#277 February Modified Protestant Chronological Practical Bible Reading Plan

Feb 3-5: Num 13-15, Ps 90, Num 16-24
Feb 6-8: Num 25-36
Feb 9-11: Duet 1-11
Feb 12-14: Duet 12-23
Feb 15-17: Duet 24-34, Ps 91
Feb 18-20: Jos 1-12
Feb 21-23: Jos 13-24
Feb 24-26: Judg 1-10
Feb 27-Mar 1: Judg 11-21

#276 Diagram of the Summa

Thanks to my benefactor I got Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa, which is an abridged, edited, and annotated introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.  The actual Summa is gigantic, but there's a pretty cool diagram in the front of the Kreeft's version which visually displays its contents and helps make a Herculean project just a bit more possible.  I used iMac's Grab program to take this picture.

Notice the sections of the book follow the diagram from part I in the top right around the circle to part III.  It still will be a daunting task to ever read this book all the way through, but maybe this helps a bit.

#275 Teresa of Avila on Adoption

The ever quotable Saint Teresa of Avila on adoption as hope in a time of travail:

"It is only mercenaries who expect to be paid by the day."

I like it.  I can't find the source of this quote, but I like it.

#274 My Point Exactly

The point I tried to make about Romans 13:1-7 in two posts, first here and then here, is made for me in fewer words by

"... the unmistakable fact that the passage dealing with human rulers follows immediately after the passage dealing with the enemy and is prefaced by the quite clear statement that men are to overcome evil..."

-- Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 484

My point was that 13:1-7 fits in, and only within, the context of chapters 12 and 14.  But as Barth shows, you don't have to look that far to see why Paul made such an offensive statement.

#273 Interesting Links XXXII

Rojas at The Crossed Pond compares the handling of Plaxico Burress and Donte Stallworth and asks, is Plaxico Burress a libertarian martyr?

Mark Shea points out the specific ways in which George W. Bush has passed the torch of the Unitary Executive Theory on to Barack W. Obama.

David Rittgers looks at the sneak-and-peak powers we granted to the American monarchy when we got scared out of our wits and passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.  It's an example of how the powers we grant to big brother to fight foreigners for the illusion of security will always be turned on us in the end.

YouTube's greatest hits all mushed together in under four minutes.  Charlie bit me!

Suzy Khimm asks if the 2016 Olympics will actually hurt Rio's poor?

This idolatrous piece of art propaganda strangely includes several deists, anti-trinitarians, and even atheist Thomas Paine.

Apologetics annoys me and John Hobbins points out its limits.

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Ta-Nehisi Coates makes the brief conservative case against the death penalty.

Glenn Greenwald shows how Orwellianisms are not limited to one political party.  Obama won the Nobel Peace prize; look at the pictures on Greenwald's site.  War is peace.

#272 January Modified Protestant Chronological Practical Bible Reading Plan

One of my new year's resolutions is to read through the Bible again.  Here's what I call the modified chronological practical Bible reading plan.

It is chronological because it attempts to reconstruct the history in the order in which it is believed to have occurred.

It is modified because I didn't like how existing plans stuck Job right in the middle of Genesis.  I think Genesis is better read as a complete unit.  So I modified here for January and I'll possibly do so further down the road of the plan.

It is practical because I've failed at reading through the bible before.  I know that plans that require you to read every day just don't work.  They are impossible.  For example, there are some days where you wake up very early for work, have to rush out the door, come back from work and have to immediately get in the car to go out of town, or to an event.  Once you arrive there are people to visit and then night comes, it's way to late to actually wrestle with the text, even if you wanted to.  So to counteract that problem, I've divided up the year into three-day sets in which to read about twelve chapters.  For example I can read four chapters a day to total twelve in three days.  Or I can read all twelve chapters on January 1 and be too busy the next two days, or all twelve on January 3 because I was too busy the first two days.  Or I can read six chapters on January 1 and six on January 3 because life intruding in between.  As long as I get my twelve in over the course of three days.

It is biblical because the Bible is not a devotional, though it may profitably be used that way.  The Bible is a historical record of a people who interacted with God.  Therefore, it requires context and requires that we not miss the forest for the trees.  It requires that we read large swaths of the Bible in one sitting, at times, so as to see the grand sweep of the story.  This plan allows you to do that, while leaving you with the flexibility to do otherwise.

It is Protestant because we must acknowledge that we are leaving out certain books that other epochs of church history and other factions presently consider(ed) canon.  Maybe I'll do a Catholic one next year because Protestant will have become so 2010.

It is a reading plan because that's what it is.

It is January because that's what it is.

Jan 1-3: Gen 1-11
Jan 4-6: Gen 12-23
Jan 7-9: Gen 24-36
Jan 10-12: Gen 37-50
Jan 13-15: Ex 1-12
Jan 16-18: Ex 13-24
Jan 19-21: Ex 25-35
Jan 22-24: Ex 36-40
Jan 25-27: Lev 1-13
Jan 28-30: Lev 14-27
Jan 31-Feb 2: Num. 1-12

#271 Brooks on Leviathan

David Brooks usually writes decent but not great articles.  His latest, called The God That Fails, is one of his best and you should read the whole thing.  He starts out with the country's all too predictable reaction in the wake of the recent attempted terrorist attack:

"There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems...

Dick Cheney argues that the error was caused by some ideological choice. Arlen Specter screams for more technology — full-body examining devices. 'We thought that had been remedied,' said Senator Kit Bond, as if omniscience could be accomplished with legislation.

Many people seem to be in the middle of a religious crisis of faith. All the gods they believe in — technology, technocracy, centralized government control — have failed them in this instance."

In the end he argues for decentralized action over against centralized, bureaucratized methods of keeping the country safe.  Our security systems are only as good as their algorithms which can neither predict the future nor react to the present.

How true.  But the problem of course is that, as a nation which occupies nearly twice as much square mileage as the Roman empire at the height of it's power, our unity forces us to centralize. After all, what did an Atlanta-based company named Delta Airlines ever do to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?  What transgression did the passengers on that particular flight do the Islam?  Are people in Nigeria angry over Detroit's interference in their national affairs?

The only thing these groups and the victims of the 9/11 and Oklahoma city terrorist attacks have in common is that they, through no choice of their own, are under the yoke of a Leviathan at odds with the views of Mr. Abdulmutallab and criminals just like him.  Remember, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't plan an attack on the New York chamber of commerce or the D.C. police force.  He attacked the symbols of American business and military force projection.  Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the Oklahoma state capitol.  He bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

So while Brooks is right to emphasize that a myopic focus on a one size fits all, top-down security system is missing the point, it also needs to be remembered that our unity is the very cause of any anguish which occurs outside the city limits of Washington, D.C. is our unity in the first place.  Local actors such as the people of Oklahoma City, New York, Detroit, and the customers of Delta Airlines suffer as part of the beast.  If you sleep with Leviathan, if you need Leviathan, if you feel some patriotic connection to Leviathan, if you keep propping up Leviathan by legitimating him through participation in him, then be prepared to suffer with Leviathan.  If you feed the beast, be prepared to suffer with the beast.

As Brooks says, "In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, 'Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.'" In other words, we can't prevent every wound such a large beast will incur as it romps all over the globe, and we can't predict the precise location of where those wounds will occur on the body of the beast.  So take your lumps with honor knowing that you are an integral part of the beast.  The Chinese government is not afraid to tell their people the plain truth that their individual lives are subservient to the good of the community, that they must worship the beast, that they must sacrifice to the beast.  Americans want Leviathan to be their god too. They're just not willing to believe that it will be anything other than almighty, all-knowing, and all-seeing.  They're not willing to believe that America is a god that fails and that they and their families will be the sacrifice that atones for its failure.  Until our nation has ears to hear this mature message, we're all targets.  "But," as Brooks says, "this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways."  Because these children certainly can't stomach anyone who will speak to them otherwise.

#270 Books of 2009

Following my albums of 2009 post, here is a list of all the books I read in 2009 ranked from favorite to least favorite. Not a fantastic year but a few solid choices. I was busy this year and slacked in my free time so I didn't get as much done as I'd like. Fourteen out of eighteen of these were gifts, so thanks for that and the suggestions that keep this list going each year!

I - Recommended Reading

1. Watchmen by Alan Moore, 7 out of 10
2. Takeover by Charlie Savage, 7 out of 10
3. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, 7 out of 10
4. Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger, 7 out of 10
5. The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee, 7 out of 10

II - “I’m going to put this out there, if you like it you can keep it, if not you can throw it back”

6. The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, 6 out of 10
7. Stringing Together a Nation by Todd Diacon, 6 out of 10
8. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham, 6 out of 10
9. Colossians Commentary by F.F. Bruce, 6 out of 10
10. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, 6 out of 10
11. Eschatology and Ethics by Carl E. Braaten, 6 out of 10

12. Animal Farm by George Orwell, 6 out of 10
13. Nicene Christianity: Essays for a New Ecumenism by Various, 5 out of 10
14. Confessions by Augustine, 5 out of 10
15. The Shack by William Young, 5 out of 10

III - Not worth the effort you will put in


16. Six Great Ideas by Mortimer Adler, 4 out of 10

17. All Things Considered: Essays by G.K. Chesterton, 4 out of 10
18. The Frogs by Aristophanes, 3 out of 10

#269 Albums of 2009

These albums didn’t necessarily come out in 2009 but this is the list of all the albums I bought or was given in 2009 ranked from favorite to least favorite.  Looking back at my rankings from previous years, I've noticed that I've come to like albums more that I didn't at first like and come to dislike albums that I liked on the first few listens.  So this exercise is probably futile.  Music is like wine and the truly good music gets better with age. I didn't really add much music to my collection this year mainly due, again, to a lack of money. So here’s my list for this year, and here’s to 2009! Suggestions and donations are welcome. Books of 2009 will be posted next.

The Best
The Arcade Fire - Neon Bible
Robert Johnson - King of the Delta Blues Singers
Monsters of Folk - Monsters of Folk
Muddy Waters - The Anthology

Good, Glad I Have, But Could've Done Without
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes
Leonard Cohen - The Essential Leonard Cohen

I Thought They'd Be Good, But I Won't Listen That Much, If At All
The Killers - Day and Age
Calexico - Carried to Dust

#268 Catholic and Protestant Co-Existence

Despite remarkable similarities between Catholic and Protestant theology, there are still a few items that prevent us from spending Sunday morning together. I don't want to rehash the arguments one way or the other. That's been done ad nauseum elsewhere. But simply recalibrating our differences from time to time can help us to start to think about ways to come together. Here are six major Catholic tendencies that Protestants typically object to:

1. Normative Authority of Tradition and Scripture
2. The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
3. Veneration of Mary and the Saints
4. Purgatory
5. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
6. Lack of Seriousness About Faith

You may be surprised to see the one you expected to see (i.e. justification by faith and not works) not make my list. That is because it's a non-issue. I've read enough and know enough Catholics and Protestants to know that this is no longer what divides us. We are essentially agreed on this point. Furthermore, if that's what divided us, then unity would be impossible. It did for years, and would today, preclude unity. The others do not, they just require creative co-existence.

The problem, of course, is that neither side is, as yet, willing to co-exist, even at the local level. But co-existence at the local level is all that is needed for unity. We don't need or want people to compromise their individual belief, but a compromise in practice will be necessary.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that it is not universal. It is particular, but it is applied universally.

The problem with the Protestant Church is that there is no Protestant Church. There are only churches in protest.

#267 A Theology of Celebration

Celebration has to be made to end or else it will be made to end.

Celebration is a taste of the future, not a guaranteed future, and so not necessarily a future at all.

Celebration is Sabbath.

Celebration is extravagant.

Celebration is excess.

Celebration is deviation from mean consumption.

Celebration is unsustainable.

God is celebratory.

God is excess.

God, when he spoke his word in Jesus Christ, made his celebration to end and his fast to begin.

The divine banquet was interrupted before the foundation of the world to make clear that only those who hunger will be filled.

The God we see is the God who fasts.

To see God is to be like him.

When he appears, we shall be like him.

#266 Calvinist Universalist

I'm reading through Karl Barth's Romans commentary right now and while most of it is either repetitive or not making a whole lot of sense to me, this quote stood out:

"Can the man who has himself known the riches of the goodness of God, and has himself perceived His revelation to be wholly undeserved, incomprehensible, and independent of human worth, dare to limit the sphere of God's operation?"

In other words, can the Calvinist fail to be a hopeful Universalist?

#265 Interesting Links XXXI

Here's a great quote by Hannah Arendt on the newest and most dangerous form of government: Bureacracy.

John Hobbins points us to a few articles by David L. Perry, a professor of ethics at Army War College.

Chuck Krulak, retired commandant of the Marine Corps gives Cheney and his ilk an earful.

Do you suffer from some strain of the Divine Flu? There are two types, according to Kim Fabricius. One strain is neo-liberalism, where one of your symptoms may be that you, "deny the divinity of Christ (while acknowledging him as great guru, right up there with the Buddha), speak of the resurrection as a “spiritual” reality (i.e. as something that happened to the disciples, not to Jesus), and so cannot worship or pray to Jesus; and, consequently, don’t know what to do with Paul." The other strain is conservative evangelicalism, where one of your symptoms may be that you, "punctuate their prayers with the word 'just' ('Father, we just pray this, and Father, we just pray that') with mind-numbing repetition, and assume that the more people you have praying about something, the more likely you are to get a result."

After listing several other symptoms of each, he then diagnoses the overarching problem: "Neo-liberals, the problem is not that you are too critical, but rather not critical enough; and conservative evangelicals, the problem is not that you are too biblical, but not biblical enough. Let the healing begin!"

Whenever I see someone reading a Dan Brown novel on the train, I just shake my head. Slate Magazine feels my pain and has created the Dan Brown interactive plot generator. Create your own in five minutes or less!

See if you can guess which crazy leftist duo held the following views: "The war struck them as an imperial folly that was doing long-term damage to US interests. The brothers lamented how easy it had been for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to bully secretary of state Colin Powell, both the houses of Congress, and the majority of the American people into endorsing the invasion of Iraq." These were the feelings of none other than Pat Tillman and his brother Kevin who joined the Army Rangers together, as reported by Jon Krakauer. Their patriotic credentials are forever beyond question and far from giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" as Cheney likes to drone on about, they critiqued the country they loved.

Andrew Sullivan compares the U.S. in Afghanistan to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver character. He raises a good question. "How do you win a war when it is being led and conducted in a country you are not at war with?" Sullivan is referring to the QST headed by Mullah Omar in Pakistan.

Brad at The Crossed Pond points out how the bill being pushed to restrict federal funding to ACORN based on the sting videos is unconstitutional based on the prohibition against bills of attainder.

Halden Doerge lays the smack down on Mark Driscoll's smack down of those of the female persuasion

Ever wonder what it would be like if Thomas Aquinas had his own radio show? I haven't either. But here is an humorous example from Mark Shea about how he might've expounded his five arguments for the existence of God.

#264 Five Defining Elements of the Decade, 2000-2009

One month to go until this first decade of the second millennium draws to a close. Ten years is enough time to be eventful for anybody. I graduated from high school, went to college, met my wife, graduated from college, got married, started my career, and had a baby. And that's just the general outline. But as a community, a nation, and a world, we've also experienced a lot together. Some of these were, still are, and always will be, defining elements of our lives. On a recent excursion into the wilderness we came up with a list of five defining elements of the decade 2000-2009. We came up with many more of course, but of all the suggestions, I think that when I look back at this decade, these five will stand out more than others. What would you add or take from the list?

1. September 11, 2001. For better or for worse, this event changed America, and by changing America, it changed the world. The fall of the towers and the deaths of over 3,000 people is tragic enough. But the real impact of 9/11 is better symbolized by the date 9/12. That is the day our reaction to the events began to take place. There we sowed the seeds of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the national security state, the rule of law pushed the breaking point, and torture. That day led to both our moral and fiscal bankruptcy. It changed conversation and it changed politics. Nothing else on the list comes close to having that kind of impact on myself, the nation, and the world. And no event in my lifetime may ever come close either.

2. The Great Recession. It's hard to assess the impact of this event given it's recent occurrence, but under many metrics it has already become the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression. Jobs have been lost, businesses have shuttered, and entire industries have been subjected to creative destruction. But the extent of the problem only reveals the extent to which a correction was overdue. The U.S. economy was living off of borrowed cash and irresponsible extension of credit. Many individuals have learned lessons that will stay with them as long as they live. The nation as a whole will probably forget within a generation and repeat the cycle.

3. The First Black President. Politics completely aside for a second, less than 150 years ago, slavery of African-Americans was the law of the land. Forty years ago Black Americans couldn't use the same toilets as White Americans. Now within a generation, a second generation descendant of a Kenyan immigrant, is shitting on the finest toilet in the land. A black American, Barack Obama, is the leader of the free world. That is truly monumental. More astonishing still was the large margin of his electoral victory including a victory is the southern state of North Carolina.

4. The Digital Revolution.
Exhibit A, The Music Revolution: While mp3 players had existed before, Apple released its iPod on October 23rd, 2001, leading to major changes in how people bought, sold, and listened to music.
Exhibit B, The Journalism Revolution: Since Matt Drudge appeared in the late 90s, new forms of media, such as blogs and independent online sites, and aging readership have led to a sharp decline in traditional channels for journalism such as as network television and newspapers. Exhibit C, The Photograpic Revolution: While the first consumer-oriented digital cameras were sold in the late 90s, this decade is when we saw the greatest proliferation of their use and growth of their features. Now, at the end of the decade, everybody has them. And thanks to them, we all document more of the world than we ever did.
Exhibit D, The Web Revolution: The changes in music, journalism, and photography were all enabled by what is commonly called Web 2.0, which is defined as any application that facilitates interactive information sharing. Napster, iTunes, Flickr, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Google are all well-known examples. These tools have made the world a smaller place in just 10 years.

5. The Natural Disasters. Shortly after Christmas 2004, over 300,000 people were wiped from the face of the earth in an instant in one of the worst natural disasters in history. Waves up to 100 feet tall washed over the shores of 11 Asian countries. It caused the earth to vibrate (literally) and reverberates in every theodicy since. The aftershocks were felt as far away as Alaska with waves as far as Africa and Antarctica. It's just as well, since the memory echos everywhere too. What else can we say? The magnitude leaves us speechless. In the U.S. we experienced disaster of our own eight months later when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck in quick succession on the gulf coast. We'd experienced stronger and more deadly hurricanes, but Katrina caused the New Orleans levee system to fail resulting in an apocalyptic scenario for the residents unable or unwilling to flee ahead of time. It laid bare in graphic form the racial divide that exists in every city in America. And we nearly lost an entire city.

#263 Kasemann and Romans 13, Part Two

Introduction

In the last post I took issue with Ernst Kasemann's argument for the dismissal of Romans 13 from Scripture. My first point was that Scripture is a historical record that is outside our editorial control. We have every right to disagree with the writers and redactors, but to call for the dismissal of portions of Scripture is simply a category mistake.

In this post I want to do an exegetical thing to point out that Kasemann is not seeing the overall context of Paul's argument in the surrounding chapters of Romans. You may raise your eyebrows since Ernst Kasemann was an expert scholar on the epistle and my credentials are non-existent. And admittedly I'm out of my league here and just working off of a quick read of the surrounding passage. But I really do think that Kasemann is missing the larger point Paul is trying to make. Here's my attempt to make that case.

Romans 13:1-7 is the text that he specifically takes issue with so I've pasted that in below. Be sure to keep the context of his daughter's "disappearance" in mind as you read. Paul says,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

Knowing the one fact about what happened to Kasemann's daughter, you can see why he views the passage with revulsion. If that's not enough, does it help to know that Kasemann joined the confessing church in Germany in 1933, that he spent time in Gestapo detention in 1937, and that he watched his countries governing authorities slaughter 6 million people over the next several years? That should assist with contextualization.

You can also see how his revulsion is nothing new or unorthodox, as I mentioned in the last post, by a quick perusal of the OT scriptures. Does the phrase "Why do the wicked prosper?" come to mind? In the NT, at the focal point of Revelation's 22 chapter temple scene, the altar, we don't find answers, but a question: "How long?" Those two passages just scratch the surface of the Bible's theme of lamentation and complaint. These people had passion and they had faith. Interestingly enough, Romans is in large measure a defense of God against complaints about his justice, or perceived lack thereof. That's hardly a side note to the subject at hand.

Crammed between a discourse on ethics and a reminder about the end of the age, Romans 13:1-7 seems like it could easily be a later addition to the text. But I'll argue that the passage fits precisely where it is placed and adds to, rather than detracts from, Paul's message. Hopefully, in the process, I'll remove some doubt about Pauline authorship of these verses regardless of whether or not that is Kasemann's position.

The Purpose of Romans Chapters 12-13

If we view Romans chapters 12-14 as a literary unit, ignoring for a moment the long-range context of the surrounding chapters, I think we'll see that the climax of Paul's message, his thesis statement, is found in 13:8, immediately following the passage in question:

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

This simple statement is really the summation of a long argument begun in 12:2 under the rubric, "Do not be conformed to this world." In fact, these two pieces of advice form bookends on Paul's argument in these two chapters. Everything else in these three chapters, and much of Paul's message generally, should be viewed through the lens of these two appeals: "Do not be conformed to this world" and "Owe nothing to anyone."

In chapter 12, Paul is calling on his fellow Christians to form a distinctive community. In fact, chapter 12 reads like a recapitulation, or footnote, to Jesus' sermon on the mount, which was a blueprint for Christian ethical and public life. Paul's message here can read like a incoherent laundry list of to-do items. But it all fits under one theme: freedom. Specifically, Paul's advice concerning interaction within the body of Christ is given with a view towards freeing those who are in Christ so that they can devote themselves to love and love alone (13:8), freeing them from alternative obligations so that they can fulfill their only true obligation to Christ (14:17), and freeing them from conformation to the world so that they can be transformed instead (12:2). In short, Paul wants them free to live the sermon on the mount. With that goal in view, Paul's warnings concerning government become a small part of a larger argument.

What Then Shall We Say? Is God Unjust?

Kasemann understandably rails against the seeming injustice at the beginning of chapter 13. But has he completely glossed over the injustice of 12:14? It says, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not." Did he overlook 12:17? It states, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone." Why no argument against 12:18-20? It reads as follows,

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengence is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.'"

And anyone who has suffered real injustice or pain inflicted by other human beings can't help but be scandalized by 12:21 where Paul seems to be heaping some kind of burning item on the presumably pissed-off heads of his readers when he writes, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

I imagine that if Kasemann were to take a look at these previous verses, he'd rail against them as well, and his response might look something like this: "Excuse me bitch, but did you lose your daughter to a military junta?" Paul's readers probably wanted to say, "Have you ever lost a son to the Roman persecution? Don't talk to me about overcoming evil, you ignorant fool." And yet where is Kasemann's authoritative voice on these? If Paul doesn't piss you off at the end of Romans 12, then you've probably forgotten what it means to suffer. And you're certainly not ready to make a credible judgment call regarding chapter 13.

Viewing the odd recommendation of Paul concerning subjection to government in light of these difficult verses in chapter 12 is one way to place the text in context. Paul is making an extended request of his readers: Be in subjection! Be in subjection to whatever it takes to keep you free to love. Be in subjection to one another (12:10). Be in subjection to those that persecute and curse you (12:14). Be in subjection to those that rejoice, those that weep, the saints, and the lowly (12:13, 12:15-16). Be in subjection to your enemies and those that do you evil (12:17-20). Be in subjection to those who are weak in faith (14:15). And in an unsurprising continuation of the theme: be in subjection to government (13:1-7). Romans 13:1-7 is best seen as an unremarkable piece of a larger argument that stretches from 12:2 through chapter 14.

Why?

Because paradoxically, subjection means freedom. Surely it's not a coincidence that Paul put his exhortation in 13:7 and 13:8 side by side, is it? Look here. 13:7 reads as follows: "Render to all what is due to them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Then in 13:8 he dispenses with listing the things we shouldn't owe and cuts to the chase: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." Interestingly enough, 13:9 begins with a list and ends by cutting to the chase as well. Read it for yourself to see. I think that's an intentional parallel by Paul. It's as if he is saying that the reason to heed the advice of 13:1-7, the reason to be in subjection in all the ways mentioned in chapter 12 and soon to be mentioned in chapter 14, is to clear the balance sheet of liabilities so that love can be the only debtor.

When you have rendered to all what is due, you are then freed to fulfill your only true obligation which is to love. This is what it means to not be overcome, but to overcome (12:21). This is what it means to not be conformed, but to be transformed (12:2). This is why for Paul, slavery to Christ is freedom from sin. Subjection to man is freedom to love man.

Be Free!
The message of chapter 12 is essentially this: Don't let internal strife and injustice done unto you get in the way of your obligation to Christ! Bear with one another and be wronged to leave room for the Lord.

The message of chapter 13 is essentially this: Don't let secular obligations get in the way of loving your neighbor! Obey government so that you are free from any obligation imposed on you by Caesar so that your only remaining obligation can be to God.

The message of chapter 14 is essentially this: Don't let food, drink, and trivial ritual get in the way of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit! These are things that Jesus might have called the "weightier matters of the law." If a fellow brother wants to consider some food or another unclean, let him consider it unclean! Who gives a rats ass? Live in harmony. Only love, submit, and bear with. All these conflicts are secondary, a distraction. To the message of 14:17 which says that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking," you could add that the kingdom does not consist of taxes, revenues, respect, vengeance, status, and honor. It only consists of love. The same goes for 14:20 which says, "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food." I might add, "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of honor, respect, vengeance, status, or taxes."

Paul's constant refrain in all of these verses: Owe nothing to anyone. Live at peace if possible. Be free from conformity, and thus entanglement to obligation, so you can be transformed, and thus free to love.

Appendix

I'm confident of the my theses on the theme of Romans 12-14 above in large part because this theme is not out of character for Paul. For example, we find it in I Corinthians 6 where Paul discourages entanglement with pagan law courts and suggests a sort of community rule or legal structure within the church. [side note: Muslims call this Sharia law. Christians have yet to flesh out the practical application of I Corinthians 6.] Again, Paul's refrain is the same: Stay out of entanglement legally and financially. Be a distinctive community. I Corinthians 6, which says, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" That sounds unmistakeably similar to the passages from Romans above. Read the rest of I Corinthians 6 through that lense. Notice food is mentioned again.

One more example should suffice. Titus 2 is a litany of relationship advice emanating outward from the family household (chapter 2), to the church community (chapter 1), to public civic duty (chapter 3). Titus 3:1-2 should ring a bell: "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing consideration for all men." Remind them that mercy is a gift (3:5), that strife is unprofitable (3:9), and that this gift comes with an obligation (2:14).

I really could go on with examples, so for me, the question of Pauline authorship of Romans 13:1-7 is settled if there ever was one. Now, at what point of textual evidence accumulation does Paul's constant refrain in all these passages become a lense through which to read the entirety of the New Testament?

#262 Cohen on the Meaning of Life

He was actually writing about Bereaved Parents for Peace, an organization of Israeli and Palestinian families who had lost so much in the conflict and were compelled to reach across enemy lines. But to me, inasmuch as meaning in life can be found, this is it. I changed some of the pronouns to fit my feelings about the quote. Leave it to Leonard Cohen:

"to locate you who have suffered as much as you have, and then to stand with you in aching confraternity, a witness to an understanding that is beyond peace and that is beyond confrontation. So, this is not about forgiving and forgetting, this is not about laying down one's arms in a time of war, this is not even about peace, although, god willing, it could be a beginning. This is about a response to human grief. A radical, unique and holy, holy, holy response to human suffering. Baruch Hashem, thank God, I bow my head in respect to the nobility of this enterprise."

This is all there is to do in life.

#261 Conflicted

There is nothing conservative about the free market. The free market thrives on creative destruction. The ruins become the raw material for the next generation of bigger, better, and faster. This is why I have a conflicted political philosophy. I want both. But it has become increasingly clear to me that the two are mutually exclusive. Thus my ceaseless wandering through neo-conservatism, bleeding heart liberalism, libertarianism, and something that might vaguely be called localism.

I'm pivoting off of some of Rod Dreher's observations in his review of Sarah Palin's new book and the contents of "Going Rogue" (snicker) are not surprising. Basically they consist of vocalizing grudges, playing the victim card, and pointing out how much of a real American she is.

"But amid all this score-settling Mrs. Palin wanders into some predictable traps. When explaining her political philosophy, for example, she tells readers that 'conservatism is a respect for history and tradition'; on the very next page she instructs readers to accept the creative-destructive whirl of the market, which affects society the way 'wildfires in Alaska burn away deadfall to make way for new growth.'"

To add to this incoherence, she is a protectionist when it suits the needs of her current campaign, speech, or television appearance. I have a conflicted political philosophy, sure. But at least I admit it. And I certainly don't go around blaming the liberal media, the east-coast elites, or such hardball interviewers as Katie Couric whose goal is to entrap by asking such tough questions as "What newspapers do you read?" When it comes to my sight through the glass darkly, my own contradictions, only one person is responsible for those: me. As Rod shows, personal responsibility, once a cardinal virtue of the Republican party platform, has now become a shibboleth, and nothing more.

#260 Why Blog

Why Paul J. Griffiths writes,

"I write out of necessity. Time needs to be filled & writing fills it by turning the sharpness of thought’s knives away from the bloody self-lacerating diminution of inwardness & toward the shaping and offering of wordgifts to the world. But I also write out of the conviction that the return of words to their giver is an appropriate mode of adoration. It is perhaps the only one possible for me. I should like to have my utterances taken away from me by the wordflood from which they come, & in that way to render homage to the verbum Dei."

He then quotes from the verbum Paul in I Corinthians 4:7, "For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?"

#259 Kasemann and Romans 13, Part One

John Hobbins relates a story about Ernst Kasemann:

"It is also possible for a believer to reject a part of scripture definitively, and still remain a believer. As I remember it – I heard it from Käsemann himself – the great NT exegete Ernst Käsemann once stood up in an official context of his church and argued with great passion on behalf of removing Romans 13 from Scripture. Of course Romans 13 remains a part of Scripture, but no one criticized Käsemann for his speech. Who would? Everyone knew he had lost his beloved daughter in Argentina in the dark days in which a military junta tortured and 'disappeared' their political opponents. Including Käsemann’s daughter. Put yourself in the professor’s shoes. Walk in his boots. Now read Romans 13. Because he was a believer, I submit, he railed against that text."

Similarly, Martin Luther, undeniably a believer, was skeptical of Hebrews, Revelation, and a few other books of the canon. Throughout the Old Testament, in fact, we find believers complaining about God. Maybe if we don't complain, we either don't have passion, or faith.

Nonetheless, while Kasemann has a historically orthodox precedent for complaint, I think a corrective is necessary for two reasons. The first reason regards our view of Scripture while the second reason regards the context immediately surrounding Romans 13.

First, Scripture is the historical record of the people of God. We don't remove the historical accounts of those we disagree with. Rather, we state our disagreements with them and put them into proper historical context. Instead of arguing that Romans 13 should somehow be "removed" from Scripture, he should've simply argued that Paul was wrong on this point and that we should take the apostle's statement with a grain of salt. The argument for removal is a function of viewing Scripture as primarily a religious text or a standard rule, rather than a record of the events leading up to and subsequent to the advent of the Word of God himself, Jesus Christ.

We might say that Kasemann had a Platonic view of Scripture. In other words, Scripture for him was an unseen ideal form. The Bible, on the other hand, was the shadow being cast in Plato's cave. Kasemann saw it as his task to whittle down the misleading parts of the Bible to arrive at Scripture. Is it possible that an idealist, fundamentalist-like mindset regarding Scripture actually caused him to err here?

The fundamentalist mindset views each passage of Scripture as a rule unto itself, separated from context. For both Christian fundamentalists (like so many churches we grew up in, know, and love) and atheist fundamentalists (like Dawkins and Hitchens) each passage stands on its own two feet. For the Christians, it is because they are all the words of God. They all equally descended from heaven. For the atheists, it is because the Bible is purporting to be words of God. It's chain is only is only as strong as it's weakest link. For Kasemann, the Bible is only as good as its depiction of the Platonic ideal of what he feels should be Scripture.

That's my first point. The second is that I don't think Kasemann is seeing the point of Paul's argument and so is missing how this passage in particular fits within its context. That'll be the subject of the next post.

To Be Continued...

#258 A Poem for Halloween

Antichrist has the most disgusting plot description I've ever read.

But "chaos reigns" is stuck in my head.

#257 The Strictest Ethical Test

Richard Couto reviewing Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil:

"The strictest ethical test is to judge our actions for their consequence on others and to judge others' actions toward us by their intentions. In contrast, the laxest is the opposite -- a stress on good intentions and a denial of the consequences of our actions."

That quote could be a springboard for a lot of discussion about ends, means, consequences, and intentions.

#256 Ratzinger on Belief

As a tie-in to the last post, here's Joseph Ratizinger (fast becoming my go-to theologian) on the "I believe" phrases within the creeds:

"It becomes evident that belief is not the result of lonely meditation in which the 'I', freed from all ties and reflecting alone on the truth, thinks something out for itself [as in philosophical reflection or Christian apologetics]; on the contrary, it is the result of a dialogue, the expression of a hearing, receiving, and answering that guides man through the exchanges of 'I' and 'You' to the 'We' of those who all believe the same way."

The bracketed words above are mine based on the surrounding context of the quote. According to him, the creeds did indeed grow out of the early Christian baptismal confession of "I believe in God... and in Jesus Christ... in the Holy Spirit" which was a response to the question of "Do you believe?"

#255 Creeds and Confessions

An essay question... Do creeds and confessions:

a) create future division,
b) recognize existing division,
c) create future unity,
d) recognize existing unity, or
e) some combination of the above?

Of course, the answer in general has to be e). But more simply, are creeds and confessions a net benefit, net detriment, or a straight-up wash, to the church and the gospel? That question is a historical question. But it leads to a practical question. Would it be beneficial to do produce more ecumenical (or otherwise) creeds at present or at any point in the future? Why? What can they do for us now, if anything? What can they lose for us now, if anything? How should they look if produced and to what purpose?

Historical examples include, but are not limited to, the early Ecumenical Creeds which define what I would consider to be historical orthodoxy; the Augsburg Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Belgic Confession, which seem to be the three main documents of the Magisterial Reformation; and the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the 1689 Baptist Confession, which seem to be the three main documents of the Radical Reformation.

#254 The Earliest Christian Hymn

Via Mark Goodacre at Duke University, here is a video performance of the earliest Christian hymn containing both words and musical notation that has ever been found. The papyrus fragment was discovered in 1918 at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, and dates back to the end of the 3rd century.

Here are the lyrics:

.. Let it be silent

Let the Luminous stars not shine,

Let the winds (?) and all the noisy rivers die down;

And as we hymn the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Let all the powers add "Amen Amen"

Empire, praise always, and glory to God,

The sole giver of good things, Amen Amen.

And here is the YouTube performance:

#253 Will Smith Stars in Isaiah 37:9, The Movie

Yes, the Fresh Prince is going to star in a film version of Isaiah 37:9. The film will be named The Last Pharaoh and it will be a Braveheart-like epic set to be released in 2010. I found this out as I was reading Herodotus' Histories and came across an obscure reference to a king named Tirhakah, a Nubian, i.e. Ethiopian, king of the 7th century BC. The footnote by the editor said that this is the same Tirhakah that appears in the Bible. I was a little surprised because I had read the Bible and didn't remember this guy at all, so I Wikipedied him. And sure enough it's there. According to the Wikipedia article, one scholar credits Tirhakah's campaign against Sennacherib with shaping the western world because it prevented the Assyrian king from destroying Jerusalem and deporting its inhabitants. So we can see why such an obscure historical figure might have value for today's racial narrative, and thus box office value. After all, according to that scholar, Africa technically saved European civilization.

Tirhakah wasn't technically the last Pharaoh, by the way. Another point of interest is the Isaiah 37:9 is an exact duplication of II Kings 19:9. So Smith is therefore starring in the film version of II Kings 19:9 as well. Does anyone know if the theory is that the writer of Isaiah used II Kings as a source, or was it the other way around? Clearly somebody was quoting somebody else. I know some people posit one writer for Isaiah 1-39 and another (called Deutero-Isaiah) for 40-66. This passage occurs right at the end of the first.