#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.

#252 Interesting Links XXX

Conor Friedersdorf says there's no need to raise taxes on the rich. Instead just quit giving them stuff by means testing them. He's got some suggestions which I like.

In the humor section, Halden Dorge states why men shouldn't be ordained. If you notice, each of the items on the list takes a standard argument against women being ordained and flips it on its head. My favorites? #10 A man's place is in the army, #8 Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

I wouldn't say I'm on the fence on the death penalty. I'm just indifferent to change. Whatever the law happened to be, I'd be indifferent to change. But reading the much-talked about story of Cameron Todd Willingham makes me fine with doing away with it.

Sarah Palin: D-E-R-A-N-G-E-D.

Speaking of that crazy lady, look at these three quotes from John McCain. Ah, politicians!

Doug Bandow talks about the most foolish war of all time, World War I on the occasion of the death of Harry Patch, the last surviving British WWI veteran, at the ripe old age of 111. He quotes the Washington Times report on Patch:

"Mr. Patch did not speak about his war experiences until he was 100. Once he did, he was adamant that the slaughter he witnessed had not been justified. 'I met someone from the German side, and we both shared the same opinion: We fought, we finished and we were friends,' he said in 2007. 'It wasn’t worth it.' His most vivid memory of the war was of encountering a comrade whose torso had been ripped open by shrapnel. 'Shoot me,' Mr. Patch recalled the soldier pleading. The man died before Patch could draw his revolver. 'I was with him for the last 60 seconds of his life. He gasped one word – ‘Mother.’ That one word has run through my brain for 88 years. I will never forget it.'"

Halden Dorge cites Andrew Bacevich on the danger, yes danger, of good intentions. Interestingly, in the comments, James K.A. Smith says he sees Graham Greene's The Quiet American as a sort of parable on Augustine's City of God.

The Netherlands responds to our criticism of their social libertarianism. Apparently, we don't have our facts straight.

On the torture of Mohammad Jawad. "... she will cease to be great."

Warning, if you follow the link at this link, it will lead to a graphic image found in the ancient Roman city of Pompeii. Other graphic images were found at Herculaneum and surely other places in the Roman Empire. I pointed out in the last post that you only need to go back to the history of the Roman empire to see that the so-called "kids these days" aren't any worse than any other generation that walked the earth. Why is the picture relevant to students of the Bible? Because the question before our generation is whether Paul was against homosexuality as per genetics, or if he was against the type of sexual degradation (homo or otherwise) rampant in the Roman Empire. In our day we see a phenomena that Paul likely never witnessed: homosexuals living in committed monogamous relationships. So to him the picture at the linked link above was inextricably linked to the idea of homosexuality. What if he saw what we see? What then? And here's something to think about: both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Jerry Falwell could've predicted that one!

#251 The Mark of the Lamb

A bad-ass quote:

"On the sixth day of the week, and the sixth hour, says St. John, the kingdoms of Christ and Antichrist looked one another in the face in Pilate's court, and the adherents of the False Prophet (Caiaphas) firmly wrote on their foreheads the mark of the Beast, when they said, 'We have no king but Caesar'... Christ's Friday victory is the supreme manifestation also of the Antichrist."

-- A. Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John's Apocalypse, p. 259

With six words, these folks made a decisive pledge of allegiance and so received the mark of the beast. With three words, "Jesus is Lord," the Jews of the seven churches of Asia Minor would pledge allegiance to Christ and receive His mark. This is essentially Farrer's thesis: to receive a mark means to pledge allegiance.

Modern Christians are fascinated by the mysterious mark of the beast. But misinterpretation can grow out of our neglect for historical context when we treat the Bible as if it were a golden story book that simply dropped from heaven. Now, if any book of the Bible could be said to have dropped straight out of heaven, it's Revelation. Yet God unveiled his heavenly plan using earthly imagery. Using scripture and other ancient sources to interpret scripture can help us to have a historically and culturally grounded understanding of the connection between marks and allegiance in the ancient world. To paraphrase Ben Witherington, a text without context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to be.

I can come up with six sources which I think support Farrer's thesis that to receive a mark means to pledge allegiance.

First, the mark or seal is a dominant theme of the book of Revelation, but this passage should give an idea of the seal of Christ. Revelation 7:1-4:

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so no wind could blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, who had the seal of the living God. He shouted out with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given permission to damage the earth and the sea: 'Do not damage the earth or the sea or the trees until we have put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.' Now I heard the number of those who were marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed from all the tribes of the people of Israel."

Second, here's a contrasting mention of the Beast's mark. Revelation 14:9-10:

"A third angel followed the first two, declaring in a loud voice: 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and takes the mark on his forehead or his hand, that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger...'"

Third, we have extra-canonical historical precedent for a Jewish idea of sealing by mark specifically on the forehead. Pss. Sol. 15:6,9:

"The mark of God is on the righteous so that they may be saved.... the mark of destruction is on their [sinners] forehead."

Fourth, the precedent goes way back. Ezekiel 9:4-6:

"The Lord said to him, 'Go through the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of the people who moan and groan over all the abominations practiced in it.' While I listened, he said to the others, 'Go through the city after him and strike people down; do no let your eye pity nor spare anyone! Old men, young men, young women, little children, and women – wipe them out! But do not touch anyone who has the mark.'"

Fifth, if you need a non-Jewish reference, check out Herodotus' Histories 2.113 where he is discussing the story of Paris (of Trojan War fame) and how, after stealing Helen from the Spartans, had blown off course toward the coast of Egypt:

"On the shore there was - and in fact there still is - a sanctuary of Herakles to which anyone's servant may flee for asylum, have himself branded with sacred marks, and devote himself to the service of the god. This custom has been in effect since the beginning, and it is still the rule in my time."

Sixth, a more oblique reference, but for me, it's the clincher. Exodus 12:3-13:

"Tell the whole community of Israel, ‘In the tenth day of this month they each must take a lamb for themselves according to their families... Your lamb must be perfect, a male, one year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You must care for it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then the whole community of Israel will kill it around sundown. They will take some of the blood and put it on the two side posts and top of the doorframe of the houses where they will eat it. They will eat the meat the same night... I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the Lord. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, so that when I see the blood I will pass over you, and this plague will not fall on you to destroy you when I attack the land of Egypt.'"

With the lamb's blood, God was essentially providing a mark for his people. All they had to do was choose to apply the mark. In Egypt the whole community of Israel killed the perfect lamb around sundown. In Pilate's court, the whole community of Israel killed the perfect lamb around sundown.

He took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples and said, "This is my body."

#250 Decision Making in the ANE

We all know that when we are drunk we don't make the best decisions, but at least the truth comes out. On the other hand when we're sober, we make better decisions, if less honest decisions. What to do?

According to Herodotus' 2,500 year old account, the ancient Persians found a solution:

"[The Persians] are accustomed to deliberating on the most serious business while they are drunk, and whatever decision they reach in these sessions, it is proposed to them again the next day by the host in who house they had deliberated the night before. Then, if the decision still pleases them when they are sober, they act on it; if not, they give it up. Conversely, whatever provisional decisions they consider while sober, they reconsider when they are drunk."

-- The Histories, 1.133

This best of both worlds approach checks two of humanities worst tendencies! All decisions are provisional decisions until the blood/alcohol content has varied one way or the other.

#249 The ELCA Vote and Macroecclessial Boundaries

While the decision that led to the split between the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Church of England has been well publicized, the same decision made by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) at their recent general convention has received relatively little coverage. What's revealing is that the media coverage has been inversely proportional to the size of the denominations. The ELCA is, by rough estimation, about 3 times the size of the TEC in terms of membership. But I think it's pretty clear what makes the TEC/Anglican story bigger news: it is a division of a formerly united body where the progressives are in the minority relative to the larger body and where the decision did not take place in the context of a general convention of the global communion. By contrast, the ELCA decision is a majority decision by the general assembly of the whole body. I think that distinction accounts for a large degree of the difference in media coverage.

Both the conservative and liberal American Christian popular magazines of record, Christianity Today and Christian Century, respectively, have articles on the ELCA story. CT's article had a more editorial bent while CC had a more journalistic bent. The CC article pointed out that everyone was expecting that after the Episcopal decision that the next dominoes to fall would be the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) and the United Methodist Church (UMC), but speculated that the stronger southern (Bible Belt) constituency of these two denominations, compared to that of the Episcopal and ELCA churches has delayed that from happening. The article indicated that based on the demographics the PCUSA would likely be the next domino to fall while the UMC might not make the shift for a while, if ever.

My initial take is that the decision won't have a large immediate effect on the denomination due to it's semi-congregational polity and specific stance on the issue. They are taking a decentralized approach in allowing each congregation to make its own decision. The only change I see is the slow bleeding of members who find the decision unacceptable even though their local congregation might not be affected. But it's not like these churches aren't bleeding a younger generation of progressives back the other way. So only time will tell.

Ironically, the genius of the centralized polity of the Roman Catholic church actually gives them an advantage that no other church, otherwise governed, can benefit from. In their much-criticized policy of celibacy for all priests, they completely avoid the debate over whether to allow the ordination of practicing homosexuals. After all, practicing sex, hetero or homo, is not allowed for priests, period. The issue that the Protestants are dealing with is one of discrimination. The Catholics skirt that thorny issue entirely.

What's interesting is that the church is becoming increasingly divided by a criteria of their tolerance of this particular sexual practice, rather than over the doctrines that have traditionally caused macroecclesial divides, such as trinity, baptism, views on the Holy Spirit, etc. Without ignoring important distinctives, it has become hard for those outside the Christian tradition to distinguish between certain denominations. Of course, we can clearly distinguish Christianity from Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. And it's easy enough to distinguish Orthodoxy from Protestantism and Catholicism. But the deeper you go, the less visible the distinctions become and occasionally, the more discouraging the distinctions become.

#248 Romans 1-4: Paul Borrows from Nathan

Reading the first four chapters of Romans, I can't help but think that the Old Testament story of Nathan confronting David is a pretty good parallel to Paul's method of confronting his Christian-Jewish friends in Rome. Here's a quick recap:

In II Samuel 12, Nathan is sent by God to David. The prophet tells the king the story of a rich man who welcomes a traveler into his home, but is unwilling to sacrifice any of his abundant supply of livestock to feed the traveler. Instead, he takes the only little lamb of a poor man who had acquired and raised the lamb like a daughter.

The king is shocked. He rightly recognizes the coldhearted nature of the crime and says that the rich man should not only repay four times the amount of the lamb but that he deserves to die. Then the Nathan turns the tables on David by telling him that he is the rich man in the story. David had killed a man and stolen his wife.

Fast forward to Romans 1-2, and we see Paul playing the part of Nathan while the Jewish Christians of Rome, and presumably the whole of the Jewish people, play the part of David. Compare the two passages closely. Paul, as Nathan was, is a messenger of God's truth. Paul, as Nathan did, tells the corruption of the worst sort. Paul, as Nathan did, misdirects the attention of his audience by not immediately identifying the true target of his polemic. For Paul simply uses the word "they" while Nathan uses the phrase "the rich man." So both audiences are right where these messengers of God want them, ready to issue condemnation on the ungodly and unrighteous.

But, just then, both Nathan and Paul turn the tables on their self-righteous listeners. Compare the two responses. Nathan says to David: "You are that man." Similarly, Paul says to the Roman-Jewish Christians: "You who judge practice the same things." The "rich man" in Nathan's story becomes the "David" of real life. The "they" of Paul's story become the "you" of Roman-Jewish Christians. It's almost as if Paul is taking a cue from his familiarity with the story of Nathan and David.

But this is not just a coincidental parallel for us. Rather, I think this is the key to understanding at least the first four chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, specifically that the first two and even the first four chapters are part of the same sustained argument. The indictment of the world in the first chapter is not by any means tangential, or an unrelated chapter in some kind of systematic theology of natural knowledge, but an integral tool for subverting the church's consciousness regarding their position before God.

#247 Interesting Links XXIX

Ben Myers points out the absurdity of the new "Green Bible," an ecologically themed Bible. This is as bad as the recent Patriot's Bible. Idolatry on the left, idolatry on the right...

I really like JL Wall's post on the banality of evil. He says that remarkable evil does not require a remarkable man. It doesn't not necessarily even require a bad-bent. It does not require bad intentions, and it may even result from good intentions, and dare I say a noble heart. It's important to remember the banality of evil. Wall quotes Leonard Cohen's All There is to Know About Adolf Eichmann: "What did you expect? Talons? Oversized incisors? Green saliva? Madness?" It's not enough to teach future generations about the Holocaust as bare fact. We must drive this point about banality home.

David Neff of Christianity Today is one of the few voices from the evangelical community speaking out on the torture issue. Why? Although, thankfully, Richard Land of the SBC has also spoken out.

I roll my internal eyes whenever I hear talk of how our culture is going downhill, or our generation is so horrible. "People try to put us down j-j-j-just because we get around. Talking 'bout my generation!" In contrast I think humanity is at the bottom of that downhill slope and has been since the fall. Read a little about the Roman empire and it's easy to see, we've always been there. A new study saying that teen pregnancy underwent an astonishing decline from 1970-2009 at least rebuts those who would talk worse ill about my generation than their own.

Ever wonder what Jesus meant when he talked about the sign of Jonah? So many of Jesus sayings are enigmatic to us today, although less so to his immediate audience. But I think Michael Barber has hit the nail on the head with this post which offers a reason why Jesus might have said what he said in this case.

In the Christian subculture humor category, Michael Spencer posts a few books ideas.

Nicholas Kristof says drugs won the drug war.

We did not have our son baptized as a baby as we both believe that baptism is a choice he needs to make. I've never really been too interested in the debate over infant baptism, though I was raised in the Catholic church where it was the standard, and spent my later high school and college years in the PCA where it was also common, if not the standard. I was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant, but then at the age of 12 at my non-denominational summer camp I felt the need to be baptized again making me a literal, if not theological, anabaptist. I now no longer think that was necessary, and yet if I had to start from scratch I believe baptism is for willing adults. I've never seen this better articulated than by Justin Taylor and D.A. Carson. Taylor makes an important distinction between the Old and New Covenants, while Carson tackles an obscure passage in Jeremiah that now makes a lot of sense to me.

Very cool images of a volcano erupting... from space.

I keep coming back to Michael Spencer's posts as he, every so often, has a post that really articulates where I stand on issues that don't get articulated enough in the public square. In this post he expresses one of my frustrations exactly. As Christians, we've all heard derivatives of the following phrase: “You need to pray until you find God’s will.” If those kinds of phrases annoy you as much as they do me, then the post is for you. If you're clueless as to why those kinds of phrases could possibly annoy anyone, then the post is for you.

The quote at this link sounds like it surely comes from some damn, dirty, smelly, we-are-the-world-singing hippie. But then you see at the bottom of the quote the name of the person who is quoted, and... Surprise! Not who I expected. Hint: He's 500 years old this year.

#246 Microecclesiology

By titling my last post as I did, I intended to distinguish between two ways of looking at church order and governance. It is not enough to say that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is divided simply along theological lines, for governance styles have historically played a large role in the process. But neither is it enough to generalize about polity without making a distinction between normative church order at the local level and normative church order at the global level. So just as we study macroeconomics and microeconomics, we can also study macroecclesiology and microecclesiology.

Macroecclesiology is the process of answering the questions I posed in the last post. Namely, how should churches that are geographically separate relate? I want to say that the New Testament gives us minimal guidance on that question, though we can identify a few general principles. In stark contrast is the New Testament's exhaustive teaching on microecclesiology. Microecclesiology is the process of answering questions about how the members of an individual local church should relate within that local church.

In Rowan Williams' letter to the Anglican Communion he is strictly dealing with the macro question, a question made all the more difficult by the sparse evidence for concern in the early church over what specific form polity should take. (Side note: need to check sources, not least the NT, on that statement). But my hunch is that his ideas in the letter are driven by a growing realization that our micro interactions (both theological and ecclesial) are ultimately closer to the heart of God, than are our macro decisions (both theological and ecclesial).

After all, my reading of both the Old and New Testaments makes it clear to me that the way Rowan, as one individual, loves or fails to love John Doe, one of his local parishioners, on any given Sunday has far greater eternal significance than the most momentous decision he could ever make regarding the seventy million member Anglican Communion's "official" views on this or that doctrinal position.

#245 Macroecclesiology

We are living in an exciting time when the leading bishops of two of the largest denominations that practice episcopal polity are both insightful theologians and clear communicators. I am talking about Joseph Ratzinger and Rowan Williams. I've posted some thoughts on Ratzinger's second encyclical Spe Salvi before. Today I read Williams' response to the American Episcopal church's decisions at their recently completed general assembly. Both are well thought out pieces that evidence the fine minds behind their words.

In 2003, V. Gene Robinson made history by becoming the first openly gay, non-celibate bishop of a major Christian denomination, namely the Episcopal Church of America. This led to six years of discussions within the broader Anglican communion regarding the issue of homosexuality and now to two major resolutions passed just this month. The first allows full access to the ordination process including the bishopric to LGBT persons. The second allows for the blessing of same-sex unions. Though the Robinson situation occurred as far back as 2003, these two resolutions taken together are being widely seen as the straw that broke the camel's back, with the camel being the worldwide Anglican communion.

So naturally the Archbishop of Canterbury has responded. I think his response strikes the right tone while suggesting a new ecclesiastical direction for the global Anglican communion. But he is now being attacked from both sides in the debate, by the conservatives for not coming out with a more forceful condemnation of the progressive bishops, and by the progressives for what they interpret as a relegation of their ilk to second-class status. While I have my nuanced disagreements with Williams essay, I'd argue that both sides could benefit from a closer engagement with what he has to say.

What's more, I think the larger church could benefit from the major ideas put forward in Williams letter, because this is not a theological debate. The exegesis required to explore the biblical record on the issue of homosexuality is not that difficult. It's been done and has reached as far as it's going to reach. Rather, the issue at stake is the future of church governance and what unity looks like on a global scale.

There is only one question worth asking now and it is this: what is the best model for ecclesiastical polity? This question can be put a variety of ways. Does the church best fulfill its potential through a global, hierarchical, top-down, authoritarian, episcopal polity a la the Roman Catholic church? Does the church best fulfill its potential through a regional, hierarchical, loose-authoritarian, presbyterian polity? Or does the church best fulfill its potential through a local, grass-roots, microecclesial congregational polity?

#244 Colossians 1:3-8

1:3 - We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Here, oddly, God is identified as the Father of their Lord Jesus Christ as if the Colossians didn't know who God was and had to be reminded. I don't really get that but surely the authors were trying to make some kind of point. Notice the familial relationship again. This time, instead of God being "our" Father, he is now the Father of "our Lord Jesus Christ." So that would make them not only brothers "in" Christ, but also brothers "with" Christ. And maybe the identification of God was done for this very reason, to show this point. At this point I realize that Paul and/or Timothy have serious problems with run-on sentences. I think I've seen it in other letters in the New Testament as well. I'm pretty sure it occurs at least once in Ephesians. The one beginning here in verse 3 runs all the way through verse 8! But nowhere in this run on sentence do they say what they are praying for. They seem to realize they've done a run-on sentence as soon as they've completed it and in verse 9 they hit the reset button and explain exactly what is they are praying for.

1:4 - since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints;

The first thing that jumps out is that Paul and Timothy are hearing about the Colossians second-hand. They have only "heard" of these things, not seen them. They have both heard it, not just Paul. Someone is reporting back to them. They are giving thanks and praying because of two things, at least: 1) the Colossians faith in Christ Jesus (interesting that they've reverse Jesus Christ in the previous verse to Christ Jesus in this verse), and 2) the Colossians love that they have for all the saints, holy ones, set apart ones. Bruce has an interesting comment on the "faith in Christ Jesus" phrase. He says,

"The phrase 'faith in Christ Jesus' indicates not so much that Christ Jesus is the object of their faith as that he is the living environment within which their faith is exercised. That is to say, the faith referred to is the faith which they have as men and women who are 'in Christ' (cf. v. 2) or 'in Christ Jesus,' incorporated in him (cf. Col. 2:19)."

He goes on to say in a footnote on the Greek text that this reading is indicated here by the use of the preposition "ein" instead of "eis" in contrast to Col. 2:5 where Christ is the actual object of their faith. For this use of "ein" he points out parallels in Eph. 1:15, Gal. 3:26, 5:6, I Tim. 1:14, 3:13, II Tim. 1:13, and 3:15. It's perhaps telling that that usage is found in the sister letter Ephesians in what Bruce says is a closely parallel passage and the letters to Timothy, his co-author here. It makes you start to think it's sort of an insider usage. But then you find it in Galatians, which may be even more telling as to the question of authorship. Bruce says, "In most, perhaps all, of these passages the sphere of faith rather than the object of faith seems to be in view." I would have never picked this up from a casual reading of the English text.

So the authors commend them for their faith and also for their love and it's not an abstract love or a love for very few or very many, but for a select group, "all the saints."

1:5 - because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel,

Here the authors complete the trifecta that is so familiar to us of faith, hope, and love. But notice that one (hope) is the cause of the other two (faith and love). The one precedes the other two. I think that chronological order and causal relationship is more important than we realize. While the faith and love are actually occurring, the hope is "laid up in heaven." It is a future orientation. I said in a post recently on Joseph Ratzinger's Spe Salvi that, "Faith is the present practice of that which we believe about the future." The same can be said for love. We love because we hope. We have faith and we love because of what is laid up in heaven, at least for Paul and Timothy. So we see that hope drives faith and love.

But what causes hope? How did they know there was anything laid up in heaven? How did they know there was any hope? Because they had previously heard about it. The gospel, otherwise known as the word of truth, is what carried that message.

1:6 - which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth.

Whereas in the previous two verses we have an exposition of the causal relationship amongst the Pauline trifecta, here we have an exposition on the gospel's effects. First of all, we are still learning about the order of things here. The gospel comes to them (we don't know from where yet), it tells them they have something to hope for, and this causes them to have faith and love. And the authors then make a connection between these brothers and the rest of the brethren around the world. He says that the same thing that is happening in them is happening around the world. He still seems to be making that family connection, only now on a grand scale for those that are "in Christ." It is having the same effects both in the Colossians and in all the world. The word of truth is bearing fruit. Not only that, but it is increasing. This all began when they heard and understood the grace of God. But why the grace of God? Why not the love of God or the salvation offered by God or any other theological concept? What was it about the grace of God that the authors felt fit perfectly in this sentence?

1:7 - just as your learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bond-servant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf.

Now we find out where they heard the gospel from: a fellow servant of Christ's name Epaphras. If Paul was writing just 30 years or less after the resurrection of Jesus and the Colossian church was established enough to write a letter that is generally addressed to it, then Epaphras who first told them the gospel must have gone way back. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy knew some of the disciples. Well, I guess if Paul knew them, then this guy probably did too.

1:8 - and he also informed us of your love in the Spirit.

So we find out here that Epaphras is the guy reporting back the news to Paul that we first saw in verse 4. Here is another phrase similar to "faith in Christ" only this time it is "love in the Spirit." So it's not just any love. Also, since Epaphras was able to inform Paul of it, it must have been a visible love.

#243 TULIP Revisited

I've discussed TULIP before in a post, but never really got around to finishing my thought. I can't remember what I said there, and I don't necessarily stand by it. This is one of those doctrines that Christian teenagers discuss and then when it's been argued enough, they figure there are bigger theological fish to fry. But it never hurts to reevaluate where one stands.

I would have to say that I am a two and a half point type at this point. Here's my quick thoughts on each.

Total Depravity - I am absolutely 100% convinced of the utter degeneracy, corruption, and disgrace of not only the situation we all find ourselves in, but of our very selves, myself and those around me. We are hopelessly corrupt. I did not need the Bible to tell me this, but in case Biblical support is desired, that's simple enough to establish.

Unconditional Election - Two examples should suffice. The first is Israel. Abraham in particular, was chosen by God through no virtue of his own. God could have chosen anyone. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But I'm sure that he chose Abraham at the very least. This choice is confirmed throughout the Old Testament and confirmed, and not denied by the New. The second example is Paul. The man was knocked off a fucking horse by God! Dude, sorry, you are chosen. This is not to say that either Moses or Paul had no choice but to accept, and it's not to say that had a choice. That's a question for later in the acronym. But it's undeniable that he chose them to fulfill his purposes. He loved them before they loved him.

Limited Atonement - This is where I veer into "half" territory. Suffice it to say I'm not original here. I'm with what I've read is the position of Thomas Aquinas as influenced by Peter Lombard. The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, but only [effective] for some. My understanding of the extreme Calvinist position (even though I've also heard that Calvin himself was somewhat ambiguous on this point) is that Christ only actually died for the elect. If I'm misinterpreting the Calvinist position, then someone needs to correct the legions of Calvinists who I've heard that from because the misrepresentation, if there is indeed one, didn't start with me. Speaking of ambiguity. I think that Scripture's own ambiguity on this point is what leads me to this point.

Regarding this point, in particular, what led me to post on this topic was a series of short posts by Michael Bird where he had three posts where he asked three representatives to answer the question, "For whom did Christ die?" The presenters were Paul Helm for the Calvinist view, Ben Witherington for the Arminian view, and Michael Jensen for the Amyraldian view. [Side note: I've never heard the term Amyraldian in my life. Is that new?] Jensen view strikes me as best. Thus my half position rather than all or nothing results from the Bible's own ambiguity.

Irresistable Grace - The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people resisisting grace, a resistance for which they are summarily punished. They knew God, through the law, and yet denied him. God revealed himself through the prophets, and yet they denied him. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is a narrative version of Hebrews 1:1-2. And yet, they (proximately, the first century Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, but not excluding us as well) refused to acknowledge him. They/we will be summarily punished.

Perseverance of the Saints - It's impossible for me to read much of Paul before declaring this position untenable. Most defenders of this point posit that there is some kind of "truly" saved people which will not fall away, and if anyone does, it can't prove the opponents point, it only shows that they were never "truly" saved. How convenient! Again, Paul is very serious about warning (and I'm not talking about the book of Hebrews, I'm talking about Paul) his followers to perservere. Those who do persevere in the end will be shown to be the true saints. But there is persevering that needs to be done. You don't hear coming from Paul's pen the kind of comfort you hear these days from "Once saved always saved" style preachers. It's so easy! Not for Paul it's not.

So you see there are two that I'm strongly for, two that I'm strongly against, and one of which I have a nuanced middle view. Thus I can be considered to hold to two and half points of the theory. Here I stand... for now at least. Label me as you will!

#242 Watchmen: A Thought

There are two types of people in the world: those who, at the end of the story, sympathize with Rorschach and those who sympathize with Ozymandias. It's a question of the mutual exclusivity of truth and peace. Which is more desirable? Which is even possible? One is the harder route, but I think the better route. Bryan Caplan has said that Watchmen is the greatest literary challenge to Utilitarianism ever written. I would say instead that the gospels are.

Reading Orwell's 1984, and watching and reading the stories of Alan Moore, both V for Vendetta, and Watchmen, respectively, have been eye opening for me in these post 9/11 years.

#241 Bromiley on Freedom

As part of a eulogy for the recently deceased Geoffrey Bromiley, Christianity Today linked to his last article for the magazine where he addressed the debate about the openness of God towards the future. At one point in the article he says,

"God in his freedom can use even our transgressions as instruments of his grace. Even as he reproves and smites he can also bind up and heal (Job 5:17ff.). He is not forced into last-minute decisions brought on by human decisions. God in his freedom was open to human choices. He was also ready for all eventualities, and he would at once give the foreseen appropriate response. In his divine freedom, therefore, God is never placed at risk."

I particularly like the statement that God is "ready for all eventualities." I think it represents a good model, in the absence of certainty, for understanding God's freedom and human freedom.

Regarding human freedom, Bromiley illustrates early in the article that while humans may appear free, their freedom is only relative. For example, if we think of the least free member of a society, a prisoner, we can say that relative to our own circumstances, he is not free. But even inside the walls of a prison different inmates are more or less free depending on the nature of the prison, the severity of their crime, their behavior during their stay, the space in their jail cell, the amount of time they are allowed for recreation, the scheduled time for lights out at night, and an infinite number of other factors. Ultimately, they are only physically restricted by the immediacy of the prison walls and mentally restricted by the walls in their minds. Their freedom can only bounce off the walls, so to speak.

But even outside these walls, in what we designate as free society, their are restrictions on human freedom. We have no choice when or where we are born or when and where we die. We have no say in when we are sick and when we are healthy, what our racial identity, beginning social status, or economic position are. We may be born into a tradition of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. We had these decisions forced upon us and the best we can do is to do the best with what we've got. The vast majority of people that begin life in any of these positions, religiously, socially, or economically, end up very close to these same positions at the death. The rarity of the exceptions proves the rule.

Additionally, the reasons for our decisions and our decisions themselves are influenced by our environment and a range of influences including parents, siblings, teachers, friends, and co-workers. Laws and societal norms also hem us in. If we break laws we can lose what little freedom we have and can become just like the prisoner. All these things clearly play a dominant role in our decision making. And we haven't even mentioned genetic predisposition. As Bromiley points out, even the freedom to sin, which many Christians see as the ultimate form of freedom is actually, for the Apostle Paul, the ultimate form of slavery. We have all seen how sins involving addiction, lying, love of money, and love of power have entrapped people including ourselves. Considering it all, we are slaves to circumstance, hemmed in by walls on every side. Our options for movement are limited. Bromiley concludes, "At best, human beings have only the freedom to react to the circumstances in which they find themselves." And even our reactions are conditioned by the factors above. So while the term human freedom is not innaccurate on its face, it does require infinite qualification to be as clearly defined as it has the potential to be. Free humans are only free relative to the prisoners among them.

But Bromiley's quote above was entirely about God's freedom, or divine freedom. The digression about human freedom here, and in Bromiley's piece, is for the purpose of illustrating the contrast with divine freedom. [Side note: Should Christians even ever speak of the concept of the "divine" outside of the name Yahweh while doing Christian theology, since he is the only one? I don't think so, for me anyway, so we'll just stick with the phrase "God's freedom."]

As Bromiley reveals, the cause of the various circumstances that limit human freedom is, in fact, God himself. He says,

"That we are born, that we grow, that we gain and dispose of various resources, that we may suffer illnesses, and then that we age and die—all these are divinely appointed (cf. Ps. 139:13ff.)... Human sin brings spiritual death, but it also brings physical suffering and physical death as well—and this was the consequence that God freely chose. His response to human sin was something he had planned—and planned in freedom. It was no mere ad hoc reaction. In his freedom, God gave us the limited freedom to choose good or evil. Foreseeing in eternity what that choice would be, he also foreordained the consequence (Rom. 1:18ff., James 1:14ff.)."

In short, foreseeing humanities choice of evil rather than good, he freely chose to ordain death as the consequence. [Side note: Might he have chosen this consequence so as to reign in evil's potential impact? In other words, it's as if his command to humanity was that "if you're going to live rightly, then live, after all, living rightly is what life is all about; but if you're going to live wrongly, then you have no business living, as living rightly is what life is all about. It's what you humans might call the meaning of life.] So sin did not force a course correction for God; he was "ready for all eventualities."

But he was not content with setting up the consequence and letting the chips fall where they may. Rather he freely made a promise towards those who believe. Doesn't this restrict God to fulfilling his promise? No, of course not, presumably he's free to break that promise as freely as we are to break our promises. We keep promises to our fellow man not because we don't have a choice not to, but because we believe keeping promises is the best course of action. God's offer of salvation is not a restriction God has placed upon himself, but a covenant promise he has freely entered into because of his love that is realized as he desires and fulfilled as he intends (Isa. 55:11).

So the openness theologians have not discovered anything new. God has always been open to human decision. He has always been ready with consequences and promises.

#240 Colossians 1:1-2

So I'm usually not disciplined enough to finish ambitious projects and my pessimistic disposition tells me this will be no exception. But what the heck; I have nothing to lose. So begins a layman's verse by verse devotional, i.e. nontechnical, commentary on Colossians. Though I'm most interested in Ephesians as I mentioned in the last post, that'll come next if I make it through this one. Then I'd like to go through First Corinthians. Then, I'm going non-canonical with the book of Wisdom. If I ever get that far, I'll figure out where to go next when I get there, cross that bridge when I get to it, burn that bridge when I cross it, etc. I'm using the New American Standard version because that's what I have.

1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

The first verse simply introduces the authors of the letter. It may come as a surprise to most people, as it did to me, that the letter has two authors. So it can't be said to be strictly Pauline even if one accepts Pauline authorship. But still, there is a distinction in this introduction that shouldn't be missed. It is that the the two authors of the letter are not strictly equals. Paul is said to be an apostle, while Timothy is said to be a brother. Also, Paul is not content to just call himself an apostle and be done with it, but feels the need to point out that his apostleship is by the will of God.

1:2 - to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

Paul and Timothy immediately set an encouraging tone. They are complimentary, saying they are saints, i.e. holy ones, "set apart" ones, saying they are faithful. So this probably won't be so much of an evangelistic epistle, but more of a letter among friends, more than friends, brethren. It's a language of familiarity as they are writing to a specific group of brethren in a specific place, Colossae. As F.F. Bruce states in his commentary, "Peace!" was a common way for Jews to start a letter in that era. But "Grace!" was uniquely Pauline/Timothean. Maybe even early Christian? But there's another distinction that the authors make. This isn't an offer of peace from them. This peace is "from God our Father." The authors are merely passing along the message. Notice the familial language of brother/brethren/Father already in the first two verses. This familial relationship is all said to be "in Christ." By blood, they are unrelated. Paul, Timothy, the people at Colossae, Yahweh all come from different places. But they are all brought together, as a family, "in Christ."

#239 Colossians Commentary

It's probably a good exercise to write a commentary at some point on each book of the Bible and Ephesians intrigued me and seemed like a good place to start. So I picked up F.F. Bruce's one-volume commentary on Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, thinking that I would ignore the other two letters. But in the preface Bruce says,

"... I have welcomed the opportunity to expound Ephesians along with Colossians. The study of the two documents together has confirmed me in the belief that Ephesians continues the line of thought followed in Colossians -- in particular because it draws out the implications of Christ's cosmic role (set forth in Colossians) for the church, which is his body. At the same time [Ephesians] constitutes the crown of Paulinism, gathering up the main themes of the apostle's teaching into a unified presentation sub specie aeternitatis."

I had to look up the meaning of that Latin phrase above which you can do by clicking on the link. So I'm looking forward to getting to Ephesians to see this bird's eye view of Pauline theology. But it sounds he is saying that Colossians is foundational for Ephesians in a way so I'm going to go through Colossians on my own and through his commentary first. Bruce's commentary is short on the type of introductory material that would give one an overview of where these two books fit within the grand scheme of Pauline, New Testament, and Biblical Theology, but the above quote accomplishes this pretty well.

Twenty-nine pages in, he flies out of the trees once more and gives us a rare view of the forest. One of the critical questions for Colossians is that of authorship. Bruce believes it was the Apostle Paul but introduces us to the arguments against and dismisses them as speculative at best. Scholars seem to make a distinction between Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians on the one hand, and Colossians and Ephesians on the other. Bruce implies that scholars feel that the author of the former three letters did not have the intelligence, versatility, or originality to write the latter two letters. And so in a footnote, he again gives us a bird's eye view on his opinion of the relation between the letters:

"While justification by faith is fundamental to Paul's outlook, it does not exhaust his message. Paulinism should not be equated so exclusively with the emphasis of Galatians and Romans that the corporate and cosmic insights of Colossians and Ephesians are felt to be non-Pauline. There is room in Paulinism for both, and a gospel which does not make room for both will be lopsided and defective."

So you can see the kind of grasping at straws that goes on in academic biblical scholarship and Bruce provides a necessary corrective. I'm looking forward to finding out what is meant by corporate and cosmic in relation to Colossians and Ephesians, and how they are found especially here and not as much in the other Pauline letters. From my quick read of Colossians, the overall theme, if I had to pick one, would be the supremacy of Christ. We'll see if a closer look affirms this choice. My hunch is that this is the main theme, if again one had to be picked, and if one had to be stated in so few words, of the entire Pauline corpus.

#238 Andrew Jackson Biography

I just finished Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson called American Lion which is a detailed account primarily of Jackson's White House years.. I’ve learned a lot. Meacham drives the story along using quotes based on letters and communications. The book is very focused on the interpersonal lives of the members of the White House set against the backdrop of the history occurring outside. But the book interacts with plenty of characters outside including Calhoun, Clay, and Webster, among many others. Meacham comes across, throughout the book as being very sympathetic towards Jackson and subtly opposes his critics.

I’ve come away with an attitude of respectful disagreement with Andrew Jackson. I don’t know that I would have voted for him, but it wouldn’t be for not thinking he was a careful, thoughtful, intelligent man. My issue is with his views executive power. From what I can ascertain, he was really the first in a line that included Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Nixon, and Bush that exponentially expanded the role and power of the executive, not least in his broadening of the veto concept from what even Meacham claims was not necessarily what the founders intended. Jackson was far from Bushian however in his defense of the role of the executive. His defense was intelligent and he would have most likely been scandalized by the abuses he unknowingly laid the grounds for. He initiated the concept of a president being given a so-called “mandate” by the people through popular election. That is fine, but there is always the danger of the tyranny of the majority where the rule of 51% trumps individual rights.

Regarding the Bank of the U.S. issue, I went into the book assuming that Jackson opposed the bank on the grounds of free market principles. What I learned was that it was more about politics. Biddle and his connections were using the funds of the bank to play partisan politics, long before Jackson opposed the bank. He may not have opposed the bank if it hadn’t opposed him. Regarding religion, while he appeared to be the first orthodox Christian to hold the office of presidency, he firmly opposed the blending of church and state, as I do, believing that the mixing of the two brings out the worst in both. I also agreed with Jackson on the nullification issue against Calhoun. If you’re going to be party to an agreement, in this case the Union, you must agree to abide by the rules of that union as long as you are in. Leave if you want, through secession, but you can’t have it both ways. That’s my problem with nullification. I think nullification by states was and is unconstitutional. Secession, however disastrous, was and is not strictly unconstitutional.

Finally, the book details two of the biggest black marks on Jackson's presidency, the Indian removal, and his status quo position on slavery. We can of course repeat the standard line that Jackson was simply a product of his times. But then, let's remember, that there were plenty of influential voices, religious and otherwise, who spoke out against both evils; Meacham details these movements succinctly. Jackson just wasn't one of them.

#237 Interesting Links XXVIII

One of the best videos on the debt crisis is posted here.

Gary Burge posts some recommendations for Gospel of John resources.

Will Wilkinson says kill the mortgage interest deduction. I agree. As the total amount owed on a mortgage decreases over time, the tax benefit for the middle class decreases to zero relatively quickly, while the marginal benefit was never that great for the middle class anyway. And that's not even to mention the lower class. Why? Because at a certain point it reaches the level of the standard deduction and is useless.

Milton Friedman makes a fantastic argument in this video about power and who we choose to grant it to.

I've thought for a long time that marriage should be a private matter decided by individuals and their churches. The government should not be involved. That's the idea of this post.

Hannity, with a slip of the tongue, reveals the obvious.

A Christian, and an American, despite it all.

A prescient Edmund Burke against Dick Cheney.

A prescient Thucydides against George Bush.

Much of what passes for Christianity today could be called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

#236 Filioque and Rosaries

From Nicene Christianity, ed. Christopher Seitz comes another quote from Thomas Smail's chapter that I thought explained the filioque controversy that began the split between eastern and western Christianity pretty well. Notice the italics.

"Where the creed had originally affirmed that the Spirit had proceeded from the Father, the West, in an excess of anti-Arian zeal, began to confess that he proceeded from the Father and the Son (in Latin, filioque)... The ire of the east was aroused by the willingness of the Bishop of Rome to alter in a unilateral way the wording of a creed that had been formulated by ecumenical council."

Interestingly enough, though this unilateral insertion was first ratified by the Council of Toledo in 589, it was originally resisted by Rome, of all places, but was adopted by the popes after 1,000 when the split became irrevocable. In another chapter, William J. Abraham states that, "If we must resolve this dispute, the contest, in my judgment, goes to the east. The west broke the collegiality of the church by going its own way, especially in the disastrous addition of the filioque clause to the creed."

So both authors come at the ecumenical problem from an ecclesiastical perpsective (duh!) with the key words being unilateral and collegiality in the quotes above. But even coming at the problem from an exegetical (grammatical?) perpsective, Smail shows pretty clearly that technically, the east is right as well. The reason the West did what they did is easily explained by the primary heresy they felt they were up against: Arianism. So it makes sense to insert references to the Son's divinity wherever you can in this context. But the west was (is?) still mistaken both collegially/ecumenically and exegetically/technically.

On a related ecumenical note, what's the difference between saying 10 "Our Fathers" as our hands pass between beads on a necklace and singing 14 "As the Deers" as an evangelical summer camp plays itself out?

#235 Scattershot on the Kingdom

Picking up on the theme of the immanence and transcendence of the kingdom, here is my stream of consciousness. I come at the question of realized vs. unrealized eschatology from a metaphysic that says that to live is to suffer. My conclusion, for now, is that the only way/sense in which the kingdom is realized in the present age is through the actions of believers in their role as agents of the Holy Spirit. But I do not believe that the kingdom becomes any more realized through the accumulation of individual action, i.e. with each individual action or through accumulated collective action. His will has only been done on earth as in heaven in each individual action. We never get temporally closer or further from the kingdom of God with each successive action. We are as close as we can be each time our hearts, minds, tongues, and hands act in accordance with the Spirit, when we walk "in the Spirit."

But at best we can only mitigate suffering, even prevent and eliminate certain forms of suffering to a greater or lesser extent, but never completely eliminate suffering. We can never wipe every tear from our eyes. Thus our mandate: DO justice. God will BRING justice. The kingdom of Heaven/God as a contrast with the Kingdom of the Flesh is not a temporal contrast as has been the popular analogy: Present/Age to Come. It is a contrast of allegiances, and following from that a contrast of ways of existence, a contrast of mindsets, and a contrast of ethics. So this ends up being an argument against an overly-realizable eschatology, which is by definition the end of history. It is an argument for the possibility of a realizable kingdom.