#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.

#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."