon falling down and the Philistines being afflicted with groinal tumours: surely the Israelites reading along are meant to find this hilarious?
I'd add to Sam's list the death of Sisera, which is blatantly played up for effect and because the author is excited about it.
I've found on camp that reading bits of Judges to slightly diffident 13 year old lads really helps them get into their Bibles...
yes Custard that's exactly what I am worried about!
Michael I'm going to pick up on the upper end of the "7-15 age range" mentioned in the original post. The discussion to this point has somewhat passed it by.
At 15 I was settling into my Righteous Atheist phase. (Apologies if anyone reading this was unfortunate enough to be present at the time.) I respectfully submit that the "let us rejoice in the triumph of God and his people" stuff, if not accompanied by more serious discussion, just doesn't cut it with people like my younger self. And why should it indeed?
Sooner or later you're going to be having a more nuanced discussion with these kids, and in some cases it may be sooner than you suppose. Some people are capable of abstract thought quite early in primary school. And as has been observed elsewhere on this blog, our culture is at present in the middle of a virulent reaction against "religious violence" and "intolerance" (you may add additonal layers of inverted commas according to taste). So a Rah Rah The Israelites approach carries with it the certainty that at some point, some fraction of the kids are going to wake up (as it were) and be very, very cross with you-the-teacher. And if they're smarter than you (that would have been me), and a whole lot less mature (me, again), the results are unlikely to be pretty.
So on behalf of the Smart Kids and their spiritual welfare, let me express sympathy with the original post and raise an eyebrow at some of the discussion since then. Please don't get me wrong: I have always loved the David and Goliath story, the same as anybody, and as you point out, great swathes of the OT are really well told stories. But one's moral senses can be developed by reading those stories. We should expect the kids to be coming up with objections at some stage.
Which is true of the whole Bible and every doctrine contained there in—not just the gory bits.
And 'rah rah the Isralites' is undoubtedly there in some of these stories. We mustn't damp it down on the grounds that someone, somewhere, may some day be offended.
Well, yes and no Grodo. I am not an Israelite - or at least only one by grafting in: as a Gentile, my feelings tend to mixed when I hear about the vanquishing of the Philistines. (Actually, I am Scandinavian like you!) Or, they ought to be, if my Biblical Theology is correct. The simple 'rah rah' ain't enough if we are Biblical Theology-aware, surely.
We mustn't damp it down fer sure. What I am complaining about is using the violence as a hook to get 'em in: which we wouldn't do with another book, I think actually! We forget how adult the Bible is...
And 'rah rah the Isralites' is undoubtedly there in some of these stories. We mustn't damp it down on the grounds that someone, somewhere, may some day be offended.
Gordon you are speaking of this as if the material were without intrinsic problems; as if it's obvious that the surface attitude of each particular chunk of text should not only be our attitude now, but should be actively taught (as Michael asks: does our vaunted Biblical Theology really buy us nothing here?); and as if the prospect of offense is extrinsic and arbitrary ("someone, somewhere, ... some day").
I disagree at all three points. My objection to the first two, I guess, can be taken as read; let me speak to the third.
There are tranches of the OT where the implied morality, on the surface, does not appear to rise above mere tribal loyalty and respect for ultimate power. (Note that I say "on the surface" and "appear": I think the real situation is much more compicated than this; reference my point about the OT narrative being morally educational.) It is possible to be quite untroubled by this, either because you know better (and are not identifying too closely with the Israelites, or at least not uncritically), or because you are not reading the text for identification, or because you are essentially premoral. And at the risk of a stereotype, what boy has not gone through such a premoral stage, and thoroughly enjoyed it?
But at some point, if all goes well, one acquires moral views that go beyond a mere concern with whether one's kid brother is cheating at football. One sees things from others' points of view as a matter of course; one attempts to universalise rules of conduct, and enquire into their consistency; one starts toying, at whatever level, with ethical theories. I was doing this in grade school; some start in high school; some never really get it, or only haltingly so. (Whatever: it is not a contest.) My point is, once one starts on this process, certain questions about certain OT narratives arise as a matter of course. This is not mere arbitrary offence: it is the development of a moral sense. Even if you claim that all such questions are ultimately addressed by some scheme or other, they are nonetheless worthy of respect. And if your manner of teaching excludes a concern with such questions, I claim that it is your problem, not the kids'.
Which is true of the whole Bible and every doctrine contained there in—not just the gory bits.
Come now, this is bravado and a debating tactic, not a serious argument.
Not everything in the Bible, nor every doctrine, is equally offensive to the contemporary sensibility. Nor is the contemporary sensibility equally worthy, or equally worthless, at all points. The extreme allergy to external authority or constraint in any form is (I guess I will not be contradicted by this blog's readers at least) an exotic cultural trait; I say this even though I share it to some extent. As to the relation of ends and means, we are simply confused: sometimes viciously so, and with evil results. But as to modern squeamishness about the deliberate infliction of suffering, I claim that this is a moral advance and I challenge you to argue to the contrary.
A straw-man modern person will thus variously praise, condemn, or be puzzled by different features of the Bible (on whatever reading) or Christian doctrine (on whatever presentation). Some of these reactions will be pertinent, some ignorant or mistaken, and some (maybe) ultimately incorrect but nonetheless worthy of respect and engagement. Yes?
Bruce, thank you for this thoughtful and coherent response - you express many of my thoughts on reading this post and discussion. And thanks, Michael, for raising the issue in the first place!
Post a Comment