I wrote this short paper for my Old Testament Theology class in spring 2009.

As a Religious Studies major and a Sociology minor, I have a particular interest in the ways and methods religion interacts with culture/society on all levels. After reading Bill Arnold’s Encountering the Book of Genesis: A Study of its Content and Issues (Baker Books 1998), the section that struck me as most fascinating focused on Israel’s uniqueness in Ancient Near Eastern culture as she began to develop as a nation among many. By engaging the similarities and differences of Israel’s creation story with other Ancient Near Eastern myths of creation Arnold presents seven reasons why Israel should be viewed as a wholly unique body in its geographical and historical context. While I find these reasons generally acceptable and fair-to-consider, the sociologist in me pushes against the notion of a pervasively unique Israel for the fundamental reason that religion is rooted in all things cultural and societal.

Within the conversation of sociology there is an ongoing debate concerning the interaction between religion and society. How much does society affect religion, if at all? What kind of influence does religion have on society? Which has a greater prominence, or a more potent grip? This conversation has taken place since the beginning of sociology (and even before then) with Emile Durkheim and his questioning about the origins of religion. Durkheim viewed religion (in all forms) as ‘arising’ out of society. That is, when groups of individuals gathered with a single purpose in mind some irreducible force or quality ‘effervesced’ out of the group to create a feeling or even a whole range of emotions that would normally have never been brought to attention. Therefore, religion should naturally be viewed as a product of society, as a component and not an influencing factor. But as time wore on, it became more and more evident that religion itself creates structures, and even those structures are capable of changing and altering the structures (from within society) that surround and engage these ‘arisen’ structures. So begged the questions: ‘What factors contribute to structural changes within society? And what role do structures, and their agents, actively pursue in engagement with the world around them?’

That being said, it is hard to deny the visibly apparent structural existence of Israel developing, or ‘arising,’ within the context of the Ancient Near East. Therefore, one has to admit that Israel does not and did not ever exist in a bubble–wholly separate and distinct from the other nations of the Ancient Near East. I think there is a mental image among many Western Christians today of Israel wandering around in the desert with a halo over her head standing out above the rest and striking down anyone that stood in her path. To some, this image resonates deeply with their theological belief; to others it could be quite problematic.

I think that the uniqueness of Israel among her neighbors is often overstated to the point that we forget religion exists much in the same way that a tree takes root and forms in the ground. Religion has roots that dig and search deep into the ground, that spread out far beyond the visible expanse of the tree, in search of concepts and ideas to take in as its own–adapting them and re-imagining them at times for her own use. What is significant about this imagery is the soil; depending on the nutrients found in the earth, a tree will take on many different characteristics. In this, the tree still retains a DNA code which ultimately determines its appearance (to speak of a uniqueness of Israel within this imagery), but to speak of uniqueness as overriding the cultural impact on religion is to say that no matter where you plant a tree (or any vegetation for that matter) you will get the same exact shape, form, size, color. To hold such a view is to ignore the abundant richness of the soil from which the tree emerges from.

The uniqueness of Israel and of the Judeo-Christian religion is a conversation of deep theological importance, and by no means am I wishing we lock up its possibility and significance. Rather, I envision a place where uniqueness, in the light of an integrated cognizance of our deep connectedness to the world/culture around us, can take on a vastly different goal: a direct engagement with the world. Arnold’s sixth point for Israel’s uniqueness draws on the fact that “the ancient Near Eastern worldview devalued history” by highlighting the lack of an overarching meta-narrative for human history (Arnold 51). He contends, however, that Israel took the history and the direction/purpose of the world to an “entirely new level,” found in the creation stories and the eschatology of Israel (51). This ‘new level,’ for Arnold, is one that further distances Israel from her neighbors; however, what if, in reality, it brought her closer while still retaining uniqueness? I think Israel’s uniqueness (which, as above, is nothing to be discounted or terrified of) is only compelling because she is so culturally bound to the context of the Ancient Near East. A tree can only grow if it takes root within the soil, if it has a foundation. In the same way, Israel can only be God’s redemptive agent for transformation in this world if it utilizes the fact of its embodiment in the culture it has emerged from.