Genesis 11:1-9

A simple reading of this story should be disturbing. God, who uses the word "we" here indicating He has some others to talk to, is worried about what people will do if they all work together. He's pretty sure "nothing will be impossible" for them. Verses like these are pretty strong support for a progressive theology, one where God can't do everything. Taking it more symbolically, God is representative of our future, the community that we aspire to, and the building project is our short term efforts with bricks and mortar to "make a name for ourselves".

If you are looking for historical connections, the ancient Mesopotamians built temples with steps on the outside called Ziggurats. The story could be a story of this new God destroying those old systems. That story would have to account for the fact that those Mesopotamians had conquered these new tribes, which is what happened in the Babylonian exile. The fact that they were divided no doubt made that easier.

The Genesis tales can be a problem for Christianity. They were gathered from more ancient myths that were never intended to be part of a grand narrative leading to the salvation of all mankind. They were always a problem for anyone who tried to harmonize these stories, which is why we get languages already existing in the Bible before this chapter. This story recognizes the problem of tribalism but only offers a "just so" story of why it exists, not any type of solution. If you'd like the technical term it's "etiological myth". Genesis goes on to talk of the twelve tribes of Israel and the search for a promised land and a new tribe that is the one chosen by God. Then we get to today, Pentecost, the supposed resolution to those centuries of fighting.

Acts 2:1-21

A simple reading of the Christian text is at least not as disturbing as Genesis. We have a coming together of languages, a rediscovery of our common roots. It's still God behind it all, since it is the Holy Spirit giving them this ability, and they quote Joel to show it's rooted in their tradition. Would we call this "cherry picking" today, since they are choosing a scriptural message of unity instead of one of the many texts about smiting your enemies? Or is it perfectly in line with all of those since there is going to be blood and fire on earth and you have to call Jesus' name if you want to be saved?

No matter what theological perspective you start with, I don't see how you can get away without this being a re-interpretation of the Babel story. Unless you divorce the God character of thousands of years before from the understanding of God in first century Palestine, you can't make sense of this narrative. An all knowing God, consistent throughout time does not fit these two ends of the story.

Sacrificial systems fail, that is not controversial to anyone living in the modern world. It is the system portrayed throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament tries to put an end to that by making the ultimate sacrifice of a god. That god must give himself up so there is no one group over and against the others. He is the sacrifice that brings everyone together. The old system of expelling people from the garden or drowning them or smashing their efforts to provide for their own security through satisfying their own ego are seen to be pointless, a repeating cycle that will never end. We will never achieve a secure and peaceful society as long as that requires victimizing some to achieve it. The New Testament recognizes the futility of redemptive violence and how humans create this cycle by their own actions.

Unfortunately, the new myth didn't work. The old myth of sacrifice was still too baked in to make this happen. We messed up the Babel story, turning it into something it is not, and then messed up the story that was meant to undo it. Acts goes on to tell how the early Church leaders argue amongst themselves, trying to figure out what to salvage from the old rules. Historians and scholars today tells us how later leaders forged and rewrote their own scripture to try to win points for one rule or another. The paying homage to one version of a god simply transferred to the next one with new rituals and new rules and new victims.

John 14:8-17, (25-27)

I really don't like the way the book of John is so split up over the Lectionary. This Pentecost entry is related to the Year C Pentecost entry. It's close to the beginning of a long address to the disciples from chapter 13 to 17, all of it at the Last Supper. Jesus told Judas and Peter about their coming betrayals, but here he's talking about peace in response to a question from Phillip. The somewhat confusing explanation is part of what has become the Trinity. He also throws in this little tidbit that you, yes you, anyone who believes in Jesus, can do even greater works than he did. I've never heard anyone preach this and I don't know how you could put these powers to the test. Maybe he just meant to try to be as good as he was and do good works like he did. This could be a remnant of something that a historical Jesus actually said, someone who didn't do any miracles, but spoke with wisdom.

He also gives us the formula for recognizing a believer; they will keep his commandments. Of course the new covenant makes it a little harder to know exactly which commandments from the original set still apply and which can be ignored, but that's the idea. It's another variation on the theme of study the Bible and pray, and God will be there for you.