#318 Sparta and Athens II

Not all of Athens liberality was a bad thing.  Here is an excerpt from the Athenian general Pericles speech to his fellow citizens at the close of the first year of the war.  He was of course propagandizing to maintain support for the war, but he says some good things nonetheless.

"If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from our antagonists.  We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of the enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens." (Thucydides, War, 2.39.1)

He goes on,

"... instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." (Thucydides, War, 2.40.1)

An inspiring piece of propaganda on the bravery of his soldiers who died in the first year:

"Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonor, but met danger face to face, and after one brief moment, while at the summit of their fortune, left behind them not their fear, but their glory." (Thucydides, War, 2.42.4)

Here's where he really starts to play on the emotions of the parents of the soldiers that had died under his command:

"Comfort, therefore, not condolence, is what I have to offer the parents of the dead who may be here.  Numberless are the chances to which, as they know, the life of man is subject; but fortunate indeed are they who draw for their lot a death so glorious as that which has caused your mourning... Yet you who are still of an age to beget children must bear up in the hope of having others in their stead; not only will they help you to forget those whom you have lost, but will be to the state at once a reinforcement and a security...  While those of you who have past your prime must congratulate yourselves with the thought that the best part of your life was fortunate, and that the brief span that remains will be cheered by the fame of the departed." (Thucydides, War, 2.44.4)

This guy Pericles is starting to sound a lot like Chairman Mao.

Finally he address the widows:

"On the other hand if I must say anything on the subject of female excellence to those of you who will now be in widowhood, it will be all comprised in this brief exhortation.  Great will be your glory in not falling short of your natural character; and greatest will be hers who is least talked of among the men whether for good or for bad." (Thucydides, War, 2.45.2)

Compare that to the apostle Paul's comments on the role of women in the church.  Pericles speech was given 500 years before Paul's letters were written, but surely they hint that Paul's comments were culturally situated.  This is part of why I won't be drawing the dividing line of Christian orthodoxy on women pastor's any time soon.

As the fortune of Athens takes a turn for the worse in the second year of the war, Pericles has to defend himself.  Here are some more quotes:

"For those of course who have a free choice in the matter and whose fortunes are not at stake, war is the greatest of follies." (Thucydides, War, 2.61.1)

More from Chairman Pericles Mao:

"Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions and address yourselves instead to the safety of the commonwealth." (Thucydides, War, 2.61.4)

Thucydides on Pericles:

"Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to confidence.  In short, what was nominally a democracy was becoming in his hands government by the first citizen." (Thucydides, War, 2.65.9)

#317 Sparta and Athens

I've often compared present-day America to ancient Rome in the period just before its decline.  The Athenian Empire according to Thucydides may actually be a better parallel.  The Corinthians, seeking to persuade the conservative Spartans into war with the more liberal Athens in 432 BC compare the two.  I've bolded what I think are the parallels between ancient Athens and modern-day America, and italicized the ways in which Sparta represents the conservative contrast.  Here's hoping we become more Spartan in our old age:

"The Athenians are addicted to innovation, and their designs are characterized by swiftness alike in conception and execution; you [Sparta] have a genius for keeping what you have got, accompanied by a total want of invention, and when forced to act you never go far enough. Again, they [Athens] are adventurous beyond their power, and daring beyond their judgment, and in danger they are sanguine; your wont is to attempt less than is justified by your power, to mistrust even what is sanctioned by your judgment, and to fancy that from danger there is no release. Further, there is promptitude on their side against procrastination on yours; they are never at home, you are never from it: for they hope by their absence to extend their acquisitions, you fear by your advance to endanger what you have left behind. They are swift to follow up a success, and slow to recoil from a reverse. Their bodies they spend ungrudgingly in their country's cause; their intellect they jealously husband to be employed in her service. A scheme unexecuted is with them a positive loss, a successful enterprise a comparative failure. The deficiency created by the miscarriage of an undertaking is soon filled up by fresh hopes; for they alone are enabled to call a thing hoped for a thing got, by the speed with which they act upon their resolutions. Thus they toil on in trouble and danger all the days of their life, with little opportunity for enjoying, being ever engaged in getting: their only idea of a holiday is to do what the occasion demands, and to them laborious occupation is less of a misfortune than the peace of a quiet life. To describe their character in a word, one might truly say that they were born into the world to take no rest themselves and to give none to others."

#316 Mosques on Private Property

A few posts back, I found it odd that small-government, free market advocates were the most vociferous opponents of illegal immigration.  I asked, why would they want the government to tell businesses who they can and can't hire, to artificially restrict the supply of labor, and to interfere in the resource allocations of private business.  Why were self-professed free market advocates clamoring for more state control of the economy?  That post is here.

The proposed New York Sufi Muslim community center housing a mosque provides a good parallel.  Why are small government, free market advocates the most vociferous supporters of government intervention into private property decisions?  Why are conservatives the biggest drivers of radical extra-legal intervention by Washington politicians into citizens decisions regarding what to do with their private property?  Why are Americans whose heritage and gift to the world is the idea of religious freedom clamoring for larger government involvement in decisions on where to place religious buildings?  Don't the Christians in opposition to the Cordoba house realize they are next in line to be interfered with by Washington?  They remind me of disaffected Israelites begging for a king to rule over them like the other nations.  We all know how that worked out.  You get in bed with Leviathan and he'll fuck you next.  Furthermore, what business has Washington in New York?  I know the answers to all of these questions.

#315 The Local Church Experiment, Part One

Martin Luther King once said that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning.  He, of course, was referring primarily to the racial divide that existed then between all-black and all-white churches.  The inference, of course, is that racism was unmistakeably the cause of this division.  But frankly, I'm not intrinsically uncomfortable with racial distinctions in the church since it seems to me that geography, tradition, and culture per se play a far larger role in our voluntary segregation than does racism.

For example, in any city in America, there is a more generally black side of town and a more generally white side of town.  I, being white, live on the generally white side and attend an all-white church (excluding the church's own prized tokens).  But, as far as I can judge my own heart, I have no inherent racist sentiment which keeps me at that all-white church nor that keeps me from attending an all-black church.  The things that keep me from attending an all-black church are simple and unglamorous.  They are: a) the miles my car would have to drive to the black side of town and b) the difficulty and discomfort of integrating myself into a tradition and culture that I have no experience in.

In fact, the very fact that the divide still remains despite remarkable progress in racial reconciliation within just a couple of generations is a testament to the fact that racism is no longer primarily what divides us.  So I don't lose sleep over the fact that I attend a different congregation on Sundays than my black brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am uncomfortable, however, with age distinction whereby, for example, one congregation will contain mostly elderly members while another next door contains primarily post-boomers.  That is a curious distinction that can't be explained as easily, historically speaking, and highlights actual problems that can and should be solved.  Strangely, even churches that have a fair amount of age diversity often choose to divide their internal programs by age such as small groups and Sunday school (of all things!).  Do the old have nothing to teach the young in these settings?  Do the young have nothing to teach the old?

The situation we find ourselves in is the responsibility and failure of both the old and the young.  It's the failure of the old to flex, grow, be curious and humble.  And it's the failure of the young to forgo church-shopping and make a lifetime commitment to the discipline, love, and service of their local community, however small, ragtag, and lifeless it may seem.

I'll go ahead and lay my cards on the table: I have a disdain for mega-churches that I can't quite articulate.  It has something to do with the church-as-self-help-pamphlet theme of the sermons.  It has something to do with the church-as-entertainment model of most of its functions.  But perhaps mostly it has to do with the demographics.  According to one study, "Megachurch attenders are younger and more of them are single . . . Additionally, they are more educated and wealthier."

Ruth Tucker, formerly of Calvin Theological Seminary, puts it this way,

"In the megachurch, young people have their own building and programs created to keep them constantly entertained. But there are some who would question the long-term spiritual benefits. The more deeply youths identify with youth programs, the weaker the chances they will remain in the church as adults.

While in small congregations, multigenerations sit together in pews. Out of necessity, young people are active participants, serving as ushers, nursery workers, singing in the choir. This gives them a sense of belonging that follows through adulthood.

When you think about it, she argues, Jesus doesn't easily fit into the fashionable, megachurch mentality of the 21st century.  It is possible that a genuine left-behind church in its humble authenticity points to Jesus in a way that no megachurch, with all its user-friendliness, could. The first shall be last."

That all gets around the issue, but again, my disdain for the youthful mega-church movement I can't fully articulate.  I have a little more trouble judging the elderly hangers on.  They are old enough and wise enough to either make a change or alternately justify themselves in their present course of action.  All I would ask is that the church, not just explore, but set itself to the task of integrating these demographics: the old and the young, the mega and the minuscule.

#314 Colossians 1:9-14

1:9 - For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,

This is where Paul finally picks up where he left off in v. 4. He had gone off on a long tangential parenthetical right after he was about to tell them what he was doing since he heard of their faith. Well now, he tells them that for them, he is praying for knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Not really sure what spiritual means here and why that modifies wisdom and understanding. Maybe someone come up with a satisfactory answer to that.

1:10 - so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

If we cannot know the reason for the modifier "spiritual," then at least we are told toward what end the Apostle and his companion pray. Walking in a manner worthy is a creative way of putting the challenge for the follower of Christ. As we'll see later, the Colossians have already been transferred in as members of the kingdom of Christ. Now they show that they belong. Belonging precedes the reflection of that kingdom. We are simply challenged to "walk" as would be pleasing to him. How do we do this? By bearing fruit, that is by doing good work.

1:11 - strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously

We shouldn't let another run-on sentence cause us to forget that the authors are still talking about their prayer for the Colossians that it is through God (specifically his power and might) that perseverance is possible.

1:12 - giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

On the path of persevering, the followers of Christ are always to be joyous in giving thanks. It is the Father who does the qualifying. The holy ones share in an inheritance, but I'm not sure what "in light" means. Too many mysteries in this letter already and no explanation is forthcoming. Ah, but look at v. 13. There's the answer.

1:13 - For he delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

This strikes me as one of the key verses of the passage. The qualification granted in v. 12 is part of a transfer from one side of a dichotomy to another. And I think this is big for Paul and the New Testament generally. For lack of more mature and scholarly terminology, there is a good kingdom and there is a bad kingdom, a domain of darkness and a domain of light. The Colossians were formerly (notice the past tense) on one side, but are now (in the present) on the other. This is huge. They don't have to wait for an eschatological new age. They have already been transferred, delivered, and qualified. That has already happened. What happens from there on out is something Paul amply addresses elsewhere. But on thing is clear, they currently stand on God's side.

1:14 - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Elsewhere Paul connects the transfer with the forgiveness/redemption mentioned here, but here it's like an aside. By connecting the two with only the phrase "in whom" we are left unclear about how forgiveness and redemption interact with transfer, deliverance, and qualification.