VHC, ch. 3

For my own benefit, if you actually read these summaries, let me know. There's no point posting on them if no one is reading them; I can take notes elsewhere and post on other things.

Boersma begins by saying that God's involvement with humanity necessitates selection--which includes geographic, historical, national, and ethnic boundaries (75). Some of these selections have necessarily involved violence. However, this cannot be divorced from God's hospitality in Jesus Christ and how the story came to that point. Boersma's argument follows this line: 1. God's "preferential hospitality" for some is not essential to his character; 2. "Preferential hospitality" must be seen as a positive term; it is a "positive expression of divine hospitality" (76); 3. In using the word "preferential," Boersma is dealing with historical realites of race, wealth, power, etc. These categories automatically have distinctions; 4. His understanding of election ("preferential hospitality"), therefore, is "historical, corporate, and instrumental" in nature (76). So, the (necessary) use of violence is to protect monotheism, counter immorality, and protect the poor--all for the purpose of drawing all nations to himself (76).

Boersma's best work here is on the doctrine of election, to which he gives four characteristics: 1. Election is gracious. Nothing Israel does warrants their selection. 2. Election is a historical doctrine--meaning, it happens within history (namely the exodus event). 3. Election is corporate. God selected a nation. 4. Election is "instrumental," meaning that it is for covenantal relationship. So, ethical behaviour was essential to being in covenant. Quoting Boersma (I'm surprised Some Guy hasn't called him a Pelagian--tongue in cheek--for this statement, considering I've said as much the same thing to get the P-word-condemnation ;)): "Put succinctly, getting in [covenant] was a matter of grace and thus unconditional, but staying in [covenant] required a human response of obedience to the precepts of the Law and was thus conditional."

How does violence play into election? First, because the stakes are so high--the salvation of the world!--God threatens Israel against disobedience (79-81). Second, because God selects *Israel,* he chooses against someone. Still, the choice of Israel is for the poor; in a sinful world we are mired in confrontations of weak and oppressed and therefore violence. Israel, in turn is to show this hospitality to aliens, orphans, and widows--and outsiders in general. The choice of Israel is for the world. But it remains choice and violence does remain.

But have we made too much of authorial intent? Even if the authors endorse the violence located therein, do we not have a responsibility "to interpret against the narrator, plot, other characters, and the biblical tradition" (89, quoting Tribe, "Texts of Terror")? The deconstruction of texts in favour of justice seems to be the reader's responsibility with certain violent (biblical) texts. But this leaves us hopelessly mired in subjectivism. What is just in certain contexts? If justice is to enter history (pace Derrida), then ought we to deconstruct the narrative as we find it? (91).

Boersma completes Ch. 3 with a combination of his critique against Limited Atonement and Postmodern deconstructionist readings of the biblical text. In deference to each, however, he does not expel violence from the text altogether and looks forward to divine hospitality. "God's hospitality in Christ needs an edge of violence to ensure the welcome of humanity and all creation" (93). This is Boersma's conclusion based on his reading of the text, warts and all, and the doctrine of election he finds therein.