Old Testament Theology- July 14th Reflection

Israel’s Practice of Testimony: Community in the Courtroom*

I very much appreciate the metaphors of courtroom language, borrowed from Paul Ricoeur and utilized in our text. Witness and testimony language are not unfamiliar to Christians in this country, particularly those from more evangelical traditions. Evangelical traditions are known for their emphasis on individual experience and personal relationship with Christ. Yet the language of testimony and witness, when applied to the Old Testament, upholds a deep sense of community bound together by purpose and over time. First, the multitude of voices found in the text- with all the competing claims on the character of God and God’s actions in the world- have been preserved by time and tradition. This is not a community of “majority rules”, rather, it is a community where witnesses to the truth are given voice because they are of the community. Hence, we find two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, we encounter the sustaining God of the wilderness and the God who allows Job’s suffering. Furthermore, the role of community is preserved in the role of witness each time the community provides witness through word and action “on behalf and of the people” – that is, in its liturgical function. The discussion of testimony as thanksgiving (as discussed on pgs. 126-130) highlights the liturgical and performative function of speech: “Israel need to speak its witness out loud, for the saying is effective in affirming and enhancing the relationship”(129). In this case, as with all liturgical language, the testimony is given by and for the community, and the entire community is present in the very act of witness.
Continuing with our courtroom metaphor, is there a way to sustain this clinging to community in the adjudication and deliberation of the testimony? In this country, we are accustomed to a jury system, where verdicts are reached by the group- and can only be final if the group is in agreement. Can we extend the metaphor of Old Testament theology that far, and require some kind of consensus in our deliberations? Or are we holding a civil trial, where final decisions are made by the individual judge holding court? The consensus/jury model tempts us back towards the (sometimes suffocating) authority of church doctrine, where we are faced with the difficulty of Scripture losing its freedom to speak on its own terms. Yet, the individual/judge model lures us into the extreme individualism of modernity, and those ideals are no longer helpful either. Perhaps our best option is to understand ourselves as both judge and jury- ready to take a stand, but always knowing that wherever we stand will be impacted by the positions and deliberations of those around us. As decisions are made about the reliability of the witness, “reality is decided” (135) and then witness to that new reality proceeds. The dynamism and dialogical nature of the Old Testament is preserved through the ongoing process of adjudication by individuals and communities The trial then continues on, as the adjudicators become witnesses for the next generation. And, as noted in class, this ongoing conversation is the true meta-narrative found in the Old Testament.

*all page references are from Old Testament Theology, by Walter Brueggemann (Fortress Press, 1997.)