Dana, I agree with various sentences in this post; but for me the whole doesn't hang together well. And I'm not sure what's most important in it. I agree with your concerns about the use of power, although evolution implies that survival is all about power: the power of the bird to eat the worm, the power of the fox to catch the hen, and on and on up the animal ladder. Humans, it seems to me, are the one creature in the natural world that is given the chance to work against the use of power that takes advantage of others, though we do poorly at it. (There are rare exceptions to this in the animal world; but their rarity makes the point.)
As for death: why is death, at least in Scripture, consistently portrayed as an enemy, not as a friend, not as part of a "holistic" process? Is that the wrong perspective?
Certainly not wrong; there are many (perspectives)...even of the same thing.
Undergirding these observations (for me) is John 12:24, which I think this was percolating somewhere within me as I was observing the woods. It struck me that we too often like (prefer?) the woods in its more vibrant state, perhaps (?) because the more dormant one looks like it is dying or is dead, perhaps even a bad thing. But, we also know that more is going on, than simply how things appear at any given point -- like the fact that the woods is not actually dead at all. This seemed (to me) to correlate with our cultural fascinations and disdains for its preferences regarding living vs dying, young vs old, etc. So, I wanted to express that -- a connection for how I can so easily view things through similar lenses....
It certainly was not intended to preclude other perspectives (making them 'wrong') or even anticipate all the alternative possibilities that may also be appropriately descriptive.
Regarding death as a motif in Scripture, I'm guessing your reference is quite accurate.
I wonder then, from that same source, how 'sting' related to death interfaces with that motif and if / how it creates a new one that includes things like the resurrection, re-birth, etc.
While an enemy for sure, in some regards, we now have a more final reality to acknowledge -- something on the order of death not having the very last word on the ultimate nature of reality. Thoughts on that?
Sorry you couldn't find what was 'important' in the whole of it...maybe next time.
Thanks for the addition, Dana. Your explanation gives me a clearer sense of where you're coming from on this. Here's the bit that seemed to me to be the thesis, from early on in your piece:
------------------
". . . living AND dying are actually quite compatible with each other...as opposed to being mutually exclusive and something to be resisted.
Such understanding changes our relationship with this reality. It moves us from a posture of resistance to a binary characteristic of it (that we so often presume) and toward the implications of something that we actually can (need to) cooperate with."
-------------------
It seems to me difficult to see life/living and death/dying as something other than binary. Either one is dead or one is alive. And one is pretty generally seen as good, the other as bad(?).
Now, whether we should (always?) resist death or (always?) seek life is not dependent on whether the two are binary, or not. Death can be a relief (as it was for the cousin whose funeral I just attended this past weekend). Life can be miserable and much much worse than miserable. I don't think "compatible" is a helpful word choice; they're antonyms, opposites, insofar as I can see it. I have no desire to cooperate with death, at least not <my> death. But I do want to accept it when it comes.
The John 12:24 text follows rather closely, in John's arrangement of last-days-of-Jesus events, right after the resurrection of Lazarus and the controversy surrounding that (and attempts to murder L, to boot!). And that verse seems to be Jesus's use of what we observe in the plant world to anticipate and elucidate what resurrection is: what appears to be death turns out not to be the end of life but a transition to something else, in the end: resurrection is a return to life, fully. And better, for that matter.
The "sting of death"? Paul seems to be saying that, with Jesus's resurrection, the sting of death—that is, its apparent finality as viewed from the traditional Jewish perspective, where it's just bones in a family grave—is gone. But as he says, the sting is not fully gone yet and won't be until God resurrects all. Which I take to be "new/revivified heavens and earth" time.
Death certainly doesn't have the last word on the ultimate nature of reality; Paul exults in that, it seems to me.
Woods in winter are wonderful; and I like winter, which sadly we seem to be having less of these days.
Dana, I agree with various sentences in this post; but for me the whole doesn't hang together well. And I'm not sure what's most important in it. I agree with your concerns about the use of power, although evolution implies that survival is all about power: the power of the bird to eat the worm, the power of the fox to catch the hen, and on and on up the animal ladder. Humans, it seems to me, are the one creature in the natural world that is given the chance to work against the use of power that takes advantage of others, though we do poorly at it. (There are rare exceptions to this in the animal world; but their rarity makes the point.)
As for death: why is death, at least in Scripture, consistently portrayed as an enemy, not as a friend, not as part of a "holistic" process? Is that the wrong perspective?
Certainly not wrong; there are many (perspectives)...even of the same thing.
Undergirding these observations (for me) is John 12:24, which I think this was percolating somewhere within me as I was observing the woods. It struck me that we too often like (prefer?) the woods in its more vibrant state, perhaps (?) because the more dormant one looks like it is dying or is dead, perhaps even a bad thing. But, we also know that more is going on, than simply how things appear at any given point -- like the fact that the woods is not actually dead at all. This seemed (to me) to correlate with our cultural fascinations and disdains for its preferences regarding living vs dying, young vs old, etc. So, I wanted to express that -- a connection for how I can so easily view things through similar lenses....
It certainly was not intended to preclude other perspectives (making them 'wrong') or even anticipate all the alternative possibilities that may also be appropriately descriptive.
Regarding death as a motif in Scripture, I'm guessing your reference is quite accurate.
I wonder then, from that same source, how 'sting' related to death interfaces with that motif and if / how it creates a new one that includes things like the resurrection, re-birth, etc.
While an enemy for sure, in some regards, we now have a more final reality to acknowledge -- something on the order of death not having the very last word on the ultimate nature of reality. Thoughts on that?
Sorry you couldn't find what was 'important' in the whole of it...maybe next time.
Thanks for the addition, Dana. Your explanation gives me a clearer sense of where you're coming from on this. Here's the bit that seemed to me to be the thesis, from early on in your piece:
------------------
". . . living AND dying are actually quite compatible with each other...as opposed to being mutually exclusive and something to be resisted.
Such understanding changes our relationship with this reality. It moves us from a posture of resistance to a binary characteristic of it (that we so often presume) and toward the implications of something that we actually can (need to) cooperate with."
-------------------
It seems to me difficult to see life/living and death/dying as something other than binary. Either one is dead or one is alive. And one is pretty generally seen as good, the other as bad(?).
Now, whether we should (always?) resist death or (always?) seek life is not dependent on whether the two are binary, or not. Death can be a relief (as it was for the cousin whose funeral I just attended this past weekend). Life can be miserable and much much worse than miserable. I don't think "compatible" is a helpful word choice; they're antonyms, opposites, insofar as I can see it. I have no desire to cooperate with death, at least not <my> death. But I do want to accept it when it comes.
The John 12:24 text follows rather closely, in John's arrangement of last-days-of-Jesus events, right after the resurrection of Lazarus and the controversy surrounding that (and attempts to murder L, to boot!). And that verse seems to be Jesus's use of what we observe in the plant world to anticipate and elucidate what resurrection is: what appears to be death turns out not to be the end of life but a transition to something else, in the end: resurrection is a return to life, fully. And better, for that matter.
The "sting of death"? Paul seems to be saying that, with Jesus's resurrection, the sting of death—that is, its apparent finality as viewed from the traditional Jewish perspective, where it's just bones in a family grave—is gone. But as he says, the sting is not fully gone yet and won't be until God resurrects all. Which I take to be "new/revivified heavens and earth" time.
Death certainly doesn't have the last word on the ultimate nature of reality; Paul exults in that, it seems to me.
Woods in winter are wonderful; and I like winter, which sadly we seem to be having less of these days.