Saturday, April 29th, 2006
Over on the blog Theomony, Theophorus posted a piece titled "Got Rights" on immigration. He took a Christian libertarian stance with which I agree. The discussion was focused on whether or not non citizens have rights. Theomony and I maintain that they do. Micah jumped in and argued that they didn't. The discussion turned to Biblical passages that can support or be quoted against the idea of inalienable rights. Later it focused on Romans chapter 13.
I have blogged on this before, and I wish to blog on it again. I have done a bit of reading on this topic, and am convinced that it is usually not dealt with very well. The most common treatment of the subject is one I can at least stomach. Is usually portrays the state as being instituted by God, but sees moral limits to its authority. Where I disagree with the reading is where I also disagree with some other libertarian reading in that they see Romans 13 as the key text on the issue of Christians and government. My meditation on the Lutheran idea of sedes doctrinae, or the idea that a doctrine has particular passages in which it is preeminently taught, has convinced me that whatever our theologians have said in the past, this text does not qualify. While it may be apparently clear and on topic, I think that we must first go to the actual institution of a divine ordinance to know what it is. For the Lord's Supper, that is the Words of Institution spoken at the Last Supper. Our theologians were very clear that these words hold pride of place in our discussions. They are not mere commentary on the Lord's Supper, they are constitutive of it. If we assign even apostolic commentary equal weight we are liable to misreading.
Likewise with marriage. There is a lot of God-given material on marriage. But we must not assign it all equal weight. Jesus shows us how those who go first to Leviticus err. Moses took into account hardness of heart. But the Levitical law, read out of context, was not a guide to God's original intention in Creation. For that we needed Genesis. I see this as a hermeneutical warning. Who could have known that hardness of heart was an issue here? It isn't stated in the text. And is not the text sufficient? Yes. If by "the text" we mean the entire revelation. But given how long that is, we are at least safer if we find the original intention at an institutions origin.
I would argue that we must do the same with the state. Romans 13 is not the institution of the state. It is clear that states preexisted the writing of Romans 13. So where are we to find the origin of what St. Paul speaks of in Romans 13? Genesis 9:6. God says "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Jesus restates this in terms of the sword as "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). And the function of the governing authority is spoken by Paul as bearing the sword (Romans 13:4).
I think that given the Old Testament, the bearing of the sword is our best place to start with Romans 13. To begin by speaking of "governments" distorts the discussion. We don't see a founding narrative for those as such. And when God does establish a state, it is clear that it is not to be like the other nations. When the people want to be ruled like the other nations, God tells Samuel that the people have rejected Him. The anointing of Saul may well have been according to God's permission, but only after people had gone against His revealed will.
So when Romans 13 says that God has instituted the authorities that exist, we have a couple of choices. We can either see these as being instituted in the sense of being the result of God's command in Genesis 9:6, the paradigmatic function of which is capital punishment for murder. Or we can see it as a Providential statement that no one comes to power without God's permission. But we must be clear that these different ways of seeing it should probably not be blurred together. I think people tend to read this in such a way that they lean now one way and now another. How does the rest of the passage read according to these different readings?
Sword Reading
Under the reading that sees the governing authorities primarily as those who use force to guard the lives of others, there is a function behind the authority given. Authority is not a blank check to whomever may rule. It is permission to bear the sword for a given purpose. This make sense also of the fact that St. Paul lists the benefits of obedience and the costs of disobedience. "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad" (Romans 13:3). When a ruler is doing his job, then we have nothing to fear from him. I would even say that this should dovetail with the idea that against the manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit, there is no Law. Yet in actual practice, there sometimes is. Take Nazi Germany. To care for Jews was against the Law. There were many Christians who had difficulties in helping Jews on account of the teaching they had received on Romans 13. (Corrie Ten Boom even tells about how the soldiers coming to arrest her family quoted the verse to them, reprimanding the family for breaking the law.) Some will argue that this is a clear case where we are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). They say that their Romans 13 reading makes room for disobeying the civil law when it commands disobedience to God. The trouble with their reading is that it doesn't seem to notice just how gray this gets. As governments get more totalitarian, they tend to require more and more of the energies of their citizens and use those energies toward ends that are in the longrun destructive to the lives of our neighbors, though in the short term there may be no clear commandment that is being violated. It seems to me that the answer to this is to read Paul's commandment as follows.
The person being addressed in Romans 13 is the Christian who has just left paganism. While many of the hearers were no doubt Jews, they don't need an answer here so badly. But the pagan convert does. He is told to be afraid if he does wrong, for the ruler does not bear the sword in vain. Now what does this imply? First, that the person Paul addresses might actually consider doing some crime that would be worthy of punishment by the sword. This doesn't sound like Paul is talking about a misdemeanor. We're talking major felony. Second, the person addressed is spiritually immature. Jesus tells us not to fear him who can harm the body, but Him who after He has killed can cast the body into hell (Luke 12:4-5). Yet St. Paul is telling his hearer to fear the one who bears the sword. Why is this? Because St. Paul is not addressing someone who is considering a situation where he has to go against the state for reasons of conscience, as Jesus does. He addresses one who is considering doing wrong for selfish reasons. The spiritually more mature person will pay much less attention to what the ruler may or may not do to him. He will do good, under the understanding that there should be no law against it, and that even if there is, he is following one who has greater power than the ruler.
The other aspect of this passage that needs more attention is the aspect of scandal. St. Paul is first and foremost interested in the Gospel getting a hearing in the culture, which does not happen well when there is open scandal. Now what will cause scandal in a culture will vary from time to time. But good reputation (Romans 13:3 approval) is a good thing that we should consider in any age. Not because it feels so good to have someone say we did a good job, but because such reputation helps the cause of the Gospel.
If Christians earned the reputation of lawbreakers, this would be scandalous. Hence, St. Paul needs them to be submissive.
Yet I think some readings of Romans 13 ignore the nature of scandal in our own time. In a time of greater sensitivity toward human rights, the church's complicity with and complacency towards evil governments is itself a cause of scandal. And as in Nazi Germany, the politicians know how to cite Romans 13 in their own favor. The Kairos Document offers some description of some of this. I may not be on the same page as its writers on everything, but I appreciate the gravity of the situation they were trying to come to terms with.
Providence Reading
Under the reading that sees the governing authorities primarily as ordered by divine permission. They become a Job-like test to see if Christians really believe that God will put everything right in the end. Attempts to see justice in this life are doomed and betray a desire to see on earth a righting of wrongs that we will only see in heaven. Yet does this do justice to what Paul says? Paul speaks of a rationale for what the ruler does. When there is a rationale, we aren't being asked to blindly accept the hidden wisdom behind something that God has decided, but to understand the given reasons for it. When we understand the reasons, we are in a position to make judgments as to its effectiveness toward those ends. We should further see a relationship between means and ends, and focus on how to ensure that the ends are achieved. (Note to reader: At this point, many will wish to come up with examples of how such reasoning should not be pursued because of how it goes awry in questions of worship or other matters. I will caution that the problems in those areas are when people wrongly identify the ends before they choose the wrong means, often by guessing what those ends are rather than being instructed by Scripture.)
This is a start on a new discussion of this topic. Before people begin assuming that they know what kind of civil disobedience I have in mind to create license for the flesh (as Micah has charged), they might consider whether there is any point to the idea that there are seats of doctrine or whether all Scripture is on the same level since it is God-breathed. The flat reading of all Scripture being on the same level seems to me to be what those who tried to bait Jesus used, and He showed how it was distorted despite the fact that what was being quoted was the Word of God, since God's intention in establishing what He had ordained was being ignored.
12:06 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | 34 comments | Permalink ]
Monday, April 24th, 2006
I am a bit of a fan of the Titanic. Not merely James Cameron's movie of that title, though I will freely confess that I still love the movie. But also other works related to the topic.
Recently I dived back into these well-mapped waters. A few years back I had bought the book-on-tape version of Walter Lord's A Night to Remember on Dr. Rosenbladt's recommendation. (He told me the book was popular when he was a kid, and also said he enjoyed it, if I remember.) Lord provided a very enjoyable narrative that offered detail on any number of aspects of the voyage, starting with who had or had not brought which dogs on board. (For example, John Jacob Astor brought his Airdale 'Kitty', but Clarence Moore left his 50 pairs of English foxhounds purchased for a hunt at home.) After several re-listenings, I decided I needed a new tape. I was thinking of getting more from my extensive book-on-tape collection. But before switching them out, I stopped at a local used book store and checked out their used books-on-tape. Lord's The Night Lives On was among those available, and at a good price.
Lord's newer book (written in the 1980's) was an intriguing update on Titanic research since the writing of his first book and the filming of the movie based upon it.
I was inspired to check my local library for more books on the subject, and found some wonderful oversized books. They included some very interesting pictures. One was of the only surviving ticket for the voyage. A clergyman was scheduled to set sail, but remained home when his wife took ill. (I am not given to much of this kind of speculation, but it is difficult not to see a special Providence there!)
I rented the movie A Night to Remember about a week ago. It was quite enjoyable. But I have to say I rank it lower than the book upon which it was based. I would rank Lord's Book A Night to Remember highest, followed by Cameron's movie, and then the book The Night Lives On, then the movie version of A Night to Remember.
I have rewatched much of Cameron's movie recently, and am impressed by how skilfully he did include the realistic portions of the movie. While I would love a newer movie that explored the real aspects of this better (I have some documentaries I plan to watch yet.), what Cameron did show communicated a lot in a short period. In fact, if you edited out the entire Jack and Rose part of the movie, the little you are left with shows quite a bit. It is just less memorable when you don't know the story to begin with. But after Lord's treatment, these aspects come more to the fore.
What I love about this material is that I love historical recreation, and this is one place where there is such a wealth of material available. Plus I love the graciousness of the material aspects of life during those times. Then there are all the speculative "What if?" questions, which show just how much better or worse the evening could have been if one or another decision had been made differently. If the captain of the California had come to the ship's rescue, or if the captain of the Carpathia had not, the night would have either been a soon-forgotten near rescue operation, or been a more complete tragedy.
A resource I just recently ran into is found here.
11:19 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | 11 comments | Permalink ]
The question "What would Jesus do?" is surely a clear piece of communication. What makes it popular is that it can be asked of all kinds of situations, and yield interesting results. I'm sure that some have used it in some moral dilemmas and come out with creative insights. I'm sure many more come up with "right answers" that have little to do with what they have read in the Gospels.
Some time ago, I realized that there was another question. I was watching an old Sam Kineson sketch. It almost struck me as blasphemous, as it had to do with the crucifixion. But then Sam posed a question. "Jesus, don't you want to come back to earth as an example of peace and love?" Sam, answering for Jesus, says, "I'll come BACK when I can play the PIANO!" I was stunned. Whether this was meant to be cynical or genuine was not clear to me. Sam had been a preacher at one time, and burnt out in part because of how unreceptive people were. I'm not sure he didn't try to get across a spiritual point under the guise of flippancy.
In either case, this began a thought process in me. How often have I been invited to imagine this from the perspective of Christ? Very few times. More recently Mel Gibson allowed this perspective. And as Christ leaves the tomb, I began to think, "If I had just accomplished THAT, what would I want to see come of it?"
To be sure, we shouldn't just accept any old idea that pops into our heads as an appropriate answer. But in my design process training, I learned that you freely brainstorm first, and critique those ideas later. You can't always be sure at first glance which ideas are good or bad. It takes some pondering.
This thought process has sometimes occurred to me as I have sat in church. If I had gone through death and resurrection to save people, would their sitting there doing what they're doing make sense as a response? Would I be happy with it, or think, "Wait a minute! I died in part to put that kind of a world to death!"
The question is framed as "What would I desire? (If I were Jesus)".
This is a little like "What would Jesus do?" Only I think it tends less toward a vanilla moralism. This is more an ethic of empathy. And some things have to be kept in mind. Jesus was, and is, a man. He took on a particular human nature when He became incarnate. Perhaps He prefers pizza between listening to prayers. Perhaps He prefers caviar. He invented so much that I like to think that He has a broad palate. He could wear a heavenly robe, or a glorified version of the same robe from earth, or His favorite earthly fashion of the day. The only thing I insist for the sake of imagination is that people recognize it is likely specific. To picture something specific even if it's the wrong specific is better than to picture a blur. (Here's a new one. Each time someone is martyred, He wears a glorified version of that man's clothes in his honor. The guest of honor at the day's feast wears a blazing golden version of the crown of thorns.)
When I think of this question, loyalty is high on the list. And this is not usually my chief category by which I judge the value of my friends. (It usually is not so necessary, and when they are present, there are so many other things to value.) Well, I toss the question out there. As with WWJD, this may well be a Law-oriented question. And the problem with WWJD is that it is so often Law presented as Gospel. But I still think this is a valuable question.
5:45 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | Comments | Permalink ]
Saturday, April 15th, 2006
This is one of the most interesting phrases in Scripture. It just occured to me. Look it up in your Strong's, but better yet, just think back on what you know. "How much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?"
I just had an old charismatic moment. And as a Lutheran, I tend to believe that God doesn't speak outside of the word. But when the conversational voice starts doing theology in my head, and it's based on Scripture, I think some illumination may be going on. (I just don't think it's directly down the pipe, and I'll never say "Thus saith the Lord.")
I was sitting there and was asking a problem of evil question. The answer was in the form of "How much more?" It was a promise. What was the first text that came to mind? Perhaps "If you who are evil, give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give to you who ask?" Actually, I remember part of the thread. Earlier in the day I was pondering the passage about those who lost houses or land that they would gain more in this life and the way to come. (At least the word "more" was in the passage.)
I forgot my original question. Perhaps because it wasn't mine at the time. It belonged to someone else. But "How much more" was part of the answer.
8:24 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | Comments | Permalink ]
My brother got printed in the Notes and Asides column of National Review magazine (April 10, 2006 issue). He had taken a business trip to New York City in November (his first visit). The visit coincided with William F. Buckley's 80th birthday. After visiting the National Review office, the place in all New York he most wanted to see, he managed to crash the party. His letter is an account of his experience, along with an appreciation of Buckley's writing over the years, along with his questions as a Calvinist Christian as to why Mr. Buckley is a Roman Catholic. (I think the letter is exemplary in its civility. And that word doesn't even really do the letter justice.)
I had been trying to locate the issue at the newsstand, but it hadn't arrived there yet. Dr. Rosenbladt, however, subscribes to the magazine, so I found the copy at his house last weekend. He read the letter and said it was one of the best letters he had ever read. (Also, during his reading, he exclaimed, "What a vocabulary! Eleemosynary?" "He got the word from Buckley," I offered.) He said it's rare in our culture to see men express appreciation to other men so clearly. Yes.
11:26 am Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | Comments | Permalink ]
Friday, April 14th, 2006
We had a terrible El Nino year some years back. Being Mr. Allergic, I ended up with pounding sinus headaches due to a mold allergy. Three days a week I was taking enough Benadryl to kill a horse. (Yes, I tried the prescription only antihistimines. They had worked other years. But not in this case. And yes, I did take them regularly to allow them to build up. They still didn't work.) On my best bad days, a cafe Americano and my Benadryl would equalize each other, and I would be symptom free and not drowsy.
Finally, out of desperation I went to the Sharper Image store and bought an Ionic Breeze Quadra. It cost $350. The thing was amazing. My life was back. I had far fewer bad days, and they weren't nearly as bad.
The problem was, a year after I bought it, the thing stopped working. No lights. No action. (It never had a camera -- I don't think!) It did nothing at all. I tried taking it apart and looking at it. Nothing obvious. I got philosophical and decided it was still worth the $350 for a good year.
Today I thought of it again, and decided to see what I could find on Ionic Breeze repair. Some tech guy diagnosed what was wrong with his. Corrosion between two contact points that could be fixed by soldering a wire. Yes! I got optimistic. After a bit of wrestling with the problem (I had no soldering iron.), I got things connected well, and plugged it in, to find that it worked. (If you try this, remember there is an On button you need to press for Hi, Medium, and Low.)
Anyway, here are Dan's wonderful instructions.
3:38 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | 1 comment | Permalink ]
Thursday, April 6th, 2006
I just saw a Primetime episode that devoted a segment to a recently discovered document. The document is a Gospel According to Judas. Were this gospel to be believed, we would have to alter our conception of Judas, since it portrays Judas as betraying Jesus at Jesus' behest.
Is this a genuine document?
There are a couple of meanings to that question. The document has been subjected to carbon dating, and appears to be of early origin. The first couple of centuries. This is not a modern day forgery. A couple top Coptic scholars said there were only a handful of people in the world who would have been capable of forging such a document. And this was aside from the carbon dating question, which would make the document even more difficult to forge. (An old thriller once discussed a way to do this. Find some ancient parchment that was left blank, and use that for your paper. I don't imagine reams fo that stuff are available in stores, however!) So the document is ancient. And it matches in description a document described by Irenaeus and other church fathers. One online source said that such documents which rehabilitated evil characters were produced by a Gnostic group called the Cainites, who decided that since everyone was ultimately performing God's will, everyone was to be valued. Since this is an ancient document that may be a copy of a work known in the early church, we can call it genuine in this sense. It is most likely the genuine Gnostic Gospel According to Judas.
The question as to whether this genuine Gnostic gospel tells the genuine story of Judas is another question. It sounds like a contradiction to the Biblical gospels, since they have Judas moved by Satan to do what he does. As I use those as my test for authenticity, the Gospel According to Judas probably fails. The Cainite connection further suggests that it was written for the purpose of a special kind of retelling of a story. It is not an independent source, but likely made use of the other gospels in its composition.
The Scorsese movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrayed Judas in this fashion, as a co-conspirator of Jesus. It seems likely that Kazantzakis got the idea of portraying Judas this way from Irenaeus, though I doubt Irenaeus would have wanted his works to be used for such purposes.
This document will be the subject of an upcoming issue of National Geographic magazine. I will probably buy the issue out of curiosity. It does tell us interesting things about the environment of the early church.
10:12 pm Pacific Standard Time
[ posted by Rick Ritchie | 5 comments | Permalink ]
11 comme372 commentss