The Text Can Die As Much From Unthinking UnChallenging Agreement As Easily As It Can From Pat Refusal To Consider It

ONE OF THE INTERESTING things that happened during Walter Breuggmann's second lecture on Jeremiah, talking about the "plucking up and tearing down" part of Jeremiah's commission was when he pointed out the similarities between that and the book of Hosea from a century earlier.   Specifically at this point he focused on the metaphor of Israel's relationship to God in terms of infidelity to a marriage vow that conditions a husband's support for the wife on her fidelity.  Brueggemann's careful at letting his audience know that he knows what is wrong with the metaphor from our, current understanding and thinking all through his presentation of it.  But that didn't stop a member of the group from strenuously complaining about him citing the language of the text.   In her favor I'll point out that at the start of the short Q&A at that point he joked that they were like seminarians avoiding eye contact with him.  I will also note that later in the course of revisiting it later in the session, he thanked her for bringing it up.

I won't go into this except to point out that her objection, to which Brueggemann says there are lots of ways to deal with that including just refusing to read the text of talk about it - which he said was OK with him - is one of the problems with why the current culture refuses to deal with much of anything that it doesn't find pleasant and easy.   I certainly agree with her objection to the image, which Brueggemann notes he shares with her too, but the exchange is a great example of the kind of thing that has to be overcome to go over these texts and find what is useful about them for us now.   She probably would have said some of the things she said better if she'd had a chance to do it in writing.  My preference is always for written texts that are reviewed and considered by the writer to say what they mean, impromptu interviews and Q&A, the talk-show style that has so damaged our politics (frickin' presidential "debates"!)  on the stupid assumption that they are more sincere than careful use of words.  I think she and Brueggemann  were on the same side something which the language that he, as a scholar, had to use to discuss the words of Hosea may confuse some.   I hope she realized the value of the discussion because it's something that needs to happen or the texts die of agreement or pat rejection.