Three Hierarchies

The Dumbest Generation

2008-12-06T12:44:00.000-08:00

Turns out I'm really stupid! Actually this explains a lot in my life . . . but make sure you read to the end!

"Christianity and the Arts"

2008-11-28T15:46:00.000-08:00

How you look at things depends on where you are. That's very true and widely applicable. A reasonably sensitive, intellectually inclined resident in small town evangelicaldom will feel that Christian churches are all too inclined to squelch creativity in young Christians. (One thing to ask is, how much of this is the Christian in the church and how much is the small town? As Lewis Atherton pointed out in the beautiful Main Street on the Middle Border, the cult of the immediately useful has been squelching the artistic sense of small town Midwesterners regardless of their church going habits for a very long time. One bitter ex-Christian I know complained about how growing up his family had only one book -- the Bible. After he described his mother and father's chaotic lives, however, I have a feeling that if they had been non-Christians, they would have had no books.) Another Christian growing up in New York or attending a university will take creative encouragement for granted and feel agitated by the anti-Christian attitudes of much modern art.

Another thing that's very true and widely applicable, is that big ideologies today always try to justify themselves by claiming that adherence to the ideology produces great art. Marxism did it, as seen in things like György Lukacs's works on aesthetics, which proclaimed that properly understanding class struggle was the key to great modern art. To which Leszek Kolakowski replied, that since not a single writer who was not a Marxist ever became a great writer just by becoming one, this theory is probably totally fantasy. But still people go on, thinking that if just adherents to my party produce great art, that my party will be shown to be true.

To this assertion, in its Christian form, John Henry Newman has some very wise comments. In the course of his book Idea of a University (excerpts here), he opens with what you might expect of a famous Catholic convert: a lament that English language literature is suffused with a spirit hostile to Catholicism, either from a Protestant (such as Milton's) or a skeptical (such as Gibbon's) point of view:

We may feel great repugnance to Milton or Gibbon as men; we may most seriously protest against the spirit which ever lives, and the tendency which ever operates, in every page of their writings; but there they are, an integral portion of English Literature; we cannot extinguish them; we cannot deny their power; we cannot write a new Milton or a new Gibbon; we cannot expurgate what needs to be exorcised. They are great English authors, each breathing hatred to the Catholic Church in his own way, each a proud and rebellious creature of God, each gifted with incomparable gifts.

Perhaps he getting ready to enunciate a clarion call for English Catholics to prove the truth of their church by creating truly Catholic literature. But no -- he then goes on to point out something quite important in the whole tired "Christianity and the Arts" discussion: that great art and literature is always problematic from the point of view of truth and morality:

These are but specimens of the general character of secular literature, whatever be the people to whom it belongs. One literature may be better than another, but bad will be the best, when weighed in the balance of truth and morality. It cannot be otherwise; human nature is in all ages and all countries the same; and its literature, therefore, will ever and everywhere be one and the same also. Man's work will savour of man; in his elements and powers excellent and admirable, but prone to disorder and excess, to error and to sin. Such too will be his literature; it will have the beauty and the fierceness, the sweetness and the rankness, of the natural man, and, with all its richness and greatness, will necessarily offend the senses of those who, in the Apostle's words, are really "exercised to discern between good and evil." "It is said of the holy Sturme," says an Oxford writer, "that, in passing a horde of unconverted Germans, as they were bathing and gambolling in the stream, he was so overpowered by the intolerable scent which arose from them that he nearly fainted away." National Literature is, in a parallel way, the untutored movements of the reason, imagination, passions, and affections of the natural man, the leapings and the friskings, the plungings and the snortings, the sportings and the buffoonings, the clumsy play and the aimless toil, of the noble, lawless savage of God's intellectual creation.

It is well that we should clearly apprehend a truth so simple and elementary as this, and not expect from the nature of man, or the literature of the world, what they never held out to us. Certainly, I did not know that the world was to be regarded as favourable to Christian faith or practice, or that it would be breaking any engagement with us, if it took a line divergent from our own. I have never fancied that we should have reasonable ground for surprise or complaint, though man's intellect puris naturalibus did prefer, of the two, liberty to truth, or though his heart cherished a leaning towards licence of thought and speech in comparison with restraint.

He then goes on to point out that actually compared to Italian or French literature, English literature is actually rather less directly subversive of Catholic truth and morals.

He does then go on, rather inconsistently, to recommend the creation of a Catholic school of literature, but this passage to me has always struck me as crucial to any discussion of art and religion.

The Family as Sub-Contractor for the State

2008-11-22T11:45:00.000-08:00

One point I keep on trying to pound home is that political debate in the USA is often fundamentally distorted by an ignorance of what the our history actually was. I would like to extend this argument to family policy.

Today we have two points of view on the family and the state. Both assume that the family and the state as autonomous organizations are opposed: a strong, purposeful state means a weak, passive family and vice versa. Liberals think the state should exercise stronger, more purposeful collective powers over citizens for their own good, but that the family should have less strong, purposeful collective powers over its members for their own good. Conservatives (especially paleo-conservatives and religious libertarians) think the state should exercise weaker, less purposeful collective power over citizens for their own good, but that the family should have stronger, more purposeful collective powers over its members for their own good. Strong state, weak family or strong family, weak state. Either/or.

Going along with this assumption of antagonism is a false view of history. Liberal historians look for evidence that the state has traditionally had more powers to regulate families than we think, thinking that this would prove that the autonomous family has weak historical roots. Likewise, conservative historians like to emphasize how even state powers over the family we now take for granted didn’t used to exist in the part, thinking that this would emphasize how families resisting interference from the state is an old, old tradition.

For Eurasian societies as widely distributed as Puritan New England, Württemberg peasants from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, and Mongolian and Tibetan nomadic societies*, however, either way of understanding state-family relations was alien. Rather than real family-state praxis, the conventional opposition of family and state reflects only crude and unreflective 19th century post-French Revolution social theories, the phlogistons of social theory. And even today, I think this old praxis survives, despite having no articulation, since the liberal and conservative intellectuals are still divided into "let's have more/less phlogiston!" parties.

In this different praxis the traditional family is itself a sub-contractor of the state (or if you prefer, the community as a whole). As a sub-contracting organization of the state-community, the family is represented by its head. It has a responsibility for producing a number of things for the state: as a rule taxes, in some states trained and equipped soldiers, for some families responsible officials, and in every case, children who will be able to play the contractor role in the next generation. In the Greek city states, performance of such public functions by private families were called "liturgies." Depending on the type of society, this might also involve making sure the children are equipped by literacy to respond to community admonitions (texts, government decrees, scriptures, etc.) It will in any case require that children be trained in the appropriate moral code to be hard-working, responsible contractors themselves. Since the family as a contracting unit for the state/community has a duty to produce both specific persons (soldiers, officials, corvee laborers, as the case may be), and future contractors, unwillingness to procreate is a selfish betrayal of the community/state.

In order to make sure that the sub-contractor can do its job, the state also parcels out to the family a significant chunk of its own authority, entrusting certain police and juridical functions to the heads of the households over the members (and to elders over juniors generally). The head of the family that acts to some degree as an agent of the state’s authority, even as he (or sometimes she, as a widow) resides on his ancestral patrimony. This patrimony is itself a fund for the performance of contracted obligations to the state.

The state/community’s interest in the family is therefore in keeping the sub-contractors functioning. One essential precondition of this is that the family has to have its own resources. The family has to have a sufficient fund of resources, tangible and intangible, to work with to produce the outputs it needs. A family with no land and no skills cannot fulfill its tax obligations. For that reason bad management, such as drinking one’s patrimony away, breaking it up with an irresponsible divorce, and so on, should not be tolerated. And if a family falls into that situation, it needs to have property restored and disciplined so this doesn’t happen again. Moreover, since only a family can produce the necessary outputs demanded by the community, individuals who are without family need to be put into a family.

Social policy in this "family as sub-contractor for the state" assumes a peculiar cast which the liberal-conservative point of view today is almost guaranteed to misunderstand. In it, what looks like charity is simultaneously fiscality: the state gives aid not just to help the individuals involved, but also to get the family receiving the aid back on its feet as a tax-paying/soldier-supplying/official-providing contracting unit. Equality is thus not just, or even primarily, a goal of such assistance, but rather a means to an end: the maximum possible effective provision of necessary persons/goods for the state and community. This is so even when the primary way of supplying such aid is not directly state to family, but lateral: neighbor to neighbor, or even structured by kinship (redemption right of land that might be sold to strangers). For example in the Secret History of the Mongols, we read that the emperor Ögedei ordered one sheep out of a hundred taken from each person and given to the poor in his own unit. This was in part to "let them put their feet on the soil and their hands on the land" but was just as much connected with the periodic renumbering of militiamen in the Mongol army to make sure that each unit had enough prosperous families to supply its share of taxes and soldiers. Among Tibetan pastoralists, Rinzin Thargyal describes how one ambitious lord encouraged the formation of functioning households. When a girl got "knocked up," he would pressure the man responsible into marrying her, loan the new family animals to herd, and hold off on demanding labor service from them until they were a going concern. He did the same with poor immigrants arriving in his estate: find them a wife or husband as needed, loan them animals, and get them going. As a result his estate was unusually prosperous, and his population -- and influence -- grew rapidly. In these cases, charity merges with the aim to preserve family units as sub-contractors of the state. Note also that almost all such societies also had distinctions of families: some produced taxes, others produced soldiers, others produced officials, and these status distinctions are maintained as part of the same system imperatives that forces one family of tax payers to give aid to another family of tax payers facing the danger of break-up and dispersal. In the Tibetan case, for example, the aristocratic household so actively building up its followings' families itself had to supply officials to the Dege principality.

A very common way to maintain households facing crisis is through redemption laws, specifying that households sell their property it may be redeemed from the buyer by a relative or neighbor of the seller. Redemption within the collateral family line, as found in the Mosaic laws in the Bible, is quite common comparatively, and can be found in eighteenth century Germany, as well as Qing dynasty China. Usually interpreted solely as part of compassion for the “poor” (although structurally at least the real poor in ancient Israelite society were not the full-blooded Israelites who had fields subject to such redemption, but the strangers and aliens who did not), this collateral redemption was actually an important part of fiscality (state tax policy) as were the limitations on mobility (in a weak state apparatus, staying in one place so the state can find you is important). Theologically as Christopher H. Wright in God's People in God's Land has pointed out, this works as an analogy: just as earthly kings demand a regimes of sub-contractor families, so the divine King demands a regime of sub-contractor families. Traditional sociological interpretation of this practice/ideal in the context Israelite history has usually read this as a survival of primitive tribalism, resisting the imposition of royal tyranny. In this comparative context, however, I think a better argument could be made that the importance of redemption indicates not "tribalism" but a strong state/community interest in preserving a network of effective sub-contracting and tax-paying militia families.**

Inversely, the elimination of the redemption regime (which took place in Würtemburg for example in the early nineteenth century or in China under the Republic) is not the state going from “respecting intermediate institutions” to “rejecting intermediate institutions” as the libertarian reading of state-family relations would have it, but rather sub-contracting with different units and different calculations. Similarly the family receiving moral guidance and tutelage from the state is not necessarily toxic to family authority—if the state is actually interested in buttressing that authority.

What are some of the implications of this history?

First of all, it helps understand what people are talking about. It is, I think, exactly this sense which is still meant when people, trying to explain why they find the challenge to the traditional constituted family so wrong-headed, say that the family is "the building block" or "foundation" of the country. Not having got the paleo-conservative/social democratic memo that the family and state are inverses -- one can't be a strong institution without the other being weak -- they insist on appealing to real social praxis, rather than the delusions of the political philosophies.

Second of all it points out again how very un-libertarian our Eurasian traditions are. And as Jim has written here, in common law it was taken for granted until the twentieth century that the US state governments had police powers, that is, the right to interfere more or less at will in the life of its members to defend good morals, tax paying capacity, optimal family structure, and so on. In this view, which was the Puritan New England view as David Hackett Fischer emphasized, the state as a sovereign community was, absent any self-limitation, virtually universal in its competence. However, in practice, specific liberties are carved out from this sovereign power and assigned to subcontracting units, such as the family, guild, township, or trading corporation, or what have you. Liberties are thus in the plural, and each one has to be defended either by a specific historical charter, or at least by specific evidence that it existed in the past. Note that it is for this reason that Puritans could join the US constitution. Strong believers in this police power and families as contractors of the state, they could never have joined a constitution that either eliminated these police powers entirely, or assigned them to a non-Congregational government. Only a government that had special liberties above the state (in both senses) could be accepted as the national government.

Thirdly it highlights how many traditional institutions have been misunderstood by a state vs. society framework. This misunderstanding takes the specific form of a what I call “the great inversion” in which institutions first nurtured by the pre-modern state came under attack in the nineteenth and twentieth century, whether by liberals as blocks to the free circulation of resources in the market or by socialists as buttresses of inequality, but then were rewritten by their defenders. This rewriting of history turned them into pre-state, primitive society institutions that had always served as bulwarks of "the people" against the state. The classic case of this is the obshchina or Russian commune, which began as a tax-guarantee institution: the village owed taxes in common and each family was assigned labor to make sure that each family thus contributed to the tax payments. In the 1840s, an idealistic German, looking for remnants of early communes in Europe's countryside reinterpreted this state-generated institution as such a survival of pre-class society. This interpretation was accepted, written in Russian law in 1861, and became the foundation of the populist idea of the Russian peasants being instinctively socialist and communal.***

In American, as well, this happened very early on with gun rights as shown by Joyce Malcolm’s To Keep and Bear Arms started not as an individual right against the state, but a collective sub-contractual obligation of citizens to the state. The English state required all men to participate in its function of maintaining order, training in long bows so the king of England could have enough soldiers in wartime. With the advent of firearms, this obligation to train as a potential soldier of the king was transferred to from long bows to firearms. In the seventeenth century, this hazardous duty was reinterpreted as a valuable right, and in this form was transported to the American colonies. (Although with the New England Puritans, gun ownership was also requirement of community self-defense, not an aspect of individual defiance of the community. Here, as in so many other aspects the New England Puritans typify the phenomenon of "peripheral preservation" where archaic customs and ideas are preserved in remote, provincial areas.)

Finally, the most important implication is for those adhering to the traditional family as valorized by the laws of the Eurasian religions whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Confucian. Despite their differences, I would argue that virtually every feature of the laws -- indeed the very possibility of having a law of family formation and functioning -- was shaped by the family's role as a sub-contractor of the state’s authority. Adherents of these Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Confucian ethics have to recognize that strong family they love became a social reality only in concurrence with state power and through receiving as a sub-contractor a share in the power of the state. The implication is then that the state, in a fairly strong sense, is a precondition for the traditional religious family life. For those adhering to such traditional religious family ethics, the libertarian argument that the state is thus at best a necessary evil runs directly against the historical facts, since those family ethics themselves were first realized in human society as a result of the existence of the state. The predicating of the family's rights on opposition to the state, as in religious libertarianism or paleo-conservatism, is likely to be as ineffectual politically as it is erroneous historically.

*Some sources on this:
New England Puritans: Albion's Seed, by David Hackett Fischer
Württemberg peasants: David Sabean, Production, Property and Family in Neckerhausen, 1700-1870.
Tibetan pastoralists: Rinzin Thargyal, Nomads of Eastern Tibet.

** Maybe more an ideal than a reality. That redemption laws might exist without having much of an anti-market effect is indicated at least by the Neckerhausen evidence as read by Sabean.

***See T.K. Dennison and A.W. Carus, "The Invention of the Russian Rural Commune: Haxthausen and the Evidence," The Historical Review 46.3 (2003), pp. 561-82.

2008-11-11T09:12:00.000-08:00

If you read this column by our synodical president from Lutheran Witness, it is pretty hard to avoid the impression that our synod has two types of doctrines. On one type of doctrine, deviation will not be permitted -- here is a list of these sorts of doctrines:

That there is only one true God, who has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture as the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That this God created the world and everything in it, including the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, in six days.
That since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, all people are born with original sin and are altogether incapable of pleasing God by their own merits.
That God promised a Savior to Adam and Eve and, through them, to all people.
That this Savior is Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, through whom alone we receive forgiveness of sin, life, and salvation.
That Christians are called to proclaim to a lost and dying world the Good News that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.
That the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament are the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice.
That the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.

He also adds "the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and His bodily resurrection" (positively) and "the ordination of homosexual pastors who are living in 'committed relationships'" (negatively) as issues that are not even in contention in our synod.

All the more interesting then is the list of issues in which, despite the synod already having a position, he apparently thinks disagreement with this position is legitimate:

"Our national Synod also sees its share of discussions and even disagreements about matters of faith and life. It is our privilege, duty, and responsibility as a synod prayerfully and carefully to discern what God’s Word says about such matters as

close(d) Communion,
non-traditional worship,
the service of women in the church,
the role and authority of the pastoral office,
and the priesthood of all believers."

(I added the bullets, but otherwise it's a direct quote).

An interesting list, which contains a particularly interesting conjunction. The LCMS is probably the only non-Pentecostal, non-Holiness church body in which 6-day creationism is required, but women's ordination seems to be at least discussable. This is certainly a major difference between the LCMS and all the other liturgical churches. We'll have to see if the former counteracts the latter in the operation of Krauth's law.

The Virtually Universal Applicability of Lamarckian Evolution

2008-11-10T07:46:00.000-08:00

Thomas of Endless Rocking recommended this review of this book. As the reviewer explains, one of the themes of the book is the parallel between the evolution of financial instruments and biological evolution:

But how does all of this fit in with the credit crunch, the first phases of which are covered by Ferguson? As ever, there are plenty of lessons from the past. In one of the strongest passages in his book, the author explains how financial history is essentially the result of institutional mutation and natural selection. And just like the mass extinctions that eliminated 85 per cent of the earth's species at the end of the Cretaceous period when asteroids hit the earth, the credit crunch stands out as a period of major discontinuity in the world of finance. Numerous banks and entire sub-species of financial institutions are dying off. This happens regularly in financial history, with the bank panics of the 1930s and the savings and loans failures of 1980s America cases in point.

Ferguson enumerates the common features shared by the financial world and an evolutionary system; in doing so, he paints a remarkable portrait of the past two decades of financial innovation. Finance has its very own 'genes', in the sense of certain business practices, and it boasts a potential for spontaneous mutation thanks to technological innovation. There is competition between firms for resources; a mechanism for natural selection, with weaker practices, firms and individuals wiped out; scope for speciation, with the creation of wholly new species of financial institutions a key feature of the past few years; and scope for extinction, with species dying out altogether.

This is a very interesting analogy. Indeed it's amazing how many interesting analogies with biological evolution and classification there are. One of the most provocative for my work is the three-fold analogy explored by Norman I. Platnick and H. David Cameron in "Cladistic Methods in Textual, Linguistic, and Phylogenetic Analysis," published in Systematic Zoology 26.4 (1977), 380-85. They show that the methods of dealing with textual corruption (i.e. the kind of thing explored here), the evolution of language (i.e. the kind of thing explored here and here), and biological evolution have deep analogies, such that one can fruitfully critique the methodology of textual criticism on the basis of the methodology of biological classification and vice versa. (Perhaps another thing they have in common is that all three are or have been at different times highly problematic for Christian belief.) The analogy has even been drawn with quilts.

Of course what is generally left unsaid is the fact that all of these analogies are drawn between biological evolution and systems that are either Lamarckian or else generated by "moderately intelligent design." That is, the evolution is driven by the efforts of the things evolving to improve their own adaptions (languages, financial systems) or else are material things created by moderately intelligent designers who, working with limited resources on the basis of what they have already, are trying to improve their adaption to the environment. Except for biology, no other evolutionary system seems to be thought to run on random mutation as its basic motor. (And no such system seems fruitfully explored as the result of omniscient intelligent design. The presence of constraint seems fundamental to effective explanation.)

Actually, one could argue that Lamarckianism and "moderately intelligent design" are the same thing, in that the thing seen to evolve -- whether text, language, financial systems, body types, and so on -- is always separate from the constrained will and limited intelligence seeking to maximize its adaption. Either way, it seems to be, all unacknowledged, one of the most powerful tools in the intellectual arsenal today.

Food for thought.

A Blow Out Defeat for the Church-and-State Party

2008-10-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

An episode of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Poganuc People recalls an important, but little discussed episode in American history: the landmark defeat of the Federalists in the 1817 election and the victory of the Democrats promising a disestablishment of the hitherto state-supported Congregational Church. Ironically, it was the support of the Episcopalians for the disestablishment line that sealed the fate of the Federalists. In this selection, Dr. Cushing is a lightly-fictionalized version of Mrs. Stowe's father (the Congregationalist preacher Lyman Beecher of Litchfield, Connecticut -- his institutional descendants here) and she herself is, roughly speaking, Dolly, his little girl.

Poganuc was, for a still town, pretty well alive on that day [Election Day]. Farmers in their blue lindsey frocks, with their long cart whips and their sleds hitched here and there at different doors formed frequent objects in the picture. It was the day when they felt themselves as good as anybody. The court house was surrounded by groups earnestly discussing the political questions; many of them loafers who made a sort of holiday, and interspersed their observations and remarks with visits to the bar-room of Glazier's tavern, which was doing a thriving business that morning. Standing by the side of the distributor of the Federal votes might be seen a tall, thin man with a white head and an air of great activity and keenness. In his twinkling eye and in every line and wrinkle of his face might be read the observer and the humorist; the man who finds something to amuse him in all the quips and turns and oddities of human nature. This was Israel Dennie, High Sheriff of the County, one of the liveliest and shrewdest of the Federal leaders, who was, so to speak, crackling with activity, and entering into the full spirit of the day its phases.

"Here comes one of your part, Adams," he said with a malicious side twinkle to the distributor of the Democratic votes, as Abe Bowles, a noted "mauvais sujet" of the village appeared out of Glazier's bar-room, coming forward with a rather uncertain step and flushed face. "Walk up, friend; here you are." "I'm a-goin' for toleration," said Abe, with thick utterance. "We've been tied up too tight by these 'ere ministers, we have. I don't want no priestcraft, I don't. I believe every man's got to do as he darn pleases, I do." "And go straight to the Devil if he wants to," said Squire Dennie smoothly. "Go ahead, my boy, and put in your vote."

. . . . In fact the political canvass just at this epoch had many features that might shock the pious sensibilities of a good house-mother. The union of all the minor religious denominations to upset the dominant rule of the Congregationalists had been reinforced and supplemented by all that Jacobin and irreligious element which the French Revolution had introduced into America.

The Poganuc Banner, a little weekly paper published in the village, expended its energies in coarse and scurrilous attack upon ministers, in general, and Dr. Cushing in particular. It ridiculed church-members, churches, Sunday-keeping, preaching and prayers; in short, every custom, preference and prejudice which it had been the work of years to establish in New England was assailed with vulgar wit and ribaldry.

Of course, the respectable part of the Democratic party did not exactly patronize these views; yet they felt for them that tolerance which even respectable people often feel in a rush push of society in a direction where they wish to go. They wanted control of the State, and if rabid, drinking, irreligious men would give it to them, why not use them after their kind. When the brutes had won the battle for them, they would take care of the brutes, and get them back to their stalls.

The bar-room of Glazier's Tavern was the scene of the feats and boasts of this class of voters. Long before this time the clergy of Connecticut, alarmed at the progress of intemperance, had begun to use influence in getting stringent laws and restraints upon drinking, and the cry of course was, "Down with the laws."

"Tell ye what," said Mark Merrill; "we've been tied up so tight we couldn't wink mor'n six times a week, and the parsons want to git it so we can't wink at all; and we won't have it so no longer; we're goin' to have liberty."

"Down with the tithing-man [traditional New England figure charged with enforcing Sunday laws], say I," said Tim Sykes. "Whose business is it what I do Sundays? I ain't goin' to have no tithing-man spying on my liberty. I'll do jest I'm a mind ter, Sundays. Ef I wan ter go a-fishin' Sundays, I'll go a-fishin'."

"Tell ye what," said Liph Kingsley, as he stirred his third glass of grog. "This 'ere priestcraft's got to go down. Reason's got on her throne, and chains is fallin'. I'm a free man -- I be."

"You look like it," said Hiel [a supporter of Dr. Cushing], who stood with his hands in his pocket contemptuously surveying Liph, while with leering ey and unsteady hand he stirred his drink. . . .

But, after all, that day the Democrats beat, and got the State of Connecticut. Sheriff Dennie was the first to carry the news of defeat into the parsonage at eventide.

"Well, Doctor, we're smashed. Democrats beat us all to flinders."

A general groan arose.

"Yes, yes," said the Sherif. "Everything has voted that could stand on its hind legs, and the hogs are too many for us. It's a bad beat -- bad beat."

That night when little Dolly came in to family prayers, she looked around wondering. Her father and mother looked stricken and overcome. There was the sort of heaviness in the air that even a child can feel when deep emotions are aroused. The boys, who knew only in a general way that their father's side had been beaten, looked a little scared at his dejected face.

"Father, what makes you feel so bad?" said Wil, with that surprised wonder with which children approach emotions they cannot understand.

"I feel for the Church of God, my child," he said, and then he sung for the evening psalm:

I love thy kingdom, Lord,
The house of thine abode;
The Church of our Redeemer saved
With his own precious blood.

For her my tears shall fall,
For her my prayers ascend;
To her my cares and toils be given
Till toils and care shall end.

In the prayer that followed he pleaded for New England with all the Hebraistic imagery by which she was identified with God's ancient people . . . .

But Dolly marveled in her own soul as she went to bed. She heard the boys without stint reviling the Democrats as the authors of all mischief; and yet Bessie Lewis's father was a Democrat, and he seemed a nice, cheery, good-natured man, who now and then gave her sticks of candy, and there was his mother, dear old Madam Lewis, who gave her the Christmas cookey. How could it be that such good people were Democrats? Poor Dolly hopelessly sighed over the mystery, but dared not ask such questions.

But the Rev. Mr. Coan [the local Episcopalian priest] rejoiced in the result of the election. Not that he was by any means friendly to the ideas of the Jacobinical party by whose help it had been carried; but because, as he said, it opened a future for the church -- for he too had his idea of "The Church." Meanwhile the true church, invisible to human eyes -- one in spirit, though separated by creeds -- was praying and looking upward, in the heart of Puritan and Ritualist, in the heart of old Madame Lewis, of the new Church, and of old Mrs. Higgins, whose soul was with the old meeting-house; of all everywhere who with humble purpose and divine aspiration were praying: "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done" (chapter 9, pp. 95-105)

. . . .

[A few days later, Dolly is allowed to go with her mother and father to an evening among fine company, where she hears more political talk]

Judge Belcher declaimed upon the subject in language which made the very hair rise upon Dolly's head.

"Yes, sir," he said, addressing Dr. Cushing; "I consider this as the ruin of the State of Connecticut! It's the triumph of the lower orders; the reign of 'sans culotte-ism' begun. In my opinion, sir, we are over a volcano; I should not be surprised, sir, at an explosion that will blow up all our institutions!"

Dolly's eyes grew larger and larger, although she was a little comforted to observe the Judge carefully selecting a particular variety of cake that he was fond of, and helping himself to a third cup of tea in the very midst of these shocking prognostications.

Dolly had not then learned the ease and suavity of mind with which both then and ever since people at tea drinkings and other social recreations declare their conviction that the country is going to ruin. It never appears to have any immediate effect upon the appetite . . . .

[But old Judge Gridley appears, who was always kind to Dolly, then asks]

"Come, now, Miss Dollly, you and I are old friends, you know. What do you think of all these things?"

"Oh, I'm so glad you came," said Dolly with a long sigh of relief. "I hoped you would, because mamma said I mustn't talk unless somebody spoke to me, and I do so want to know all about those dreadful things. What is a volcano? Please tell me!"

"Why, my little Puss," he said, lifting her in his lap and twining her curls round his finger, "what do you want to know that for?"

"Because I heard Judge Belcher say that we were all over a volcano and it would blow us all up some day. Is it like powder?"

"You dear little soul! don't you trouble your head about what Judge Belcher says. He uses strong language. He only means that the Democrats will govern the state."

"And are they so dreadfully wicked?" asked Dolly. "I want to tell you something" -- and Dolly whispered, "Bessie Lewis's father is a Democrat, and yet they don't seem like wicked people."

"No, my dear; when you grow up you will learn that there are good people in every party."

"Then you don't think Bessie's father is a bad man?" said Dolly. "I'm so glad!"

"No; he's a good man in a bad party; that is what I think."

"I wish you'd talk to him and tell him not to do all these dreadful things, and upset the state," said Dolly. "I thought the other night I would; but I'm only a little girl, you know; he wouldn't mind me. If I was a grown-up woman I would," she said, with her cheeks flushing and her eyes kindling.

Judge Gridley laughed softly to himself and stroked her head.

"When you are a grown-up woman I don't doubt you can make men do almost anything you please, but I don't think it would do any good for me to talk to General Lewis; and now, little Curly-wurly, don't bother your pretty head about politics. Neither party will turn the world upside down. There's a good God above us all, my little girl, that takes care of our country, and he will bring good out of evil. So now don't you worry" (chapter 12, pp. 133-36)

The Culture of Missouri's Zion?

2008-09-25T09:29:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog, I came across this description of Fort Wayne, by Amy Welborn, who really prefers her new home of Birmingham, Alabama, thank you very much. Here's a bit of it:

A story: The job Michael had up there was previously held by a fellow who, when he first had the job, commuted, in a way, on a weekly basis, from a town about two hours away. At one point he decided that this was silly and that he would just move to Fort Wayne. He and his family lasted a year and then went back to the university town where they had originally lived. He spoke of the parochialism of the area. I wondered if he was just being a snob. (Sorry, Jim!)

After about a year myself, I got it.

Although in a way, I still don’t get it.

I’ve visited most, if not all of the major cities in the Midwest. Trust me, Fort Wayne is…different. I don’t know how you characterize a town. I don’t know on what basis you can generalize or describe a gestalt, an identity for a collection of 250,000 people.

I’ll try. There is just this very settled, inward-looking sensibility. From year to year (and we lived there 8), nothing much changed. A few more chain restaurants came into town, a couple left. Noises were made about downtown redevelopment, but nothing much happened (until this past year when a development centered on a new baseball stadium for the town’s AA team was constructed downtown - Harrison Square - I wish it well.) During the summer there are festivals in Headwaters Park, close to downtown, almost every week, but even they bear a certain stasis. I’ve been to GermanFest every year for seven years, and every single year, the 6 or 7 vendors of Teutonic Trinkets were arrayed in the exact same L-shaped arrangement on the west end of the grounds. Unchanging. Nothing new.

She goes on to describe it as a close-knit community where close-knit has come to be clannishness.

Now, Amy Welborn doesn't mention that Ft. Wayne is the Zion of "confessional Lutheranism" (I'm putting quotes around that, because I've known far too many great vicars from St. Louis who are 100% in accord with the Book of Concord to take "confessionalism" as something only in Ft. Wayne). Perhaps she doesn't know. Perhaps she's being polite. (Although a commenter on the blog did know and was not polite.) Mostly likely it was one of those unimportant facts about a different part of town and a different sub-community that no one she knew was curious about.

So here's my question, for any readers who might have spent time in Ft. Wayne (like, maybe, Josh?): does this description ring true? And if it does ring true, does it influence the environment at the Ft. Wayne Seminary? Is this part of the Ft. Wayne seminary culture? It would seem to me that any institution of higher education (whether traditional or modern in the approach to learning) would tend to mitigate these tendencies to parochialism. Does it? Or is what she calls parochialism a good thing? (One commenter on her blog argues exactly that.)

I'm genuinely asking, and I don't know the answers. I am curious. But I can't say that it would shock me if Amy Welborn's description was accurate.

Symbol and Reality

2008-09-15T13:49:00.001-07:00

Here's another both/and explication from Alexander Schmemann's The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. In analyzing the liturgy and the Eucharist, he notes two malign tendencies in Orthodox theology (ones he attributes to Latin influence): 1) the focus on "illustrative symbolism" in the explication of the liturgy; and 2) the reduction of the Eucharist to the question of the precise moment, and liturgical action, that makes the bread and wine into Body and Blood. In his view the two are connected: illustrative symbolism (this or that action in the liturgy symbolizes this or that in the life of Christ, etc.) assumes an understanding of symbolism that isn't real. Thus the reality of the Eucharist as Christ's body is in question, which makes the precise moment and magical formula (yes, he uses that phrase as a critique of what this frame of mind can lead to) for transformation of the Eucharist central.

He writes:

And this is precisely the heart of the matter: the primary meaning of "symbol" is in no way equivalent to "illustration." In fact, it is possible for the symbol not to illustrate, i.e. can be devoid of any external similarity with that which it symbolizes.

The history of religions shows us that the more ancient, the deeper, the more "organic" a symbol, the less it will be composed of such "illustrative" qualities. This is because the purpose and function of the symbol is not to illustrate (this would presume the absence of what is illustrated) but rather to manifest and to communicate what is manifested. We might say that the symbol does not so much "resemble" the reality that it symbolizes as it participates in it, and therefore it is capable of communicating it in reality. In other words, the difference (and it is a radical one) between our contemporary [and I think you could say he means, such as, the last 1,000 years] understanding of the symbol and the original one consists in the fact tht while today we understand the symbol as the representation or sign of an absent reality, something that is not really in the sign itself (just as there is no real, actual water in the chemical symbol H2O), in the original understanding it is the manifestation and presence of the other reality -- but precisely as other, which, under given circumstances, cannot be manifested and made present in any other way than as a symbol.

This means that in the final analysis the true and original symbol is inseparable from faith, for faith is "the evidence of things unseen" (Heb 11:1), the knowledge that there is another reality different from the "empirical" one, and that this reality can be entered, can be communicated, can in truth become "the most real of realities." Therefore, if the symbol presupposes faith, faith of necessity requires the symbol. For unlike "convictions," philosophical "points of view," etc., faith certainly is contact and a thirst for contact, embodiment and a thirst for embodiment: it is the manifestation, the presence, the operation of one reality within the other. All of this is the symbol (from symbállō, "unite," "hold together"). In it -- unlike in a simple "illustration," simple sign, and even in the sacrament in its scholastic-rationalistic "reduction" -- the empirical (or "visible") and the spiritual (or "invisible") are united not logically (this "stands for" that), not analogically (this "illustrates" that), nor yet by cause and effect (this is the "means" or "generator" of that), but epiphanically. One reality manifests (epiphaínō) and communicates the other, but -- and this is immensely important -- only to the degree to which the symbol itself is a participant in the spiritual reality and is able or called upon to embody it. In other words, in the symbol everything manifests the spiritual reality, but not everything pertaining to the spiritual reality appears embodied in the symbol. The symbol is always partial, always imperfect: "for our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect" (1 Co 13:9). By its very nature the symbol unites disparate realities, the relation of the one to the other always remaining "absolutely other." However real a symbol may be, however successfully it may communicate to us that other reality, its function is not to quench our thirst but to intensify it: "Grant us that we may more perfectly partake of Thee in the never ending day of Thy Kingdom." It is not that this or that part of "this world" -- space, time, or matter -- be made sacred, but rather that everything in it be seen and comprehended as expectation and thirst for its complete spiritualization: "that God may be all in all."

Must we then demonstrate that only this ontological and "epiphanic" meaning of the word "symbol" is applicable to Christian worship? And not only is it applicable -- it is inseparable. For the essence of the symbol lies in the fact that in it the dichotomy between reality and symbolism (as unreality) is overcome: reality is experienced above all as the fulfillment of the symbol, and the symbol is comprehended as the fulfillment of the reality. Christian worship is symbolic not because it contains various "symbolical" depictions. It may indeed include them, but chiefly in the imagination of various "commentators" and not in its own ordo and rites. Christian worship is symbolic because, first of all, the world itself, God's own creation, is symbolic, is sacramental; and second of all because it is the Church's nature, her task in "this world," to fulfill this symbol, to realize it as the "most real of realities." We can therefore say that the symbol reveals the world, mankind, and all creation as the "matter" of a single, all-embracing sacrament (pp. 38-40).

Here I have two comments to make:

1) Did you notice that striking aphorism?

Therefore, if the symbol presupposes faith, faith of necessity requires the symbol. For unlike "convictions," philosophical "points of view," etc., faith certainly is contact and a thirst for contact, embodiment and a thirst for embodiment: it is the manifestation, the presence, the operation of one reality within the other.

What would Luther say? He would affirm the negative: faith can have nothing to do with "convictions" or "points of view" as Schmemann says. But Luther would say -- did say -- that faith of necessity requires the promise. Thus where Schmemann sees the liturgy, and Holy Communion at its heart, as the symbol set forth for faith, Luther sees it as the promise set forth for faith. But here is another both/and. In Luther's own work, the idea of the Eucharist as a visible sign of the promise always seemed to me to be somewhat inadequate. Why is it so important, if it is only a sign of the promise? (That it is so important is of course not in doubt.) So let us combine them and say faith demands a symbol, yes, but one that is benevolent toward us. The bread and wine are the symbol of Jesus; but does He love us? That is the promise -- that He is friendly to us and heartily wishes to forgive us. This possibility, that Communion may be a symbol of wrath and anger is not considered by Schmemann, but absent the promise delivered to faith it is a possibility. But all the symbols of the Church are accompanied by such a promise and hence are such objects of faith in God's mercy.

2) And I am pretty sure that in his mind Schmemann was going further and saying that just as the Eucharist is the symbol (=enduring corporeal epiphany) of Jesus, in the same way Jesus is the symbol (=enduring corporeal epiphany) of God. Indeed this is a good test of whether you understand symbol in Schmemann's sense. OK, you say the Eucharist is the symbol of Christ, well and good. But do you also agree that Jesus is, in the same way, the symbol of God the Father? If suddenly that sounds heretical, then you are not using symbol in the sense that Schmemann did.* Read that last sentence again: We can therefore say that the symbol reveals the world, mankind, and all creation as the "matter" of a single, all-embracing sacrament. Isn't this exactly what Colossians 1 is saying Christ reveals? By its very nature the symbol unites disparate realities, the relation of the one to the other always remaining "absolutely other." Isn't this a restatement in "symbolic" language of the two natures in Christ? But then he adds something: that even the experience of Jesus as the epiphany, the symbol, the reality of God, is not meant to satisfy us, but to go beyond, to create a thirst for the Kingdom. It is not that this or that part of "this world" -- space, time, or matter -- be made sacred, but rather that everything in it be seen and comprehended as expectation and thirst for its complete spiritualization: "that God may be all in all."

*Of course, a real heretic may affirm both, seeing in Jesus only an illustration of the absent God, and the Eucharist an illustration of the absent Jesus. But to diagnose this problem one need only ask of this two-stage epiphany as of the epiphanies of the Old Testament: is this a symbol such that refusal to believe in it when it is physically before you, to experience it without faith in the promise, is fatal? To say no, that it is only offered for us to take it or leave it, without harm either way, is to be back in the realm of illustrative symbolism.

Scripture and Tradition

2008-09-14T11:17:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time, hasn't it? But talking to Jeremy, as I was waxing enthusiastic about Alexander Schmemann's "The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom" (another gift from the amazing Bill Tighe), he told me he'd never read it for two reasons: 1) he probably doesn't have time; and 2) he got the feeling that people who start reading Orthodox books always end up converting, and he was not in the market for a new church. OK, I said, then I'll have to blog the best passages, otherwise he'll never have a chance to read them.

What makes Schmemann special is his ability to do the "not either/or, but both/and" trick and not have it be simply a flabby refusal to think clearly (as it too often is), but a real insight. Here he is writing about Scripture and Tradition:

Here we see why all church theology, all tradition, grows precisely out of the "assembly as the Church," out of this sacrament of proclamation of the good news. Here we see why in it is comprehended the living, and not abstract, meaning of the classic Orthodox affirmation that only the Church is given custody of the scriptures and their interpretation. For tradition is not another source of faith, "complementary" to the scriptures. It is the very same source: the living word of God, always heard and received by the Church. Tradition is the interpretation of the word of God as the source of life itself, and not of any "constructions" or "deductions." When St. Athanasius the Great said that "the holy and God-inspired scriptures are sufficient for the exposition of truth," he was not rejecting tradition, and still less preaching any specifically "biblical" method of theology -- as a formal, terminological faithfulness to the scriptural "text" -- for as everyone knows, in expounding the faith of the Church he himself daringly introduced the nonbiblical term homoousios. He was affirming precisely the living, and not formal or terminological, link between scripture and tradition, tradition as the reading and hearing of scripture in the Holy Spirit. The Church along knows and keeps the meaning of scripture, because in the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church assembly, the Holy Spirit eternally gives life to the "flesh" of scripture, transforming it into "spirit and life." Any genuine theology is rooted in this sacrament of the word, in the church assembly, in which the Spirit of God exhorts the Church herself -- and not simply her individual members -- into all truth. Thus, any "private" reading of scripture must be rooted in the Church: outside of the mind of the Church, outside of the divine-human life of the Church it can neither be heard nor truly interpreted. So the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church gathering in a twofold act -- reading and proclaiming -- is the source of the growth of each and all together into the fulness of the mind of truth (pp. 78-79).

Adding my own banal prose translation into this rapturous hymn, tradition is the word we use for the use of scripture, specifically its gospel use, to call sinners to repentance, to believe in Jesus, and to be saved in the Church from the wrath to come. Only when the scripture is used in that way is the Bible being used in accordance with tradition. Any preaching that diminishes the need for repentance is against the tradition. Any preaching that leads to complacency and mere historical faith is against the tradition. Any preaching that leads to self-righteousness and Phariseeism is against the tradition. Any preaching that misleads sinners into a Christianity without the Church is against the tradition.

For this reason the speculations of theologians are not and never can be traditions, until they find their way into preaching, whether evangelistic on the street corner or liturgical on Sunday. This tradition is St. Irenaeus's rule of faith, the creed, understood in itself as bringing salvation -- by saying "I believe . . ." in faith I am saved apart from all the works of the law. The Church holds tradition, not by having bits of knowledge not in Scripture, but by holding the use of scripture and its proclamation to salvation.

More crunchy both/and goodness later on!

Eating Involves Killing -- No Matter What

2008-07-28T11:27:00.000-07:00

In discussing a recent press statement by PETA about fur Wesley Smith here brought up the rarely discussed deaths of animals during harvesting. As he points out:

Plant agriculture results each year in the mass slaughter of countless animals, including rabbits, gophers, mice, birds, snakes, and other field creatures. These animals are killed during harvesting, and in the various mechanized farming processes that produce wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and other staples of vegan diets. And that doesn’t include the countless rats and mice poisoned in grain elevators, or the animals that die from loss of habitat cleared for agricultural use. . . . Field animals may flee in panic as the great rumbling harvest combines approach, only to be shredded to bits within their merciless blades; they may be burned to death when field leavings are burned; they may be poisoned by pesticides; they may die from predation when their plant cover has been removed.

One might think this is just some conservative tu quoque argument, or else an artifact of awful, inhuman, industrialized factory farming. But actually the idea of grain agriculture as an animal holocaust is a fixed part of Buddhist belief, at least. In a recent study of Tibetan nomads, who lived off of slaughtering animals, the author Rinzin Thargyal notes:

Most of [his nomad informants] thought that farmers were bigger sinners than themselves as nomads, because the farmers killed countless worms and other living beings in the process of ploughing and sowing their fields. Nomads did not take too many lives and the preference for killing bovines was that one single animal could provide enough meat for many people over a longer period, thus involving much less total life-taking overall (p. 182).

And don't think the slaughtering the nomads did was all that humane:

Suffocating the animal was the standard form of killing. The animal was first hobbled and then felled down on the ground, then a rope was tied around the mouth very tightly. The whole process took about half an hour, after which the eyes of the animal became bluish, indicating a lack of oxygen (p. 87).

And the offspring of ox-yak crossbreeds were starved to death:

All tole or zomo calves were starved when very young [i.e. the people took all the milk and let the calves starve]. My informants hesitated to impart this piece of information to me initially, but they gradually admitted that they sometimes had to resort to what was a sinful act in Buddhist terms in order to survive as they did. Since only a few households kept zomo, most of them could avoid committing this form of killing (p. 83).

Even so, the killings involved in agriculture play a major role in the Buddhist view of the world. Here is a great analysis (from this book) based on field-work in Ladakh:

. . . Monks were discouraged from agricultural labor, and particularly the production of staple crops such as barley and peas. Both monks and laity agreed that such work was digpa (a term often glossed as 'sinful,' but more accurately implying an action which causes negative karma), since it killed many insects and worms, as did any digging or plowing. Normatively, involvement in agricultural activity was expected to decrease as a monk entered more senior ranks . . . Most agreed that it would be out of the question for the head monk to involve himself in any act of agricultural production, with some laity feeling that he should not even enter the fields of the village during the later summer months (p. 70).

Of course the other side of monastic renunciation is social reproduction (i.e. marriage and heterosexual relations). As Mills shows, plowing and sex are both seen as creating wealth (plowing by creating seeds, and sex by creating laborers for the farm). The householder is the wealth creator, producing both the grain to feed the monks, but also the future monks themselves. The practice of farming and sex are necessary to the survival of the monastic community, but the two are separated strictly by rules that separate the two in separate but complementary roles.

Not to speak of the viewpoint of the Manicheans whose founder Mani had a vision of plants suffering from the knife . . .

Like all world-changers, vegetarians are convinced that with a few simple adjustments, a life without inflicting harm on anyone are within our grasp. I have my doubts. Maybe it is because I sometimes feel uneasy swatting mosquitoes or crushing ants in my house. (And then I do it anyway and feel uncomfortable.) And when I have planted a plant, I have a deep-seated reluctance to kill it; especially if it seems to have a strong desire to live, despite frequent blows.

Maybe I'm just nuts, but I also have a feeling that the permission granted men and animals to eat plants worldwide in Genesis 1:29-30, and for Adam to eat Eden's plants in 2:16, and the extension to animals (including creeping things like worms and insects) of Gen. 9:2-3 was not just pro forma, that without God's specific permission it really would be wrong to eat plants. After all He made them and they are also our fellow creation. Do they actually belong to us?

(It's also worth noting that Genesis 1:29-30 and 2:16 are not saying the same thing. One gives all the plants of all the world to all men and animals. The other gives the plants of Eden to Adam alone. If you don't just assume, well, eating plants is always OK anywhere anyway, then that's a pretty big difference. Only by Genesis 3:23 does Adam come into a relation with the plants outside Eden; in Gen. 2:15 he only cared for the plants in Eden. Assuming that caring for is connected to eating, this places the universal permission to eat after the expulsion from Eden. This is grist for my mill that the blessings of Genesis 1:28-30, and the description of the world as "very good" in v. 31 are properly read as describing the situation after the expulsion from Eden, not before.)

One final thought in an incoherent post: as people out to change the world, vegetarians share the key characteristic of moral reformers and activists of all causes: that with a few changes, we can all lead sinless lives -- if we really want to. I appreciate the simplicity and purity of the reformers' zeal, I really do. But somehow I just can't share it. Somehow to me the idea that we are stuck in a world in which we cannot help but sin -- ethical fatalism, the idea that we are not in charge of whether we are good people or not -- seems a lot truer. (Of course moral reformers might say that's because I'm complicit in all sorts of evil I don't want to end, because I benefit from it. Or maybe I'm just passive. I suppose that might be true too.)

Two Possible Purposes of Ecumenical Discourse

2008-07-25T09:25:00.001-07:00

Over at the Boar's Head Tavern (July 24-25, 2008) there is a big dispute going on about the Lord's Supper and Baptism.

The whole discussion is interesting for the substance. But even more interesting is the implicit issues (the meta-discussion) about what ecumenical discussion is supposed to do.

For people like me, or Josh S, or John H, who have been baptized in one tradition and then moved to another, it's obvious what the purpose of ecumenical discussion is. It's to get you to evaluate the claims of the denominations and chose the one that is true. (Whether on the basis of evaluating its truth claims, or using "genetic" criteria like apostolicity, or evaluating the fervor or good works is for this purpose irrelevant.) Thus it is crucial to draw distinctions, and particularly draw distinctions that divide denominations by their very nature. Southern Baptists don't have apostolic succession, and can't, by their very nature. Catholics don't have believer's baptism and can't by their very nature. Some distinction like that is very useful for motivating a move from one tradition to another, much more useful than vague and ambiguous ones like the presence of good works, spiritual fervor, etc., all of which vary widely within a single denomination.

Now it's true, we all know people rarely are argued into a different denomination. That's a bug in our system: we're too proud to change. But fortunately, the Spirit can get around that. Stymied in a frontal attack, He can sneak around the rear and by Bible reading and Christian contacts and web discussions and so on change less strongly defended beliefs which then leave our doctrinal Maginot Lines isolated and defenseless. (John H describes the process here.)

But as Michael Spencer points out (key posts here, here, here): that all assumes that moving denominations is like voting in an election. You make your decision in a secret ballot, and go back to your life without direct consequences. But that's just not so. Our denominational choices come from our life stories. Often times its just a simple issue of location. For example, if you live in most parts of eastern Kentucky, becoming a Lutheran is in practice flatly impossible. (Unless giving up your job and moving for a denominational change is something you have to do.) There's simply no Lutheran church near enough. Or what if you are married to a woman who absolutely will not worship in an Orthodox church? Then being an Orthodox church member might be impossible. (Of course that depends on how you evaluate the priorities of marriage and denominational affiliation.

In sum, people with particular types of lives are practically speaking excluded from certain denominations.

Michael Spencer then turns to his basic belief: it is unbelievable that Jesus would prevent those who have heard his message and Gospel from living Jesus-shaped lives, simply because of some fatality of birth or life story that keeps them from belonging to the right denomination.

If this is so, and if a Jesus-shaped life depends on His presence in church fellowship, then it must be the case that no denomination that is Christian at all can claim to have any decisive advantage to the Jesus-shaped life that all do not have. If one denomination claims an infallible teaching magisterium, then either all have it or the claim is false. If one denomination claims to have Jesus's body present in Communion, then either all have it or the claim is false.

To put it a bit differently, while Michael Spencer accepts the "scandal of particularity" with regard to Jesus, he does not accept it with regard to denominations. That a believer in Jesus is saved, while a non-believer is not, he accepts. But that a Lutheran Christian is advantaged in the Christian life by his membership in a denomination in a way that a Baptist is not, this he categorically denies is possible.

Thus he insists that there cannot possibly be any way in which a Southern Baptist believer is qualitatively disadvantaged in the Christian life, simply from not being a member of a Catholic or a Lutheran church. All denominations must have equal resources for the Jesus-shaped life, if only the members of them would claim them.

In this case then, the hard-edged "by their very nature" denominational distinctives are not good, but bad. Lutherans and Baptists and Catholics can all share emphases and idea and spiritual advice. Each one can find his or her spiritual life enriched by that -- without moving to a different denomination. Southern Baptists can have a higher view of the Lord's Supper. Catholics can take evangelism more seriously. Lutherans can try to be less cranky . . .

But once it gets to a claim that our priests are infallible because they have received a charism as members of the Catholic church, or only we are really baptized because only believer's baptism is real baptism -- suddenly that is a claim that doesn't do any one any good unless they move. And if they can't move -- if they can't just believe that where they are -- then that claim will have the effect of intoning at them: You are disqualified from being Christian. You live in the wrong part of Kentucky. You are married to the wrong woman. You have the wrong social ties -- and as a result, your Christian life will always be second-rate.

So by their very life stories, John H and Josh S and me will see ecumenical discussion as having exactly the opposite purpose and characteristics as Michael Spencer will. For us, it's to sharpen distinctions and force a change. For him it is precisely to muddle distinctions and force our Christian denominations to converge. For us, the fact that no one ever directly changes their denomination due to a web discussion forum is a bug. A bug the Spirit can get around, but still, a bug. For him, it's a feature: only by people refusing to change denominations will Southern Baptist churches become sacramentally minded, and Catholic churches emphasize new birth.

Those who switch denominations have a lot of Scriptures on their side -- if they ASSUME that getting the right denomination is the same thing as becoming Christian. Those who don't have a lot of Scriptures on their side -- if they ASSUME that being in a particular denomination is like being in a particular marriage or job.

Thoughts on a Shrinking World, Mass Migration, and Changing Customs

2008-07-04T12:41:00.000-07:00

Under the Mongol dynasty in China, the Yuan, unprecedented numbers of Westerners -- Uyghurs, Tibetans, Turkestanis, Persian, Arabs, Russians, Ossetians, Armenians, and even the odd Frank, like Marco Polo -- migrated to the country. Once they migrated there, receiving high position in the Mongol-run administration, many, if not most, stayed, and their sons and grandsons began adopting Chinese customs.

The attitude of Chinese to this differed. Leaving aside a small cranky minority in South China who still maintained loyalty to the defunct Song dynasty, most Chinese scholars were proud that people were coming from all over the world and converting to Chinese ways. But what about those who changed their surnames and customs to adopt those of China? Was that a good thing? Some thought that truly filial and Confucian Westerners would not change their family name and hence insult their ancestry as something to be gotten over. Others thought it was natural for people to change their name and customs when entering a new world.

Here is a sample of viewpoints on this phenomenon drawn from Chinese-language essays of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The source is Chen Yuan's Western and Central Asian in China Under the Mongols, translated by Qian Xinghai/Ch'ien Hsing-hai and L. Carrington Goodrich. (I have modernized the spelling, but I haven't necessarily referred to the original Chinese to check, so I cannot vouch for the correctness of each phrase or terminology.)

Wang Li in his Linyuan ji, thought it showed how the Mongol Yuan dynasty has expanded the brotherhood of man.

The language and tastes of the people of the Western Regions differ from those of the Chinese. Although since the days of Han and Tang intermarriage has occurred, still each retained his own racial allegiance and could not live permanently in the other's domain. How could those born in the lands of the West be interred in Jiangnan [the lower Yangtze area]. Now under our imperial house of the Yuan, when the foundation of the empire was being laid, the people of the Western Regions rendered valuable service. By the time of the Renovating Founder [that is, Qubilai/Kubla Khan], the land with the Four Seas had become the territory of one family, civilization had spread everywhere, and no more barriers existed. For people in search of fame and wealth in north and south, a journey of a thousand li was like a trip next door, while a journey of ten thousand li constituted just a neighborly jaunt. Hence among Western people who served at court, or who studied in our south-land, many forgot the region of their birth, and took delight in living among our rivers and lakes. As they settled down in China for a long time, some became advanced in years, their families grew, and being far from home, they had no desire to be buried in their fatherland. Brotherhood among peoples has certainly reached a new plane (p. 252).

Liu Yin in his Jingxiu wenji thought the custom of changing one's surnames to fit Chinese models a sign of bad morals. The Guli family of the Jurchen (a people of Manchuria, ancestors of the later Manchus) had taken on the Wu surname, and Liu Yin comments:

When I heard this, I said that this was a great mistake. The family surname had been received by the clan's forefathers and handed down to posterity, and the lineage should not be confused in the slightest degree. . . . They have of their own volition cut off their own roots, and allied themselves with another family. This is indolence and drifting with the current (p. 236).

Other critics like Wu Hai in his Wengaozhai ji, blamed this on careerism. Officials would receive surnames from the government and would not refuse them, lest doing so impede their careers:

The idea was that the new family name, bestowed by the Son of Heaven, could not be refused; while the old name had been handed down by his ancestors and should not be discarded. [A friend of his had showed him his genealogy, where he had listed both family names, old and new, side by side]. Hence both were retained. The moral sense of the people at present is enfeebled. People are bent on acquiring official position and wealth. Some have willingly sacrificed their ancestral heritage and adopted that of this country in order thereby to gain promotion in their careers. Is there one who has accepted a surname bestowed on him and yet is reluctant to give up the old one? On glancing over this genealogical record I could not but feel regretful. One may hope that people who have given up their forefathers may take a look at this record, be moved by it, and change their course of action (p. 237).

Others, like Song Lian in his eulogy of Pu Bo, a Muslim whose family settled in S. China, argued that when situations change, culture should change too:

The people in countries of the Western Regions had no family names; they were known rather by the tribes to which they belonged. They were unsophisticated and their affairs simple; as a consequence, it was easy for them to get along in this way. As to Master Pu [Pu Bo, a man of the Muslim Arghun people of Inner Mongolia], his family lived for three generations in regions of China known for their culture [i.e. in the Lower Yangtze]. He equipped himself with understanding of the History and the Odes [books in the classical Chinese canon] and put into practice the principles of our rites and rules of propriety. His old name he kept, however, which is not as it should be. On consultation with fellow officials and scholars he adopted Pu as his surname. In former times when the people of rank of northern Dai [northern Shanxi, on the northern edge of China proper] followed the rulers of the Northern Wei [a early Mongolic dynasty of the fifth-sixth century AD] and pushed down into Henan, they all followed Chinese customs, changing their three and four syllable names to those of one syllable, and in other respects adopting Chinese ways. The step taken now by Mr. Pu coincides with ancient principles and current practice. Were he not a man of unusual insight, he would not have seen this. Those who abide by ordinary practice might say that their forefathers did not introduce the change. That is because they are unqualified to talk about accommodation [or changing to conform]
(p. 240).

Wu Chen praised Shadi, with the courtesy name Xingzhe, for the adoption of the Chinese system of given names (ming) and courtesy names (zi), the later bestowed by respected colleagues or teachers. He was a member of a sayyid (descendant of Muhammad) family from Central Asia which settled in Yuan China and achieved high position, :

In remote antiquity, people had given names, but no courtesy names -- a sign of their simplicity. In ancient times people had both given names and courtesy names -- a sign of their culture. Within the nine provinces [of China], civilization was emphasized, as it was in medieval times and thereafter. Outside the nine provinces simplicity was stressed, just as it had been in remote antiquity. This difference in practice has existed throughout the ages. The domain of the reigning [Mongol Yuan] dynasty is the most extensive one of all times. All countries, both those within and without the nine provinces are in this domain and form one household. Each having its own customs, it has not been possible to unify them . . . . [Wu Chen then describes how he was given a courtesy name by his fellow officials] What is commendable in this Chinese custom is that the rules of what is right and proper, as laid down by the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, are admirable. Whoever esteems the rules of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius should follow them. Those who think highly of them but fail to follow them are untrue to civilization; they esteem culture, but are false to it. This is not like the genuineness of esteeming simplicity . . . (p. 228).

For others, the answer was to adopt a surname that had some connection with one's ancestry, thus preserving both a justifiable loyalty to one's ancestry and a fitting appreciation of culture. The Xie family of Uyghurs, for example, chose a rare form of this name due to its use in the Chinese transcription of Selengge, the river in Mongolia where his ancestors had come from centuries earlier. Xie Chaowu's name was based on the Mongolian cha'ur "warrior." So Wang Deyuan wrote about him in a eulogy thus:

Xie Chaowu, courtesy name Angfu, was a Uyghur. His given name was Mongol and his courtesy name Chinese. Men spend their life in different regions. As he continued to use the name of his tribe and did not forget his ancestor, he was filial. As he served in a glorious period of the house of Yuan and continued to use his given name not forgetting his country, he was loyal. In studying the standard literature of the Chinese, he freed himself from the charge of illiteracy. In continuing to use his courtesy name he did not forget his teacher, which indicates his sensibility. Being dutiful, loyal, and wise, his moral foundation was laid (p. 143).

For some adaption was a difficult process in which they had to try to find some common moral principles between their ancestral principles and their adopted country's mores and ethics. Xu Youren records the ambivalence of Heshu, another Muslim migrant to China -- and also reminds us that many immigrants made no effort to adapt:

When our house of Yuan launched expeditions against the countries of the northwest, the Western Regions were the first to become part of our realm. Accordingly, many more natives of the West were accorded high positions than those of other lands. Great merchants monopolized advantages in operating profitable enterprises on land and sea. They occupy key places in well-known cities and regions throughout the empire, and enjoy their large incomes, but few are successful in adapting themselves. They live in this country, are clothed and fed here, but they still cling to the customs of their own countries. Heshu, however, declared: 'I do not dare to alter our customs, and thereby become estranged from my own people. I wish only to change what is contrary to moral principles. I have lived in this country, been clothed and fed here, and shared the life of its people. I take no pleasure in altering our ways in order to conform to the customs of this area. But when I reach a decision about them, I wish to conform to that which is right. One of my ancestors came to China as an ambassador and his bones lie buried here. Can I afford to ignore the Odes, History, Rites and Music? [These are books in the Chinese classical canon.] When customs are dissimilar due to differences in underlying principles, should I follow them?' Ah! Heshu was certainly good at adapting himself in the way Mencius proposed [a reference to where Mencius tells the story of people who reformed non-burial of the dead simply by natural feeling, without ever being taught to conduct burials]. According to their mores [that is, Muslim ones], they did not erect monuments at the tombs of their ancestors, but he did so (p. 243).

These are the cultural options still today, in a shrinking world of mass migrations. Perhaps the most distinctive element is the sense of attachment to a particular land, in which the migrants are "fed" and "clothed" by the land, and hence owe something to it.

Tolkien on America, democracy, and 'the West'

2008-06-14T11:59:00.001-07:00

Here I am going to cite some of J.R.R. Tolkien's letters to illustrate the point of view I discussed here, in which America, far from being part of a Western Civilization whose great theme is democracy, is a different continent, fundamentally alien to a Europe, whose great theme is spirituality, rootedness, and hierarchy.

Here follows a florilegium of quotations, with a bit of commentary (references is to the letter number in the Humphrey Carpenter collection).

One theme in Tolkien's relations with America was his suspicion of American publishers, agents, and movie-makers, whom he tended to suspect of cultural illiteracy and sensationalism, although sometimes he was pleasantly surprised. Here is him trying to be diplomatic:

As for the illustrations [for the Hobbit]: I am divided between knowledge of my own inability and fear of what the American artists (doubtless of admirable skill) might produce . . . It might be advisable, rather than lose the American interest to let the Americans do what seems good to them -- as long as it was possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing). I have seem American illustrations that suggest that excellent things might be produced . . . (no. 13, May, 1937).

Or else being somewhat amused:

A backwash from the [Science Fiction Convention at which Tolkien received the International Fantasy Award] was a visit from an American film agent . . . who drove all the way in a taxi from London to see me last week, filling 76 Sandfield [Tolkien's home address] with strange men and stranger women -- I thought the taxi would never stop disgorging. But this Mr. Ackerman brought some astonishingly good pictures (Rackham rather than Disney) and some remarkable color photographs. . . . The Story Line or Scenario was, however, on a lower level. In fact bad. But it looks as if business might be done (no. 202, September, 1957).

A more usual theme is this:

The Americans are not as a rule at all amenable to criticism or correction; but I think their effort is so poor that I feel constrained to make some effort to improve it, though without much more hope of effect than in the case of the appalling jacket they produced for the Hobbit (no. 145, May, 1954).

And every once in a while, American artists and publishers lived up to his worst fears, as with the famous Barbara Remington cover pictured here, which went on to be smash success in the USA:

I wrote . . . a short hasty note . . . to this effect: I think the cover [of the new paperback edition of the Lord of the Rings] ugly; but I recognize that a main object of a paperback cover is to attract purchasers, and I suppose that you are better judges of what is attractive in USA than I am. I therefore will not into a debate about taste -- (meaning though I did not say so: horrible colours and foul lettering) -- but I must ask about this vignette: what has it got to do with the story? Where is this place? Why a lion* and emus? And what is the thing in the foreground with pink bulbs? . . . .

Mrs. _____ [a representative of Ballantine Co.] . . . rang me up. I had a longish conversation; but she seemed to me impermeable. . . . When I made the above points again, her voice rose several tones and she cried: 'But the man hadn't TIME to read the book!' (As if that settled it. A few minutes conversation with the 'man' and a glance at the American edition's pictures should have been sufficient.) With regard to the pink bulbs she said as if to one of complete obtusity: 'they are meant to suggest a Christmas Tree'. Why is such a woman let loose? I begin to feel that I am shut up in a madhouse (no. 277, September, 1965).

Of course sometimes he felt he was just defending England against ignorant American prejudice:

I found myself in a carriage occupied by an R.A.F. officer . . . , and a very nice young American Officer, New-Englander. I stood the hot-air they let off as long as I could; but when I heard the Yank burbling about 'Feudalism' and its results on English class-distinctions and social behavior, I opened a broad-side. The poor boob had not, of course, the faintest notions about 'Feudalism', or history at all -- being a chemical engineer. But you can't knock 'Feudalism' out of an American's head, any more than the 'Oxford Accent'. He was impressed I think when I said that an Englishman's relations with porters, butlers, and tradesmen had as much connection with 'Feudalism' as skyscrapers had with Red Indian wigwams, or taking off one's hat to a lady has with modern methods of collecting Income Tax; but I am not sure he was convinced. I did however get a dim notion into his head that the 'Oxford Accent' (by which he politely told me he meant mine) was not 'forced' and 'put on', but a natural one learned in the nursery -- and was moreover not feudal or aristocratic but a very middle-class bourgeois invention. After I told him that his 'accent' sounded to me like English after being wiped over with a dirty sponge, and generally suggested (falsely) to an English observer that, together with American slouch, it indicated a slovenly and ill-disciplined people -- well, we got quite friendly. We had some bad coffee in the refreshment room at Snow Hill and parted (no. 58, April, 1944).

His World War II letters, however, reveal much darker fears about a militant Americo-cosmopolitanism and its threat, along with Russo-Bolshevism, to European civilization. After the Tehran summit of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, he wrote:

I must also admit that in the photograph our little cherub [Winston Churchill] actually looked the biggest ruffian present. Humph, well! I wonder (if we survive this war) if there will be any niche, even of sufferance, left for reactionary back numbers like me (and you). The bigger things get the smaller and duller and flatter the globe gets. It is going to be all one blasted little provincial suburb. When they have introduced American sanitation, morale-pep, feminism, and mass production throughout the Near East, Middle East, Far East, U.S.S.R., the Pampas, el Gran Chaco, the Danubian Basin, Equatorial Africa, Hirther Further and Inner Mumbo-land, Gondhwanaland, Lhasa, and the villages of darkest Berkshire, how happy we shall be. At any rate it ought to cut down travel there will be nowhere to go . . .

But seriously, I do find this Americo-cosmpolitanism very terrifying. Qua mind and spirit, and neglecting the piddling fears of the timid flesh which does not want to be shot or chopped by brutal and licentious soldiery (German or other), I am not really sure that its victory is going to be so much the better for the world as a whole and in the long run than the victory of ____. I don't suppose letters in [to the R.A.F., in which his son was serving] are censored. But if they are, or not, I need to you hardly add that them's the sentiments of a good many folk -- and no indication of lack of patriotism. For I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!)) . . . (no. 53, December, 1943).

. . . When it is all over, will ordinary people have any freedom left (or right) or will they have to fight for it, or will they be too tired to resist? The last rather seems the idea of some the Big Folk. Who for the most part viewed this war from the vantage point of large motor-cars. Too many are childless. But I suppose the one certain result of it all is a further growth in the great standardised amalgmations with their mass-produced notions and emotions. Music will give place to jiving: which as far as I can make out means holding a 'jam session' round a piano (an instrument properly intended to produce the sounds devised by, say, Chopin) and hitting it so hard it breaks. This delicately cultured amusement is said to be a 'fever' in the U.S.A. O God! O Montreal! O Minnesota! O Michigan! What kind of mass-manias the Soviets can produce remains for peace and prosperity and the removal of war-hypnotism to show. Not quite so dismal as the Western ones, perhaps (I hope). But one doesn't altogether wonder at a few smaller states still wanting to be 'neutral'; they are between the devil and the deep sea all right (and you can stick which D you like on to which side you like). . . . There lies some hope that, at least in our beloved land of England, propaganda defeats itself . . . (no. 77, July, 1944).

Exacerbating his gloom was the sense that World War II would soon be followed by an Americo-Russian war. After his son Christopher in the R.A.F. hoped to be transfered to the Fleet Air Arm in the Far East with the end of the war in Europe, he wrote:

It would not be easy for me to express to you the the measure of my loathing of the Third Service [i.e. the R.A.F.] -- which can nonetheless, and is for me, combined with admiration, gratitude, and above all pity, for the young men caught up in it. But it is the aeroplane of war that is the real villain. . . . My sentiments are more or less those that Frodo would have had if he discovered some Hobbit learning to ride Nazgul-birds, 'for the liberation of the Shire'. Though in this case, as I know nothing about British or American imperialism in the Far East that does not fill me with regret and disgust, I am afraid I am not even supported by a glimmer of patriotism in this remaining war. I would not subscribe a penny to it, let alone a son, were I a free man. It can only benefit America or Russia: prob. the latter. But at least the Americo-Russian War won't break out for a year yet (no. 100, May 1945).

In fact, however, the Americo-Russian war did not break out, and the imposition of Americo-cosmopolitanism on England was far less systematic than he feared. While his travails with obtuse American publicity agents continued, he found the defense of the West from Communism to be much more a meaningful struggle than he had hoped. Contrary to popular belief, he did not think that England had ended up like the Shire after the War of the Ring:

There is no special reference to England in the 'Shire' -- except that as an Englishman brought up in an 'almost rural' village . . . I take my models . . . from such 'life' as I know. But there is no post-war reference. I am not a 'socialist' in any sense . . . but I would not say we have to suffer the malice of Sharkey and his Ruffians here. Though the spirit of 'Isengard', if not of Mordor, is of course always cropping up. The present design of destroying Oxford in order to accommodate motor-cars is a case. But our chief adversary is a member of a 'Tory' government (no. 181, early 1956).

Despite realism about the moral ambiguities, he was a convinced supporter of the anti-Communist side:

Of course in 'real life' causes are not so clear cut -- if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have 'good motives', real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today . . . . There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. . . . .

He then explains that Sauron presented himself as a god to the Men in his service, and that his victory would involve extorting universal worship of him from all rational creatures.

So even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right. As does the Cause of those who oppose now the State-God and Marshal This or That as its High Priest, even if it is true (as it unfortunately is) that many of their deeds are wrong, even if it were true (as it is not) that the inhabitants of 'The West', except for a minority of wealthy bosses, live in fear and squalor, while the worshippers of the State-God live in peace and abundance and in mutual esteem and trust (no. 183, 1956).

Notice how 'The West' is now his referent, not England, or Europe.

But he still was not a 'democrat':

I am not a 'democrat' only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the effort to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power -- and then we get and are getting slavery (no. 186, April, 1956).

See also his tart comments about Greece as the homeland of democracy:

Mr. Eden in the house [parliament] the other day expressed pain at the occurrences in Greece 'the home of democracy'. Is he ignorant or insincere? Demokratia was not in Greek a word of approval but was nearly equivalent to 'mob-rule'; and he neglected to note that Greek Philosophers -- and far more is Greece the home of philosophy -- did not approve of it. And the great Greek states, esp. Athens at the time of its high art and power, were rather Dictatorships, if they were not military monarchies like Sparta! (no. 94, December, 1944).

Later on in the 1960s, the rise of Tolkien clubs in America, and their association with the counter-culture (part of which he approved of and part of which horrified him), disturbed him. After hearing about the creation of a 'New York Tolkien Society' from W.H. Auden who said he feared the members would all be lunatics, Tolkien replied:

Yes, I have heard about the Tolkien Society. Real lunatics don't join them, I think. But still such things fill me too with alarm and despondency (no. 275, August, 1965).

It is in this context that we have to read what is doubtless the most categorically negative thing Tolkien ever wrote about America. After discussing the touching news that his works were being treated as literature on the syllabus in Oxford, he continued:

Not a soil in which the fungus-growth of cults is likely to arise. The horrors of the American scene [of Tolkien mania] I will pass over, though they have given me great distress and labour. (They arise in an entirely different mental climate and soil, polluted and impoverished to a degree only paralleled by the lunatic destruction of the physical lands which Americans inhabit) . . . (no. 328, autumn, 1971).

But the "horrors of the American scene" always drove him more to pity than anger. After citing a letter from a 12 year old Pennsylvanian who had said his Hobbit was "the most wonderful book I have ever read" and said "Gee Whiz, I'm surprised that it's not more popular", Tolkien commented:

It's nice to find that little American boys really do say 'Gee Whiz'.

He added more seriously:

I find these letters which I still occasionally get [this was long before the Lord of the Rings had been published] . . . make me rather sad. What thousand grains of good human corn must fall on barren stony ground, if such a very small drop of water should be so intoxicating! (no. 87, October, 1944).

When on the back cover of the Ballantine edition in addition to his famous plea "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other", he added that this was especially designed for "those over the Water", this was what he meant: designed as a drop of water for those born into the polluted and impoverished mental and physical environment of America.

It is important to remember that Tolkien had never been to America in his life. His comments are thus particularly valuable as a source for studying stereotyped images of America among Englishmen of a certain age and cast of thought, although they are of course that much less valuable as a source for actual knowledge about America.

*There was originally a lion in the Barbara Remington cover picture, which was removed in later editions. As "Major Wooton" notes in the comments, the lion cover version is still available from dealers in Tolkieniana for a reasonable price.

2008-06-09T07:18:00.001-07:00

Here's a map to keep in mind when people in the Metroliner Corridor (Boston to Washington) tell other people to just shut up and accept that high gas prices are just what we need to save the environment. (There's an article with it here, but it's just in the nature of a caption.)

UPDATE: A longer post on the same thing, with links (best of all) to more cool maps, here (HT: Rod Dreher).

One Small Catch in the General Downward Slide

2008-06-07T12:05:00.001-07:00

Amazing! Some one uses the phrase "beg the question" and uses it correctly -- in a blog comments thread no less. Can you find it here?

"Europe" vs. "Western Civilization"

2008-06-07T11:29:00.001-07:00

Has anyone here read Tintin in America? It's an absolutely fascinating compendium of 1930s European stereotypes of America. I was thinking of it lately, after reading Adam Tooze's magnificent Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, one of the most thought-provoking books in twentieth century history I have read in a long time.

Tooze's basic argument runs like this: Germany in the 1920s and 1930s was not Europe's most advanced economy, but a relatively poor, relatively backward economy in Europe -- and the Nazis knew it was. Britain and France on a per capita basis far outpaced Germany, and both had access to colonial resources and markets. Nazi Germany's bid for world conquest was a bid by a self-consciously weak country, directed in the last analysis, at the world superpower, which in 1918 was already recognized to be America. Nazi Germany thus shared with Stalin's Russia, Imperial Japan, and other ambitious but poor powers a need to control the economy, and direct its resources into favored sectors of heavy industry that could be easily fed into a war economy. And like those other economies, the Nazi economy planned from 1939 on for massive use of slave labor, and starvation of scores of millions: in this case, easterners.

Tooze's thesis recasts the relationship of the war in the East to the war in the West. Previous writers have argued that the war in the East, on Stalin's Russia, the ultimate aim of the Nazi war machine and that the war with England was, from the point of view of Hitler's strategy, a mistake. But Tooze shows that for the Nazis the ultimate threat was the terrifying economic power of America. Conquering Russia and killing scores of millions was necessary -- but primarily to give Germany and Europe the resources necessary for a fighting chance to resist American domination and make Europe once again the leading continent. Only war on Russia could secure a colonized continent for Germany, just as the United States had in America west of the Appalachians. What was the role of England in this? Hitler in his writings in the 1920s originally planned to try to get England to ally with him in his European-wide anti-American coalition. But when England refused to join in 1939, it was proof that Roosevelt and the Jews had finally gotten control of England and made it a satellite of America. From then on England was just a satellite of America.

Tooze's analogy between the German aims in Russia and the American colonization of the West highlights unsettling similarities between Nazi Germany and the American republics . To illustrate this, let me recall a scene from the movie Judgment at Nuremberg. The German defense lawyer (played by Montgomery Clift) defends the Nazi sterilization law by referring to similar opinions rendered by Oliver Wendell Holmes. (Actually that's an illustration of the thesis of this recent book.) But the movie pulls its punches, unfortunately. When it comes to Nazi miscegenation laws, the German defense lawyer never once refers to the similar laws polluting the books of many American states at the time. Likewise, it is shaming to realize how much what the Nazis were up to in Russia was modeled on the American dispossession of the American Indians. (As Tooze says, the only difference -- a big one in political economy terms -- was that American colonization was almost most privately run, while the Nazi colonization was state-run.)

This leads to strange question, though: why did Nazi Germany make so little common cause with racism in the United States? Why, for example, in a contest between non-white Japanese on one side and white Americans interning Japanese-Americans on a racial basis on the other did Hitler instinctively and whole-heartedly support the non-whites against the whites? Why was no attempt ever made by the Nazis to win the sympathies of Southern segregationists and Klansmen in America?

After reading Tooze's book, the answer I think is pretty plain: Nazism wasn't just about racism, it was also about Europeanism. In other words it was not just about making "Aryans" triumph over Jews, Roma, and other inferior races in Europe, it was also about making Europe as a continent triumph over rival continents. And by rival continents, the only one really in question was North America. One could even go so far as to say that the racism was instrumental to the "continentism"; that grinding inferior races in Europe into the dust was only a means to the end of keeping Europe the world's leading continent. What is so striking about this is how geography trumped race even in the strategy of the most justly notorious racists in history. How could this be?

Here is where Tintin in America comes in. To understand European fear of North America, one needs to understand the European image of America. Tintin's America is a gangster paradise, a land of skyscrapers and anarchy, of grotesque slaughterhouses and industrialized food, drunken sheriffs enforcing Prohibition while citizens have fun at a lynching parties, a land where oil companies routinely dispossess Indians, where you can go to sleep in a prairie one day and wake up in a traffic-jammed metropolis the next. Now, this is Tintin, and it is all fairly light-hearted. (My personal favorite line is where Tintin as a celebrity has to turn down product endorsement offers, including this gem: "Join our new Islamo-Judeo-Buddhistic religion and earn the highest dividends in the world!") As Tintin leaves on a steamer back for Europe, he sighs, "Funny, and I was just starting to like the place." But make no mistake, America is not part of some "Western civilization" -- it is just as alien to Herge's European readers as Africa, the Soviet Union, or the Arab world and India, scenes for his immediately preceding and following Tintin volumes.

And it is not surprising therefore that in volume ten of the series, The Shooting Star, we see the following rivalry: pure-minded, impractical, yet lovable scholars from Belgium, Paris, Heidelberg, Stockholm, and Salamanca, are pitted against ruthless, gun-toting Americans, whose aims are set by their greedy financial backer Blumenstein. Now when I tell you that the book was written in 1941-42, you will understand why the lovable scholars are all from German-occupied or pro-German countries and why the financier has a hook nose, big lips, and no scruples when it comes to blood-sucking. Post-war editions scrubbed the American flag off the rival expedition's boat and the Jewish name off the financier, but the fact remains, this book links perfectly (and again in a light-hearted, non-didactic way) the stereotypes of Tintin in America with the European agenda of the Nazi party, as seen in Tooze's Wages of Destruction. Note that in Herge's unreflective viewpoint we see a strange co-existence of a morally-based dislike of America's dispossession of the Indians with an implicit approval of the Nazi-led mission to defeat America by conquest and colonization of Russia.

It is this European image of America, as found in Herge, combining monstrous economic growth and urbanization, lack of any state-imposed order, alienation from nature and a willingness to dispossess others purely for profit that makes sense of why Nazi racism could never make common cause with American racism. American racism existed within the context of a society which was categorically hostile to the traditional order of Europe which Nazism was defending. The social self-image of Nazi Germany, however delusional in practice, really was closer to that of militarist Japan than to America, no matter how pure "white" -- and determined to stay that way -- the majority of Americans then were.

Herge himself was no ideologist, just a trimmer spinning with the wind. In his 1958 The Red Sea Sharks, he reflects a new pro-American view by making the crew of an American cruiser the role of heroes rescuing Tintin and a cargo-load of Africans being sold as slaves. The American sailors are indeed called "cowboys" -- but only by chief slave-trader and aristocratic villain Rastapopoulos. In context it's a badge of honor.

What happened between Tintin in America and the Red Sea Sharks (and its superb sister volume The Calculus Affair)? Obviously the annihilation and discrediting of the Nazi ideal. But another way to see it is the acceptance by Europeans of the "Western Civilization" as a summing of their highest ideals to replace "Europe." What's the difference? Well obviously "Western Civ" includes America, and not just as a peripheral player either, but as a central part of the narrative. But the inclusion of America changes how the whole narrative works. In "Western Civ" the aim is democracy and individual rights. From Greek city states to the Magna Carta, to New England town meetings to today; or as David Gress put it, From Plato to NATO. Christian theocracy, feudalism, absolutism, fascism -- these were somehow aberrations in the narrative. The power of the "Western Civ" narrative is how it links a particular praxis (extensive social and economic ties between the Western European and American upper classes, dwarfing those either has with any other region), a particular policy (multilateral democracy promotion), and a particular understanding of history.

The problem is that this understanding of history was made plausible only by the annihilation of fascism as an alternate understanding of Europe's destiny in the modern era. In a purely historical reading, from Plato's racist and aristocratic Republic, to the Christian empire, to the feudal Carolingian monarchy, to absolutism, to fascism's peculiar synthesis of social mobility and corporatism under the leader-principle is at least an equally valid way of looking at European history. In this reading, hierarchy and leadership justified by enlightened reason, war as a testing of the soul, caste endogamy, and a dichotomy of free and unfree are the central messages of European civilization. (I've touched on a Swedish Christian version of it here.) Nazism served up this ideal in a way that its humane adherents such as J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis detested and were willing to fight to destroy, but as they themselves recognized, this hierarchical ideal was recognizably in line with the ideals of the Greco-Roman and Germanic roots of European civilization. And just as recognizably to them, America was not.

2008-05-26T11:30:00.001-07:00

This is a part of China you don't hear much about, but it brings back memories.

At dawn the next day, we were awakened by the sounds of clanging pots. Outside the bus, hotel workers were cooking in a makeshift kitchen. The rice congee (basically a watery boiled rice) they prepared was the diet of Chinese babies and "very healthy," our stalwart tour guide, Frank Wang, assured us. It became our staple, sometimes supplemented with pickled vegetables and small pieces of pork salvaged from the hotel's refrigerators.

And this too.

Even when the food is bland (rice congee!) or too salty (pickled vegetables), there something about the Chinese ability to joke and share and be neighborly in conditions of extreme physical discomfort that is really touching. Not to mention the goofy games that build school spirit, like here.

On the other hand there's this bit of nasty amateur theodicy, or should I say Buddhodicy?

Actually Existing Complementarianism

2008-05-23T11:15:00.000-07:00

Imagine someone who said to you: "I used to believe that premarital sex was just wrong. Then my daughter started dating and got pregnant. Since then our family has been completely overturned, and my Christian life devastated. As a result of all these troubles, I've realized all that stuff about premarital sex being against God's plan for families is just wrong." If you are like me, you'd think the logic was a bit strange. Isn't the trouble that follows from breaking the law you used to believe in normally seen as confirmation of the law's justice? I mean when violating some rule makes for unhappiness all around, we conclude that the rule might make sense. But if the person saying the opposite seems otherwise intelligent, we might assume that there is something else there, some hidden assumption going unexpressed, that makes the logic make sense. And if scores of other people agreed with the person when he said that, we might conclude that these hidden assumptions are actually widely shared. And that would be so even if those assumptions contradict the explicit theology of those persons.

I am thinking about the iMonk's recent post on his agony attendant upon his wife, Denise, becoming a Catholic (he's a Southern Baptist pastor). I would link to it, but it seems to have been removed by him from his site. I don't want to talk about the personalities and rights and wrongs of it all, but as I remember the post, it did have something of the shape: "I used to believe in a man's spiritual leadership in the home; my wife has rejected my spiritual leadership; my life and family are now in complete chaos; so I realize how wrong I was ever to believe in a man's spiritual leadership in the home." Now since this makes no sense at all logically and since the iMonk is certainly an intelligent person, it's clear that there are some hidden assumptions going unexpressed. And I am going to tell you what they are, and why they are there. And I'll start off by saying that those hidden assumptions are not his, but his quite accurate understanding of the sub-text of what "complementarianism"* means in churches that practice it.

Now, in theory "complementarianism" means something like this: "God has given to men a duty to exercise leadership (especially religious leadership) in the home and in the church." Corollaries include the idea that violation of this cause trouble, and so on. Let's call this "theoretical complementarianism."

But that is not all that "complementarianism" means, and not even the main part. It is certainly not the proposition that the iMonk saw completely shattered by his last year as his wife prepared to convert to Catholicism. Rather what was shattered is a quite different proposition: "When men exercise spiritual leadership in the home and church, women will inevitably welcome and follow this leadership." This would have the corollary that "If women deny male headship in church or home, it is all the fault of the men over them." You could also phrase it as "When men exercise spiritual leadership in the home and church, God hears their prayers and makes those who should follow, do so." Practically the result is the same: where men lead rightly women do, in fact and practice, follow. Let's call this proposition "actually existing complementarianism."

Now this would certainly be shattered by the iMonk's experience. He thought he was a good husband and good Baptist pastor -- and now his wife is rejecting his spiritual headship by becoming Catholic. So he now has two alternatives: 1) continue to accept actually existing "complementarianism" (as opposed to the theoretical version in the paragraph above) and take the blame as the bad husband and bad pastor whose failures drove his wife into Catholicism, and prevented God from responding to his desperate prayers; or 2) reject actually existing complementarianism. Now if theoretical complementarianism has been firmly enough linked to actually existing complementarianism, then rejecting the second will mean rejecting the first.

Now, what is the relationship between these two propositions? It certainly isn't some kind of logical corollary. Let's take an analogy: "God had ordained civil authorities as enforcers of the law and all citizens should obey" and "If civil authorities properly enforce the law, all citizens will obey" are independent propositions. None thinks the second follows from the first as some kind of automatic corollary. Likewise, the idea that good parents, for example, never get grief from teenage kids is not part of usual Christian teaching. So how did the Southern Baptist Church, and other churches teaching the same, get from one to the other in the case of husbands and wives?

Even stranger is that "actually existing complementarianism," despite being taught in Christian churches, seems to contradict Christian teachings about human nature. For example, original sin. How can we believe that an original sinner pastor/husband could ever exercise leadership well enough that "actually existing complementarianism" could be anything other than a purely theoretical issue? And how can we believe that even if the pastor/husband is perfect, an original sinner wife/congregant would inevitably welcome this leadership? I mean, does the Bible really teach that when prophets and priests lead in God's way that people always and inevitably follow? In fact, "actually existing complementarianism" is simply an assertion that both men and women can and will fulfill the law of theoretical complementarianism.

Actually existing complementarianism looks very much like Mencius; you know, the Confucian philosopher who argued that human nature is inherently good. Mencius was asked how a prince should get the common people to observe proper ritual. The answer? Just lead and the people will inevitably follow:

The prince said again to Ran Yu, 'Hitherto, I have not given myself to the pursuit of learning, but have found my pleasure in horsemanship and sword-exercise, and now I don't come up to the wishes of my aged relatives and the officers. I am afraid I may not be able to discharge my duty in the great business that I have entered on; do you again consult Mencius for me.'

On this, Ran Yu went again to Zou, and consulted Mencius. Mencius said, 'It is so, but he may not seek a remedy in others, but only in himself. Confucius said, "When a prince dies, his successor entrusts the administration to the prime minister. He sips the congee. His face is of a deep black. He approaches the place of mourning, and weeps. Of all the officers and inferior ministers there is not one who will presume not to join in the lamentation, he setting them this example. What the superior loves, his inferiors will be found to love exceedingly. The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and grass. The grass must bend when the wind blows upon it." The business depends on the prince.'

Ran Yu returned with this answer to his commission, and the prince said, 'It is so. The matter does indeed depend on me.'

So for five months he dwelt in the shed, without issuing an order or a caution. All the officers and his relatives said, 'He may be said to understand the ceremonies.' When the time of interment arrived, they came from all quarters of the State to witness it. Those who had come from other States to condole with him, were greatly pleased with the deep dejection of his countenance and the mournfulness of his wailing and weeping.

Now Mencius believed firmly in the goodness of human nature and the naturalness of Confucian ethics. And there is something in this that responds to our usual moral intuitions. If the government is good, people will obey -- generally and as a rule. But conservative Presbyterians and Baptists believe just as firmly in original sin and the unattainability of the Christian ethic. So how did this teaching of actually existing complementarianism get established?

Certainly it is not particularly traditional. I have read quite widely in the pre-20th century Christian tradition, and while theoretical complementarianism is virtually universal in it, the actually existing kind seems nowhere to be found. In other words, a model of family life is set out, but there is no real expectation that just because the husband follows it the wife will -- or the other way around. In general if you act well, the other person in the marriage will frequently respond, but there's nothing inevitable about and nothing shocking when he or she doesn't reciprocate. So why is it so important to insist in conservative Christian churches that traditional sex roles is entirely up to the pastor/husband, and that he alone, simply by personal rectification, can inevitably make them welcomed in his household?

Several reasons, I think. One important one is because of the dynamics of the church teaching situation. Most teaching that takes place in Christian churches in a market environment is men teaching women. When a male pastor teaches actually existing complementarianism, he is doing several things: 1) assuring the women in his audience that they will not be, and cannot be, compelled to submit to their husband's leadership; it's purely voluntary. 2) He is building up his own sense of righteousness and manliness. Look at it this way: actually existing complementarianism has as its corollary that any man to whom women submit is exercising leadership properly (OK, it's not exactly a strict logical inference, but it's close enough for real life.) If I as a Southern Baptist pastor tell my mostly female congregation that they should submit to male headship in the family and church -- but only when the man's leadership is godly --, and they prefer my preaching to that of the Methodist church with a woman pastor down the road or to their own good-for-nothing husbands, well then, then my leadership must be godly than theirs. And godly in a specifically male way.

To a certain degree, then, "actually existing complementarianism" is a way of throwing down the gauntlet to other men: if you are a real man, your wife will welcome your leadership, and if she doesn't -- well then, you mustn't be a real man. Now if the iMonk was raised in this kind of environment it's easy to see why his wife becoming Catholic was a shattering humiliation. He could either live with the humiliation or rip up the whole game. No wonder he chose the second.

But this sort of real man one-ups-manship has been going on for a long time, and actually existing complementarianism is a new thing. So there must be something new in the situation to account for it. Here's the new thing: complementarianism has become an "ethnic" marker, a marker that separates the people of God from outsiders. And it is the distinctive feature of such marker-laws that they have to be attainable. Think of it this way, if not eating pork is the mark of a Jew as one of the people of God, then not eating pork has to be a fulfillable command. If somehow it's not possible to not pork, then all kinds of people who want to be Jews will be turned from Jews to gentiles against their will. And if your life is built around your religious community, that's pretty upsetting.

But the use of marital relations as a marker of being part of the people of God is actually pretty new. In 1858, liberal Episcopalians and evangelical Baptists all had pretty much the same view of family ethics. In 1958, differences were there, but with at a fairly high level of abstraction. But today, views on "complementarianism" vs. "egalitarianism" have becoming major denominational distinctives. If "complementarianism" defines the Southern Baptists, then "complementarianism," (like teetotalling, but unlike loving your neighbor, which all denominations try to do and all fail at perfecting) has to be do-able. Otherwise you won't have any credible "witness." If you are a member of, to chose a different example, a conservative PCA church, and want to remain so, having a good "complementarian" marriage, is as important as not eating pork as is to remaining an Orthodox Jew in good standing. (OK, I exaggerate a bit -- but only a bit.)

Now I can't think of anything less well-suited to be a dividing line between the clean and the unclean than marital relations. An insider/outsider marker should be: 1) easily documented, one way or the other; 2) clear-cut at any point whether you are living up to it or not; 3) Not connected to personality. Otherwise you are saying only one personality type is allowed in this denomination, which is going to drive vast numbers of growing children out of your body each generation; 4) individually determined, so that whether you adhere or not is under your own control, not someone else's. Now, you might point out that kosher rules are set by the family; if a wife refuses to keep a kosher kitchen, the Orthodox Jewish husband's stuck. But in this case, Jewish law allows and would even encourage divorce of a spouse who refuses to comply with membership codes. But in Christian churches, divorce is not explicitly recognized as an option (although in reality it plays an important under the table role in border-maintenance). But what you have in "complementarian" churches is a marker of cleanliness that is hard to check, dependent on endless subtle shades of interaction, determined by the interaction of two distinctive individual personalities, and in the end, out of the control of either partner. This can't help but cause anxiety.

(It is also true that explicitly liberal churches who place emphasis on being progressive have the mirror image problem, giving you the widespread figure of the bossy husband and mousy wife in a UU or Episcopalian church desperately denying that their family order is traditional patriarchy. But since liberal churches are in step with the wider society, are in fact the wider society at prayer, ideological consistency lacks the peculiar imperatives of border maintenance. If you admitted you act like a patriarch, despite believing in "a woman's right to chose", you'd just be a jerk, and not a social outcast.)

In this situation you need desperately to avoid the suggestion that justification by this particular Law is out of your hands. You have to believe that "complementarian" marriages are clearly and easily distinguished from "egalitarian" ones. That conscious belief and will, not the myriad shades of in-born personality types built by each person's unique nature and nurture, determines your interaction with your spouse. That husbands as leaders and wives as followers can indeed be close to sinless enough for actually existing complementarianism to apply.

To admit that these beliefs are obviously false, and would sound as strange and contrived in 1858 as they do today, is hard to bear. (Think of it this way -- have you ever read any good literature built on these principles? I thought not. And if it can't make a good novel, it probably can't be lived out in real life.)

But anything else leads to the dreaded condition of ethical fatalism, the believe that whether or not you are a good person and a member in good standing in the church is out of your hands. And that dreaded condition was what giving your life over to Christ was supposed to get you out of.

So my conclusion is, that "actually existing complementarianism" is created not by traditional Christian doctrine ("theoretical complementarianism") itself, but by that doctrine in interaction with a particular sociological situation: gathered congregations in a religious market in a society with serious conflict over marital ideals . Since those sociological features aren't going away, so too actually existing complementarianism isn't going to go away any time soon. But as you could probably tell, I believe it is overall pretty destructive. That is, however, not because traditional Christian teaching on the family is wrong, but rather because this good Law is being misused. I tend to agree with the biologists that people are mammals, and that means that when males are actually in the pack they generally lead it, and that females have a natural connection with child-raising*. People are overall happier and children are overall better raised where our heritage as a particular sort of mammalian creatures is worked with and not fought against. But daily interaction between husband and wife is just not something that can be legislated. If churches want border-markers between "complementarianism" and "egalitarianism" let them use nice and simple devices that are suited for the purpose, such as wives taking their husband's family name, or including "obey" in wedding vows -- do it once, in public, and then you can forget about it and get on with trying to be a good husband and father, wife and mother, without letting -isms get in the way. That's the approach of conservative liturgical churches and while it is less effective at challenging the broader society, it breeds fewer shattered and bitter opponents like the iMonk.

UPDATE: Here it is in black and white, as another comment of Michael Spencer's troubles.

*I must say, the sheer ugliness of this word is something of a tip-off to the absurdity of some of the views associated with it. It reminds me of what Disraeli once said of "conservatism" back when that new word replaced good old "Tory": "It sounds like something made by a pastry chef."
**Spotted hyenas, where females lead the pack, also have pseudo-male genitalia and aggressive temperaments due to an embyonic bath of testosterone. They are the mammalian exception that proves the rule (more here).

2008-05-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

Check out a great new Finnish blog (that is, a blog about Lutheranism in Finland, not actually a blog in Finnish!), Tentatio Borealis by Esko Murto, a pastor/sem student at Ft. Wayne. HT: Bill Tighe.

Amos and the Consumer Credit Industry

2008-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

After finishing I-II Kings, I reread Amos, Hosea, and Micah, the great prophets of the pre-exilic Northern Kingdom. They are also the great prophets of justice, particularly Amos. But reading them today, we implicitly translate. What is it they are attacking? Economic development, urbanization, centralization of rule: these are some answers offered by historians for the abstract description of their processes. See this previous post on Jezebel here. A problem with this reading is that if that's the point, they become pretty unusable to us today. Can de-industrialization and return to agrarian life really be an agenda for the church today?

Others say that the enemy described is capitalism as a system of seeking profit, and that today's answer is social democracy: a system of centralization and urbanization that aims to supply as many services in life as possible by tax-funded public programs. The problem with this being the a response to the prophetic denunciation is that Amos, Hosea, and Micah are explicitly harking back to the multi-generational family ideal of the Law, the idea of each family being settled on a particular plot of land, and so being tied to the family before the state. All of this is flatly contrary to any conceivable notion of social democracy (More here and here.)

I would like to suggest abuse of consumer credit (particularly in the housing industry) as the best usable answer today (and by the four laws of intertestamental Bible interpretation, the Bible is always relevant). Here's a shocking article by Elizabeth Warren on the new wild west of consumer credit from Harvard Magazine.

Here's how it starts:

It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance your home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting your family out on the street—and the mortgage won’t even carry a disclosure of that fact. Similarly, it’s impossible for the seller to change the price on a toaster once you have purchased it. But long after the credit-card slip has been signed, your credit-card company can triple the price of the credit you used to finance your purchase, even if you meet all the credit terms.

And here are some of the crazier grafs:

For example, after 47 lines of text explaining how interest rates will be calculated, one prominent credit-card company concludes, “We reserve the right to change the terms at any time for any reason.” Evidently, all that convoluted language was there only to obscure the bottom line: The company will charge whatever it wants. In effect, lenders won’t be bound by any term or price that becomes inconvenient for them, but they will expect their customers to be bound by whatever terms the lenders want to enforce—and to have the courts back them up.

Talk about getting your neighbor’s goods in a way that only looks right! The author explains how long-standing regulations have been virtually voided by imposing the much looser federal regime on the closer state regulations propounded when banking was limited by states. She proposes a Financial Products Safety Commission (modeled on the Consumer Product Safety Commisssion created by President Nixon:

For example, an FPSC might review the following terms that appear in some—but not all—credit-card agreements: universal default clauses; unlimited and unexplained fees; interest-rate increases that exceed 10 percentage points; and an issuer’s claim that it can change the terms after money has been borrowed. It would also promote such market-enhancing practices as a simple, easy-to-read paragraph that explains all interest charges; clear explanations of when fees will be imposed; a requirement that the terms of a credit card remain the same until the card expires; no marketing targeted at college students or minors; and a statement showing how long it will take to pay off the balance, as well as how much interest will be paid if the customer makes the minimum monthly payments on the outstanding loan balance.

Framing the issue this way opens a different perspective on our economic system. Compared to ancient Israel, or any agrarian economy, capital is amazingly cheap today and interest rates over-all shockingly low -- and that's a good thing (sorry, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Barry). Here's a story of credit abuses from the North China under the Mongols in the 1240:

All at the same time, endless schemes were used to push people into accumulating debts. In addition, debts which the clerks in office had borrowed from Turkestanis lending silver each year would double. The next year with the interest added in again it would double again. This was called “sheep’s-lamb-profit.” The debts simply never ended and they often destroyed families and scattered clans, to the point where wives and children had to be pawned, yet in the end could not be redeemed. Yelü Chucai [a Kitan Confucian serving the Mongols] asked His Majesty and all the debts were repaid in silver with official funds, totaling 76,000 ding. He memorialized as well that it be fixed from now on that no matter how many months or years have passed that when the interest has come to equal the principal, then the loan will no longer bear interest. This then became a set rule (from Song Zhen's biography of Yelü Chucai).

In other words, it was a big reform to limit annual interest to -- 100%!! That's rather worse than even credit card debt! And even this reform didn't really work: scarcely twenty years later we read:

As wealthy people loaned money to the civilians, it would happen that the interest would equal the principal, and would then be added into the principal and a new contract drawn up with the interest added. When the term expired, the debts had to be repaid; it was called “sheep’s lamb interest.” The cruelty of their dunning debtors involved, for example, threatening them with fire in the summer or putting them in icehouses in the winter, and the people could not deal with their malice. Lian Xixian [a part Uyghur, part-Kitan Confucian and big fan of Mencius] corrected their suffering. Even though the term had long expired, it was not allowed exceed in settlements the repayment of the original principal and interest. If some one got more, then he had all the contracts seized and burned and then would treat them according to the regulations (from Lian Xixian's biography written by Gao of Henei).

So even enforcing a limit of interest to 100% is tough in an agrarian society!

Capitalism and economic development have created an economy in which in general and overall, consumer credit is available on amazingly easy terms, historically. The thirty-year mortgage is one of the great achievements of equity and humanitarianism. It is all the more valuable as it works to reinforce, not weaken, the family as an autonomous little commonwealth (more on this point here). But as we see in the sub-prime loan scandal, that achievement of a consumer credit industry that serves people and does not prey on them is always threatened by a return to speculation fever, both on the part of big lender Honest-Johns, and the little Pinocchios who think they can play the system.

So the solution is neither mooning after a return to agrarianism, futile prohibitions on lending on interest, or exhortations to never borrow money (people need capital, and rightly managed it is a vital part of ordinary life), nor is it a public housing industry, whole-sale income redistribution, and a generally condemnation of capitalism as built on greed, nor yet a general bail-out of debtors who tried to buy and flip houses, but rather a regulation of the consumer credit industry, limiting it to honest profits, something like what Elizabeth Warren suggests in her article. And specific denunciations of consumer credit loan-sharks wouldn’t hurt.

Framing Stories in I-II Kings

2008-05-12T07:07:00.000-07:00

It's been over a month, I know, since my last post. Apart from being just busy, somehow I don't feel like any of my thoughts (and I do have them still!) are really in a shape to be blogged. But since I just got a prod from a loyal reader (hello, Eric R!) , let me give my readers some new content.

Yesterday, I finished I and II Kings (very delayed, I know). The more I read it, the more I believe the kind of reading I've been giving it in previous posts, one which focuses on irony, on disjunction between the narrative voice and the author's, is not a figment of the imagination, but an essential reading.

Notes for the future: the Elijah-Elisha cycle is introduced by a mother and child story (the widow of Zarephath and her son), just as the Samuel-David cycle (Hannah seeks a child), and the Solomon cycle (the two prostitutes quarreling over a child). In each case this is a metaphor for Israel and her king. How does this story reposition our reading of the Elijah-Elisha cycle? Elijah saves the widow's child, after she reproaches him for having given her hope of a child when she didn't even think of it, and then letting her darling die. So what is the implicit story then? God and His prophets save the kingship, when Israel reproaches God for first giving her a king when she hadn't even thought of it, and then letting her darling monarchy die. The framing story and my reading of it thus highlights Elijah and Elisha's implicit symbiosis with the kingship, their "pulling their punches" and ultimate support of it in the struggle with Damascus. Reread the whole thing -- you'll see it works out.

The systematic repetition of the Elijah and Elisha stories (almost everyone is a doublet) is worth noting (just like the Isaac-Abraham doublets). If we don't accept the source critical explanation (that there were a series of standard prophet-legends, some with Elijah's name on them, some with Elisha's, and the two were combined without recognizing them as the same), we need another explanation.

It should be noted, though, that the notorious bear tearing the kids episode is a good lead into Elisha's role as the one who promotes (despite his tears), the massacre of Jezreel (Jehu's ascension, cf. Hosea 1:4). Stories involving children seem to have a key framing role everywhere in the Deuteronomistic History.

Another point I noticed is how the message of the Rabshakeh (=field commander) of Assyria to Zion is strikingly parallel to the prophetic messages: idols will not keep you safe, your kings cannot protect you, siege and exile is coming, but if you accept this as judgment it won't be so bad and you will sit under fig tree and vine. When the king hears it he tears his robes. It is of course rejected by Hezekiah, and Isaiah, and God, but it is an important reflection of the Deuteronomistic History's theme of the ambiguity of prophetic utterance: prophets lie all the time. Here is a prophecy that is entirely true, and is not a prophesy of smooth things, but of judgment and woe -- and it's all a lie too! But when Josiah (a sort of second Hezekiah) finds a book that prophesies woe and exile, and tears his clothes: this is true prophecy.

I can't help but note here the reading of Richard Polzin, that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is the author of the Deuteronomistic History itself, and the insight of Richard E. Friedman that Josiah is described in the Deuteronomistic History as the best king bar none, the only true leader since Moses, and that the Deuteronomistic History was written by Jeremiah or an associate, first in the time of Josiah, with the rest added after. (The close association of the Deuteronomistic History with the language and concerns of Jeremiah is widely acknowledged.) Put them together and the two go together: the Deuteronomistic History is leading up not just to the rediscovery of Deuteronomy's Law but also the apprehension of the course of Israel's history by Jeremiah (or Baruch) as author of the Deuterenomistic History.

But the interpretation of Friedman's, dependent as it is on a two-fold compilation process, first under Josiah, and then an epilogue, so to speak, written in exile, would then leave the post-Josiah history of Israel hanging. It would be more satisfying to see the whole as a single story, with the end envisioned from the beginning. What's the point, then? That even when, through the Hegelian mission of the prophets to describe to Israel her story, the truth is set forth before Israel, the truth is not accepted. The moment of insight -- does nothing, and destruction follows.

Ever Wonder What Happened to Naaman after He Went back to Damascus?

2008-04-01T10:01:00.001-07:00

Well, if you haven't, I have. There is that passage in 2 Kings 5:

And Naaman said, "Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing." And [Elisha] said unto him, "Go in peace." So he departed from him a little way.

Needless to say, a strong current of interpretation says that we need to be angry at Naaman for "compromising with idolatry" and wonder that Elisha permitted it.

I'd rather read this along with the story of King Hakon the Good. He had come from England, where he had been baptized in A.D. 934. Going up to Trondheim, the richest district in the kingdom and the chief place of sacrifice in pagan Norway, he made an address,

to freeholders and husbandmen alike, of high and low estate, and so to all the people, young men and old, rich and poor, women as well as men, that all should let themselves be baptized and believe in one God, Christ, the son of Mary, and stop all idolatry and heathen worship; that they should keep holy every seventh day, abstaining from work, and fast every seventh day. (Heimskringla, p. 108).

The farmers grumbled against this because a Sunday rest would cut their income, and the working men and thralls thought they couldn't work on Friday without food. A farmer then gave a long speech (as cited by Snorri Sturluson), that emphasized how they wished Hakon to rule according to the inherited usages of the kingdom and not force them to abandon the customs they had from their fathers:

"But now we don't know what to think, whether we have regained our liberty or whether you are going to make us thralls again with the strange proposal that we should abandon the faith our fathers had before us, and all our forefathers, first in the time when the dead were burned, and now in the age when the dead are buried. And they were better men than we, and yet this faith has served us very well. . . . We all want to follow you and to have you be our king so long as one of us farmers who are at the assembly now is alive, if you, sir king, will observe moderation and ask only that of us which we can give you and which is within reason.

"But if you mean to pursue this so high-handedly as to contend against us with force and compulsion, then all of us farmers have made up our minds to desert you and chose another leader, one who will help us freely to have the faith we wish to have" (Heimskringla, p. 109).

The farmers all cheered this.

Earl Sigurd of Trondheim then negotiates between the two sides to delay a decision. But it couldn't be avoided.

In fall, at the beginning of winter there was a sacrificial feast at Hlathir [the temple seat on the other side of the Nidharos river in Trondheim], and the king attended it. Before that, if present at a place where heathen sacrifice was made, he was accustomed to eat in a little house apart, in the company of a few men. But the farmers remarked about it that he did not occupy the high seat when there was the best cheer among the people. The earl told him that he should not do that; and so it came that the king occupied the high seat on this occasion.

But when the first beaker was served, Earl Sigurd proposed a toast, dedicating the horn to Odin [chief of the Norse gods], and drank to the king. The king took the horn from him and made the sign of the cross over it.

Then Kar of Gryting said, "Why does the king do that? Doesn't he want to drink of the sacrificial beaker?"

Earl Sigurd made answer, "The king does as all do who believe in their own might and strength, and dedicated this beaker to Thor. He made the sign of the hammer over it before drinking." People said no more about it that evening. Next day when people had seated themselves at the tables, the farmers thronged about the king, saying that now he must eat the horse meat [the horse was sacrificed to Odin]. That, the king would not do under any condition. Then they asked him to drink the broth from it. He refused to do that. Then they asked him to eat the dripping from it. He would not do that, either, and they came near to making an attack on him. Earl Sigurd said he would help them come to an agreement, asking them to cease their tumult; and he asked the king to gape with his mouth over the handle of the kettle on which the smoke of the broth from the horse meat had settled, so that the handle was greasy from it. Then the king went up to it and put a linen cloth over the handle and gaped with his mouth over it. Then he went back to his high-seat, and neither party was satisfied with that (Heimskringla, pp. 110-11).

Later, the men of Trondheim even got together and sailed south to other parts of Norway and burned three churches and killed three priests.

But when King Hakon and Earl Sigurd came to Maerin with their troops, the farmers were there in very great numbers. The first day at the banquet the farmers thronged in upon him and asked him to sacrifice, or else they would force him to. Then Earl Sigurd mediated between them, and in the end King Hakon ate a few bits of horse liver.

Earl Sigurd tried to calm the king, but in the end, he left Trondheim swearing vengeance:

The king was so enraged that no one durst speak to him (Heimskringla, p. 112).

The conflict is cut short by an invasion of rivals for the throne, sons of his half-brother Eirik. He drives them out, but they harry Norway for the rest of his reign. In year 961, they invade again, and King Hakon is wounded.

King Hakon boarded his warships and had his wound bandaged. But the blood flowed so profusely that it could not be staunched. And as the day wore on the king became faint. . . . .Then he called his friends to his side and told them his wishes about the disposition of the kingdom. His only child was a daughter, Thora by name. He had no son. He requested them to send word to the sons of Eirik that they were to be kings over the land, but that they should exercise forbearance to his friends and kinsmen. "But even if I be granted to live," he said, "I would leave the country to abide among Christians and do penance for what I have sinned against God. But if I die here, among heathens, then give me such burial place as seems most fitting to you."

And a short while afterwards, King Hakon died on the same slab of rock where he was born. King Hakon was mourned so greatly that both friends and enemies bewailed his death and declared that a king as good as he would not be seen again in Norway. His friends moved his body north to Saeheim in North Horthaland. There they raised a great mound and in it buried the king in full armor and in his finest array, but with no other valuables. Words were spoken over his grave according to the custom of heathen men, and they put him on the way to Valhalla (Heimskringla, pp. 124-25).

Observations:

King Hakon attempted to winsomely represent the Christian faith in a position of leadership and was a greatly admired king -- and was for his pains even denied a Christian burial by the men who loved him.

It's not enough to let the men of Trondheim have their religion while you have yours. If you rule them, you have to eat the horse liver -- or at least gape your mouth over the greasy handle.

Eventually, Olaf Tryggvason did Christianize Norway. In the Heimskringla, his chapter entries read like this: "The King Has the Warlocks Burned"; "The King Forces the Farmers to Accept Christianity"; "King Olaf Destroys the Idols"; "Eyvind Kinnrifa [a die-hard pagan] Is Tortured to Death by King Olaf"; and so on. Of King Olaf it was said:

King Olaf was of a most cheerful disposition and full of fun. He was friendly and affable, impetuous in all matters, exceedingly generous, and a fine dresser. He exceeded everyone in bravery when in battle. When angered he was very cruel, inflicting tortures on his enemies. Some of them he had burned with fire, some he let wild dogs tear to pieces, others he had maimed or cast down from high cliffs. For these reasons he was beloved by his friends and feared by his enemies. And he had such success, because some out of friendship and good will did what he wanted done, and some, because of fear of him (Heimskringla, p. 218).

So which of the two gained the world and lost his soul? Or both? Or neither?

How Norway Was Founded

2008-03-20T08:00:00.000-07:00

I've asserted before that all states -- without exception -- are founded on either conquest or rebellion. What is very peculiar is that traditional political theory is both more aware of this fact than democrat-republican theory, and also more insistent on the ethical obligation to obey the successful conquerors/rebels.

But is it really true that sovereign kingdoms are found on rebellion or conquest? What about, for example, Sweden or Denmark or Norway? They never conquered anyone, and they've never had a revolution. Surely they must be governments that are legitimate and violence-free, not just in their operations, but also in their founding. Well, leaving aside Vikings, and the break up of the Union of Kallmar and so on, Snorri Sturluson in his Egil's Saga gives us a very interesting picture of how the Kingdom of Norway was first established:

By this time Halfdan the Black's son, Harald, had come into his inheritance to the east in Oslofjord, and had sworn a solemn oath never to cut or comb his hair until he'd made himself sole ruler of Norway. That was why people called him Harald the Shaggy [Harald Finehair in other translations].

First of all he fought and put down the kings nearest to him, and there are long stories about that campaign. After that he conquered the Uplands and traveled north from there to Trondheim, though he had to fight many a battle before he was able to get control of all Trondheim Province. . . . . (p. 23)

There follows a description of his conquests of the kings in Namdalen, More, Romsdalen and elsewhere, partly by overawing them, and partly by military force. Solvi Splitter, son of the defeated king Hunthjof rallies a neighboring King Arnvid this way:

'We may be in trouble now,' said Solvi, 'but it won't be long before the same happens to you. Take my word for it, Harald will be turning up here at any moment, just as soon as he's got all the people of North More and Romsdale where he wants them and made slaves of them. You're going to have the same choice on your hands as we had. Either you'll have to defend your freedom and your goods with every man you can muster -- and I'll help you fight this tyranny and injustice with all the forces I have -- or else you can choose to place yourselves under Harald's yoke and become slaves, like the men of Namdalen. My father preferred to die with honor like the King he was, not to spend his old age as another King's hired man, and I think you'll be minded to do the same as anyone who still has some pride and ambition' (pp. 23-24).

King Harald's exactions didn't stop once he'd unified the realm:

Once he'd gained full control of the provinces that had just come into his hands, Harald kept a sharp eye on the landed men and rich farmers, and anyone else he might expect trouble from. He gave them a choice of three things. They could swear loyalty or they could leave the country, but if they chose the third, they could resign themselves to the most savage terms, perhaps even death. There were cases where Harald had people's arms and legs hacked off. In every province, Harald took over both farming land and estates, whether they were inhabited or not, even the sea and the lakes. Every farmer and every forester had to become his tenant, every salt-maker and every hunter on land or sea had to pay taxes to him. Many a man went on the run from this tyranny and many a wilderness became inhabited, both east in Jamtaland and Halsingland [in modern-day Sweden] and west, in the Hebrides, as well as in parts around Dublin in Ireland, Normandy in France, Caithness in Scotland, Orkney, Shetland and the Faroes. And that's when Iceland was discovered (p. 26).

What always struck me as so unrealistic about Daniel Larison-style paleo-conservatism is its pretension that somehow the idea of conquest and bigger units and centralization and state power was invented by crazy New Englanders sometime around 1820. Or maybe by evil Henry VIII. (Depending on whether the paleo-con in question is Southern or Catholic.) Before then, you get the impression from that that local rule was a universally respected principle and all traditional peoples abhorred the idea of just waking up one day and deciding "I'm the king of a single fjord in Norway, but I'd like to be king of the whole thing. I think I'll conquer all the rest and make this a reality." Well, obviously this is pretty much how Snorri Sturluson, an Icelander and descendant of those who fled Harald's rule, pictured it: long before nominalism, or the Reformation (Harald the Shaggy was a pagan), or the Yankees with their -isms.

More interesting is the comparison of this with the Deuteronomistic History. Snorri Sturluson also wrote the Heimskringla, which is a history of the Yngling kings of Norway (including Harald Shaggy/Finehair and his ancestors and descendants). We often talk about Biblical genre; of course genre is simply a concise way of specifying the other books against which one intends to read and compare the one you are reading with. Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla is not a bad work to read the Deuteronomistic History against, with one big caveat: Jeremiah's history ends with a exile, while the ending of Snorri Sturluson's history is less clear-cut. But both have this (to modern ears) strange juxtaposition of a very unenchanted view of the origin of monarchy with an acceptance of the prerogatives of the monarch and his position.

Where the Division of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings Ought to Have Been Made

2008-03-08T13:48:00.000-08:00

From the very beginning of 1 Samuel, the theme of the Deuteronomistic History is replacement; replacement of one priest by another, of one king by another. And more specifically that God replaces those who disappoint Him, and enthrones those with whom He is pleased to place in power. (I was about to say "seek to please Him" but that's definitely a wrong reading of the text, as I will show later). At some point, this replacement has to end, correct? After all, Jerusalem will get a Davidic line and a permanent temple, so one would say that under David this replacement is no longer the main theme.

But that is not correct; in fact the theme of replacement ends with a bang, but only in 1 Kings, chapter 2, where the true permanent king is installed. Not David, but his son. The chapter ends: "And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon." But if there is ever a demonstration that openness to irony (that is, any disjunction between what is stated and what is meant), is necessary equipment for reading the Deuteronomistic History, it is this passage. Contrary to the naive reading, the narrative voice is not God's voice. Rather God's voice is heard by listening to the man of God, who is the author of the book, as he weaves the narrator's voice as only one among the many voices here.

1 Kings 1 and 2 recap almost too perfectly the themes set out in 1 Samuel 1 and 3. Or rather I should say, recap it in a way that sounds too good to be true; because it certainly is.

1 Samuel 2 prophesied the deposition of the house of Eli from the priesthood and their replacement. Well, Eli's sons were killed at the end of 1 Samuel 4, when the ark was captured. But just as the ark reappears, so Eli's family reappears under Saul in 1 Samuel 14:3, and again under David in 1 Samuel 21 (the key genealogical link is in 1 Sam. 22:9-12). But in 1 Kings 2, the final displacement of Abiathar, the last of the Elid priests takes place and the prophecy is (or so the narrator tells us) consummated (v. 27). What was his crime? He backed the wrong horse in the succession struggle, supporting Adonijah, not Solomon. Here, if we believe the narrator's voice, is the fulfillment of the song of Hannah. No more injustice, Israel has a king, and there will be no more replacement, and no more loss of the ark. The sons of Eli will beg bread from the new priests, the sons of Zadok, for ever.

Shortly thereafter, in chapter 2, Solomon succeeds in fulfilling David's death-bed mandate to make a clean sweep of all those who had backed Abijah, killing Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei. As if to emphasize the end of the replacement theme, these lines are not just displaced, but killed off -- no descendants to come back and possibly replace the new order.

So in chapter 3, we have a new world, new themes, new phrases: the author introduces in this chapter all the themes that will dominate the history until the end of 2 Kings. We have the house of God and the high places (the first place in the whole history that this is introduced as a problem) and the house of the king and the Pharoah's daughter, introducing the whole theme of alliance with the powers. And in 3:16-28 we have the famous story about how the real mother of a baby is known: she would give him up rather than see him chopped in two. A story of Solomon's wisdom? Yes, but more importantly a prefiguring that Hannah's prayer has not finished its work.

Hannah was a mother who gave her child up; now we have another true mother, a prostitute, who does the same. But we have seen that Hannah as mother is Israel and her son the king. And we will see later kings like Jeroboam and Rehoboam splitting Israel and Judah rather than giving way. So what is the conclusion? That Israel and Judah fall well below the standard of the prostitutes in the story; they would each rather see the kingship and the nation divided rather than give up dominance. So the story of the judgment of Solomon is as much to say, Israel and Judah are not true mothers but lying whores (named Oholah and Oholibah, no doubt).

But there is the dream, right?, in which Solomon asks only for wisdom? and all the fantastic things happening under Solomon as a result? Donald Redford calls these stories, in contrast to the gritty realistic details of David's kingship childish fantasies. Actually, he's not far off. Where I would disagree is his assumption, common enough among exegetes both pro- and anti-, that the historian himself was unaware of the difference. Solomon's reign is indeed a fantasy, a dream, a fantastic dream. And the historian knew it to be such.

What is striking is how account of Solomon's reign explicitly tops the Torah and reverses its rules. In Exodus 38, the Torah carefully lists the gold, silver, and bronze used. But in 1 Kings 7:47, the amount of bronze used by Solomon is explicitly said to be too great to be numbered. And in Numbers 7, the dedicatory sacrifices of the 12 tribes are listed, but under Solomon, the number here, too, is countless (1 Kings 8:5; later a fantastic -- pun intended -- number is given, v. 63). Top that, Moses -- if you can!

Solomon is certainly trying very hard to please God -- This is rather unlike his father David, who is never said to be going out and seeking God, but instead is just "a man after His own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14). It is characteristic of David, that he is approved of as one who passively endures God's choice (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7), not that he is "passionate for God" or any other such thing. In fact what David's heart seems to desire is the pleasures of kingship -- and God has no problem with that as long as he stays within the law (2 Sam. 3:21, cf. 12:8). But Solomon is always striving for God, seeking him

And of course Solomon explicitly reverses the rules about multiplying horses and wives: compare Deut. 17:16 to 1 Kings 10:28 and 17:17 with 1 Kings 11:13. Well, since Sunday school we all know, Solomon started off great, but then married strange women, and so in the end of his life went a little crooked. Early Solomon good, late Solomon bad. Isn't it curious how this resembles the excuses ordinary people offer after the guy they enthusiastically supported turned out to be a disaster. He started off good and we only found out how bad he was after he fell.

But what if this was just a dream? A fantasy? from the very beginning? It is strange, for example, that Solomon only turns bad when he was old (11:4), but that the Lord stirred up an enemy against him for "all the days of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:25; cf. 4:25). And did Solomon put the people of Israel to forced labor or not? 1 Kings 9:20-21 paints a reassuring picture: Solomon only put the Canaanites to forced labor; the Israelites are the captains and armed men. Indeed v.22 is a nice negation of the bad predictions Samuel had made about the kingship in 1 Sam. 8:11. See? this passage says, kingship's not so bad. But 1 Kings 5: 13-14 says "king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram was over the levy." That sounds not so fun for Israel. Especially when we see the Israelites stoned Adoniram to death as soon as they thought they could get away with it.

And if indeed Israelites were never put to levy, where did this come from? "And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam [Solomon's son], saying, 'Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.'" (1 Kings 12: 3-4). Huh? I thought the Israelites were eating, drinking, and being merry "all the days of Solomon"? (4:25). There's something screwy here, and it's not the result of our historian suddenly going senile.

When the congregation of Israel addresses this demand to Solomon's successor, the old men counsel him: "If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever." But the young men say, "Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, 'Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.' " Rehoboam followed the young men's advice and the rest was history: Adoniram, the chief of forced labor, was stoned and the chopping in half of the baby -- something only threatened by Solomon, but done by Israel -- became a reality in the kingdom.

As anyone reading the Bible in a Presbyterian church knows, this is the point: old men are always wise, and calm, and right. Young men are impetuous and wrong. But what is less noticed is what the old men are actually saying. Stripped of the gloss, their advice is: "Lie to them this day like your father did, promise them the moon, and you will fool them into serving you for the rest of your life." The young men's advice was a problem, only because it was too honest: "Tell them the truth: Solomon was worse than David, and I'll be worse than Solomon."

Truthfulness is the issue here: the truthfulness of history. In Solomon's reign, Jeremiah for the first time appeals to the famous unimpeachable sources that ritually conclude the account of each reign: "And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?" and the book of the kings of Israel? and the book of the kings of Judah? Usually this is read as a naive appeal to royal documents. "See? I'm not making this up!" But it is curious that the content of the book thus summarized, even when the king is painted by Jeremiah in the most savagely negative terms, is always positive: "all his wisdom . . . and his might . . . and his wars . . . and his buildings" and so on. Again, I emphasize: this disjunction is not the result of a senile, aphasic author who can't remember what he wrote.

What's the problem? That people lie. And especially lie about what the word of God is. Like in 1 Kings 13, a man of God comes to denounce Jeroboam for making golden calves (Solomon took them back to Egypt for horses, Jeroboam for idols). He was told to go straight home without eating or drinking. But an old prophet (one of those old men again), came to the man of God* and cleverly said that God had changed his mind. The young man was fooled by the old man's worldly cleverness: "'I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.' But he lied unto him." He LIED -- and the man of God died.

This is the whole point of the reference to the annals of Solomon: they LIE. "You want to know why I wrote all about this stuff about carefree happiness under Solomon, when the people were groaning under the forced levy (and it's the same word used of Pharoah's levy)? Because I read it in the king's own propaganda, THAT's why." These annals tell a lie, a fantasy, a dream about the carefree life under Solomon. Just as they tell lies about the wonderful kings and their might and their wars and their monuments, all the way to Zedekiah and exile. A lie that a king could break every law of the king in the Torah and God would approve. And they write that lie into their histories. Jeremiah was well aware of the lying pen of the scribes: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jer. 8:8).

And why do these annals suddenly get mentioned under Solomon and not under David? Especially when the annals of Solomon are all fantastic boasting compared to the true story under David? Crucial to interpreting this question is the fact that the very author of the Deuteronomistic History, either Jeremiah or his scribe Baruch, was a priest of Anathoth, the home town of the descendants of Abiathar, last of the Elid priests (cf. 1 Kings 2:26 and Jer. 1:1) . Under David, the family of Eli was there to tell the truth, and the result is the extraordinary narrative of 1 Samuel 1-1 Kings 2. With their exile in Anathoth, the way is free for the lying pen of the scribes, and the result is pure fantasy. When Jeremiah refers to the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, his aim isn't to back up his own history; his aim is to contrast his Torah-true history with the propaganda of the kings and the Zadokite priests. And that's why the theme of replacement is suddenly replaced: because no one as honest and humble as Jeremiah's ancestor Eli is there to hear the Lord's Word prophesying it.

And yet --, and yet --, there it is in 1 Kings: Solomon's extraordinary prayer of 1 Kings 9. And the presence of the Lord in the temple, just as it was in tabernacle (cf. 1 Kings 8:10-11 to Ex. 40:34). And Solomon's recognition of the possibility of exile, and the need for a mediating place between man and God. Solomon's striving and searching creates this thing. Just when you think Jeremiah is a straight forward partisan paleo-conservative, railing against Lincoln and Roosevelt in the name of preserving the old constitution that kept a sharp distinction between armed Israelites and Canaanites doing forced labor, he makes it impossible for you to read him that way. He who gives us Samuel's speech against kingship also sums up the age of Judges by saying, "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." I can't sum up Jeremiah's "point," his "application," his "take home message" -- apart from saying that all these things happened to Israel, and things often aren't what they seem, and the histories often lie.

*In the Deuteronomistic History, a "man of God" is always good, but a "prophet" is frequently very bad.

2008-03-05T10:55:00.001-08:00

I think I want to buy this (HT: Boar's Head Tavern).

2008-03-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

A while ago, Michael Spencer posted his impressions of attending (as a Southern Baptist, it was his first time) a mainline pastoral conference, where one-third of the pastors were women. Overall his impression was favorable. He offered a surprisingly "complementarian" argument that male-only environments generate one-ups-manship and competitiveness that the presence of women blocks:

Can I get away with saying that turning the “ministry” into a boys’ club–no matter what you believe about ordination–produces an atmosphere that I don’t really like? I don’t think I’m alone in that, and I assure you I’m not a mama’s boy. I’m just suspecting a lot of the grunting and chest hair in recent discussions of the “ministry” isn’t really necessary. God calls and gifts women. Even if you don’t ordain them, you believe that.

I also noticed that there was far more mature reflection on the experience and identity of the pastor in this group than in the other gatherings of ministers I’ve been a part of. Instead of being a driven kind of atmosphere, there was generosity, encouragement and thoughtful insight. I was really surprised that out of the whole group, over three days of discussion, I never spotted an ass……..well….a jerk. Or whatever term works. Not even one. In a room full of ministers listening to one another for three days, that seemed almost eerie to me. I’m used to gatherings of ministers being overt competitions of alpha males bragging, jousting for attention, bullying one another, playing games. My experience this week was absent all of that, and it had something to do with the fact that the role and person of the minister was taken more seriously than in my other experiences.

There was also an obvious gentleness in the leadership. No one seemed to have the need to vent their spleen and call it “leadership” or preaching. In the times of preaching, egos were set aside. Lots of scripture read, simple liturgies followed by 25-minute homilies. Where was the 1 hour 15 minute exposition telling us all what to do? Where was the parading of “names” to imitate? Not there…and I liked it.

Well, since Michael Spencer has given a "complementarian" perspective, let me too play against type and give an egalitarian perspective. Basically I don't think that the non-competitive, non-egoistic, gentle spirit he saw has anything to do with one-third of the ministers there being women. Rather I would say it has more to do with the different placement of mainline and sectarian pastors vis a vis their flocks.

Let me start off with a question: how many high-powered law firms ban women? None of course. And then: how many high-powered law firms are characterized by "overt competitions of alpha males bragging, jousting for attention, bullying one another, playing games"? All of them, of course. It's the same for business and politics, even poor old academia: women today are full players (at least at the "one-third" level Michael Spencer observed), and yet the "alpha male" behavior goes on.

So what accounts for the similarity between the "alpha male" ethos of a conference of Southern Baptist pastors and that of a high-powered law firm?

I would say, both are outlets for the ambitious of their community. This is, frankly, the weirdest part of being an adult convert to the evangelical community: realizing that all over the land, many driven, competitive, ambitious kids grow thinking the way to respect and power is to become . . . . a Baptist (or other evangelical) pastor. (But understanding this is useful for understanding, for example, the position of lamas in traditional Tibet, or mullas in the Islamic world.)

For those in the mainline world, the idea that religion would be an outlet for ambition, competition, and drive is just bizarre. In the mainline world, those who are driven, ambitious, and competitive go into law, business, or politics. In that world, religion as a career is, almost by definition, the province of the shy, the self-doubters, the bookish, and nerdy. And that is true whether the career cleric is male or female.

In the evangelical church, the pastor is preaching down at his sheep, for whom he is the leader of their social universe. The pastor's role is as a leader, a commander. And the ambitious boys in that world want to be the pastor, because that is leadership. This is the homeland of the link which Veblen noted between competitive sports and religion: in their own communities both are the outlets for ambition.

In the mainline church, the minister is preaching across, or even up, at parishioners for whom he or she is at best only one voice among many. The minister is an adviser, or a therapist, or counselor, offering words of counsel to the leaders and led of society. And the office attracts those who don't want to be leaders, but instead stand apart from leadership. The jocks go on to earn big money and make big decisions; the shy and bookish go into the ministry to warn them every Sunday of the dangers of ambition.

(OK, this is a broad generalization and there are many exception, and so on and so forth.)

Personally, I much prefer the style Michael Spencer found at the mainline convention. (But then again, I'm in academia, the other refuge for those who can't or won't do "alpha male" chest pounding). It might even be more genuinely Christian. The problem is, this ethos depends crucially on being a church whose pastor's word is not taken as a message from God by its flock. And that's a problem for me too.

Joab

2008-02-19T11:14:00.001-08:00

To continue on with my reflections on the Deuteronomistic history, I finished 2 Samuel, with the coda of 1 Kings 1, on Monday. After reading it, I read Matthew Henry's commentary as a representative of typical Christian interpretation. All of which confirmed my existing impression that 1) Joab gets an incredibly bad rap in typical Christian commentary; 2) that David is a highly ambivalent figure (and no, I don't mean just with the standard Uriah-Bathsheba story, the only aspect of David's history ever paid attention to by Christians today); and 3) the whole thing is a lot more like Three Kingdoms (which I finished for the third time on Saturday) than the Gospels.

(Interestingly, Jewish midrash on Joab is much more favorable than Christian commentary. Compared to them, the "critical" position discussed at the end simply assumes a flat-footedly unironic reading of the history).

Quick version: Joab is Zhuge Liang, David is Liu Bei, and the killing of Abner is like the occupation of Sichuan and the seizing of Liu Zhang's land.

In Three Kingdoms, the turning point comes when the brilliant, single-minded advisor Zhuge Liang insists that his leader Liu Bei follow the entreaties of the local officials and by betraying his host and kinsman, Liu Zhang, seize Sichuan as a base. Liu Bei's acquiescence marks the end of Liu Bei's political innocence and his realization that full integrity is in reality incompatible with founding a new regime. David's acquiescence in Joab's murder of Abner has the same significance. And in both cases, the ruler's tears of regret, however sincere, are secondary to his acceptance of the fruits of the betrayal.

The idea that Abner's survival would have been compatible with David ruling in actuality is simply absurd; having disposed of Ishbosheth, Abner would have soon disposed of David the same way. And of course the fact that Abner humiliating Ishbosheth by taking one of Saul's concubines is the very same thing that Solomon executed his half-brother Adonijah for merely proposing only confirms it. Joab's betrayal by David (who slyly waited to have his son Solomon do deed) is only the mirror image of the betrayals Joab had to commit to build David's kingdom.

What is the archetypal image of David's rise and rule, almost from the beginning? It is him mourning over the immensely convenient death of every rival, and so winning over the rival's people. The pattern starts with Nabal and Abigail, continues with David mourning the death of Saul and Jonathan that brought him to power in Judah, continues with him mourning the death of Abner, and Absalom, and Amasa. While it was the Philistines who do the job on Saul and Jonathan, and Joab who was the man stuck with the job of whacking Abner, Uriah, Absalom, and Amasa, God Himself was the hatchet man in the first archetypal case, that of Nabal. Regardless of the mechanics, Joab is a man who has identified himself with God's purpose as He founds the Davidic dynasty: that while David will keep his hands clean, all those who stand between him and the throne are doomed. (Not to speak of that opponent's wife and people being made over to David.)

Another facet is Joab's position (along with the priest Abiathar) as the leader of the old Israelites, as opposed to the purely royal and heavily non-Israelite establishment coalesced around the David's royal establishment, with his Cherethite and Pelethite guards, the mysterious Jerusalem priest Zadok, and Bathsheba, the former wife of the Hittite Uriah and her son Solomon. It is thus no accident that it is Joab alone, not Nathan or any other prophet, who speaks against David's plan to conduct a census and hence to tax Israelite and non-Israelite together without any reference to the old tabernacle tax. (The coronation of Solomon was the nightmare come true for the palaeo-conservatives of ancient Israel -- an alliance of immigrants, alien mercenaries, new-fangled big-city religion, and royal taxation agents.)

So who was right? Joab or Benaiah, Adonijah or Solomon? Abiathar or Zadok? Well, I prefer what the reactionary Ariq-Böke said when his defiance of his progressive brother Qubilai Qa'an reached its bankruptcy:

When he arrived at the Court of the Qa'an orders were given for a large body of troops to be stationed there, and the Qa'an ordered him [i.e. Ariq Böke] to make his submission. Now it is their custom in such cases to cast the door of the tent over the shoulders of the evil-doer. He made submission covered in this manner and after a while was given permission and entered. He took his stand among the bitikchis [scribes]. The Qa'an looked at him for a time and was moved with brotherly feeling and sorrow. Ariq Böke wept and tears came to [his brother] the Qa'an's eyes also. He wiped them and asked: "Dear brother, in this strife and contention were we in the right or you?" Ariq-Böke answered: "We were then and you are today" (Successors of Genghis Khan, p. 261).

The dynasty must be founded, and Joab has do wield the hatchet necessary to found it, so that the founder David may have clean hands. And the dynasty once founded must evolve beyond the narrow rural provincialism, and the hoar head of Joab and his militiamen must go down in blood before the Jerusalem temple-state. He was right then and Solomon is right now. And Jeremiah, descendant of the rejected priest Abiathar, who wrote the book, weeps for him and for Judah.

But it will not surprise anyone familiar with the political style preferred by those Protestant pastors who like to talk politics that their commentaries are always written in a pile-on delight in partisanship, and never in tears.

I doubt any one will read this, but it helped clarify my thoughts. The fact that Joab's story, utterly absorbing in the Bible, is unknown, is a testimony that the Deuteronomistic History, Jeremiah's story of the rise and fall of a kingdom, is today read as anything but that of the rise and fall of a kingdom.

Facts (Not Cherry Picked) on Abortion and Social Democracy

2008-02-02T09:26:00.001-08:00

Recently John H at the Boar's Head Tavern recommended as "superb" a post on "One Salient Oversight" about abortion. One Salient Oversight's take home message is, abortion rates are lowered by legalizing abortion and then implementing vigorous programs of sex education and unintended pregnancy prevention. Reducing abortion to zero by this process is eminently possible, he claims.

Reducing abortion to zero through education and changes in public attitudes will take time - but it will happen. Every year we can expect abortion rates to drop.

The only thing standing in the way, he argues, is the "hardline stance" of pro-life groups. As a rule with this blogger it is yoked with a criticism of American conservatives, implying that, as the prime pro-life force in the world, American conservatives are responsible for all the abortions in America, and maybe the world as a whole.

Not exactly.

Let's start with the study he references. This is a world wide study of abortion rates here. One Salient Oversight says proudly "I am a fan of measurable outcomes" and so am I. We should be able to examine his handling of evidence and see estimate the quality of his analysis.

He claims:

There are some rather important lessons to learn from this 1999 study. First of all, abortion rates in western countries are much lower than in developing countries.

Actually neither is not the case. The abortion ratio (abortions per 100 pregnancies) in developed countries is 43 per 100 pregnancies, while that in developing countries is 23 per 100 pregnancies. Dramatic difference, eh? Yes, but in the wrong direction.

In fact the reality is neither "Western" nor "developing" is the important category here. As the study itself shows, take Eastern Europe out of "developed" and the developed world aborts 26 per 100 pregnancies, while minus China the developing world aborts 20 out of 100 pregnancies, a much smaller difference, but still going the wrong way. You would have thought that after writing "Countries that have large abortion rates include Bulgaria (51.3), Belarus (67.5), China (26.1), Romania (78.0) and Vietnam (83.3)," One Salient Oversight might have noticed that all of those countries have legal abortion, and as far as I know, none has an noticeably active pro-life movement. (Check the handy-dandy Wikipedia map of abortion laws here.)

It is true that Western Europe as a whole has low abortion ratios, averaging 17 per 100 pregnancies. But what One Salient Oversight doesn't tell you is that Northern Europe (Scandinavia, etc.), hardly a land of conservative yahoos and hard-line pro-lifers, has a rather higher ratio: 23 per 100 pregnancies, not much different from the United States's 25.9. Britishers may congratulate themselves that their abortion debate is less polarized than in the United States, due to the absence of those loathsome pro-lifers, but their abortion ratio isn't much better: a 1996 figure of 20.5 in England and Wales compared to 25.9 in the US (hardly "much lower" pace John H here.) In Southern Europe, the abortion ratio is rather higher than in the United States: 34 per 100 pregnancies.

But many developing regions have abortion ratios just as low, if not lower: 12 to 16 per 100 pregnancies in the regions of Africa, 18 per 100 in South Asia, and 20 per 100 in the Middle East. Eastern Europe, by contrast, has sky-high abortion high rate (65 abortions per 100 pregnancies!)

OK, having thoroughly traduced the evidence to manufacture one conclusion, One Salient Oversight gives us his second one:

Second of all, countries which legalise abortion have lower abortion rates than countries where it is illegal.

Actually the authors of the study, friends of legalizing abortion, yes, but scholars aware of the low rates in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East and the high rates in Eastern Europe make no such claim. Instead they write:

abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted . . . Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.

Saying legal prohibitions do not guarantee a low abortion rate is an important conclusion, but it is very different from saying legalizing abortion guarantees a low abortion rate.

Again take a look at the map I linked to above of abortion law regimes. Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia have strict laws and low abortion ratios. Latin America has strict laws and rather higher ratios (30 per 100 in South America, but only 21 per 100 in Central America; the Caribbean's ratio of 35 per 100 is distorted by Cuba, which like most Communist or former Communist countries is abortion heaven: 57 per 100.). Western Europe has a loose regime and a low rates, North America and northern Europe a loose regime and medium rates, East Asia has a loose abortion regime and a high rate (34 out of 100).

This claim that legalizing it means less of it leads to his bizarre deterministic model that if we just implement sex education we will automatically get a low abortion ratio. The key is this: women in these countries [of Western Europe] are better educated in sexual health and prevent conception - and the education has come from publicly funded sources.

The result? Again that jaw-dropping claim: Reducing abortion to zero through education and changes in public attitudes will take time - but it will happen. Every year we can expect abortion rates to drop.

OK, let's find a place where such a program of state-financed education in sexual health (actually what he means is divorcing sex from procreation and family formation) is being tried with the almost unanimous approval of society and little opposition from benighted pro-lifers. How about Sweden? They've been at if for decades now. Let's get a look at those year by year decreasing ratios, and try to catch them before they hit zero (here for the data).

Abortion ratios per 100 pregnancies (rounded to the nearest number):

1985: 24
1986-1989: 25
1990-91: 23
1992: 22
1993-94: 23
1995: 24
1996: 25
1997-2003: 26
2004: 25
2005: 26
2006: 25

So where are the regular year by year dropping abortion rates predicted by One Salient Oversight?

But in the US abortion ratio per 100 pregnancies in 2000 was 24.5, 5% lower than in 1996 a trend in decline of abortions that is continuing (here, nice graphic here) despite the continued existence of conservatives and pro-lifers in this country.

So looking at the source he supposedly used, One Salient Oversight's "superb" post is easily seen to be in fact a fantasy composed of cherry-picked facts taped together with wishful thinking and anti-conservative bile.

Christians who assent to have as a national doctrine taught in the schools to their children that sex has nothing to do with family formation may get a lower abortion rate -- but then again they might not. They might end up like the Swedes with rates higher than in the United States.

But they will probably get one thing along with it: an unsustainably low rate of procreation. (It is worth noting that the great stars in low abortion ratios per 100 pregnancies -- Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland -- have off-the-charts low birthrates as well.)

And finally of course they will certainly, by definition, get another thing: a national consensus that on sex, the second most important practical question of how to live your life (the first being money), the Christian church is and always has been wrong. Unless that is, one wishes to fashion a Christianity which agrees that sex has nothing to do with family formation.

One Salient Oversight's use of statistic recalls how a drunk uses a lamppost, for support, not illumination. But if we want to really use it for illumination, what do the world patterns of abortion suggest?

The most important is that abortion/infanticide is a regular part of human behavior. In this it resembles telling lies, drinking alcohol, and theft, to cite three things with very different legal and religious statuses in world laws and religions.

Whether it's because we are fallen and living in a world of scarcity, or because we inherited it from the great apes (more here), statistically it's a predictable and regular part of human behavior. No large society will ever stamp it out completely; it will never just fade away without real efforts being made to get rid of it. Some, actually most, societies do not wish to make that effort and will live with high abortion rates. (One very clear rule is: no matter where you try it, and whether you stick with it or not, experiments in Communism saddles countries with sky-high rates of abortion.)

To date two different models have been used to eliminate abortion: the "traditional" one of linking sex firmly to procreation, by banning abortion in law, stigmatizing it in social practice, and being thoroughly pro-natal and pro-family: the southern and northern African abortion ratios of 12 per 100 are probably around the lowest you can go by that route.

The other model is the social democratic one of deliberately and firmly decoupling sex and procreation, legalizing abortion, stigmatizing its enemies, and being neutral at best on procreation and family formation. The Western European abortion ratios of around 17 per 100 are probably about as lowest as you can go by that route.

There is no predictable difference between the success of either policy pursued in a real society, in the real messiness of life. Neither route will eliminate abortion. Either route, can probably deeply reduce it. But either route to be successful, must be pursued single-mindedly and with real social conviction. That seems to be a condition, but is certainly not a guarantee, of a low abortion rate.

An additional question for Christians is, is there any future for them and their moral teachings in a society that has firmly and single-mindedly decided to decouple sex from family?

How Does One Come to Believe in Moses?

2008-01-20T13:28:00.000-08:00

In the essay below, I explained what I see as a three-step process by which those outside the Church come to believe in the inerrant/infallible authority of the Scriptures. In it, I focused on the Gospels, which from the point of view of inerrancy are truly the oddest part of the Bible, in which we have four documents, each testifying to Christ yet showing numerous unreconciled small discrepancies that Christians have labored over for centuries to smooth away. Some such efforts may be fruitful (such as the different Roman and Jewish hour systems used in John and the Synoptics), while others have been fruitless. But the Christian church has not held any specific solution of these puzzles to be authoritative, nor has the ability to produce reliable solutions to these discrepancies on demand been seen as a condition for adhering to inerrancy and Biblical authority.

Does this have any relevance to the Old Testament? In point of practice, for Christians, rather little. For us, as non-Jews, the Old Testament remains to some degree a letter written to someone else, one which we can only approaching by identifying with one particular Jew, Jesus. To put it differently, we believe in the Old Testament, seek wisdom from it, and model our lives on it, because He obviously did and as Christians we wish to do as He did.

But certainly the Old Testament can be teated, and by past generations of Christians (let alone the Jews, of course), has been treated as testament with its own authority. If this is the case, we may ask how exactly this authority could come to be established in the eyes of someone who has not imbibed it with his mother‘s milk? I would argue in exactly the same three stages as outsiders to the Church go through in accepting the authority of the Gospels.

First, they see that the Law of Moses and the history of the Judges and kings of Israel and Judah are plausible historical records, able to be read with the same general presumption of veracity as Snorri Sturluson on the Norwegian kings or Sima Qian on the Chinese dynasties.

Second one realizes that these plausible records testify to an extraordinary people, a people that has despite innumerable hardships, has survived and still exists today. Such a people, who have maintained their Law, when Egyptians and Assyrians, and Mayans, and Chinese have all forgotten theirs is something special, a miracle and a proof of God.

It is pregnant with meaning that the first and the second non-Biblical references to the name "Israel" occur in boasts that the nation has been destroyed. The first is found in the Hymn of Victory for the Pharoah Merneptah, dated to the fifth year of his reign:

. . .

The princes are prostrate, saying “Mercy!”

No one raises his head among the Nine Bows

Desolation is for Tehenu; Khatti [the Hittite empire] is pacified;

Plundered is Canaan with every evil;

Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer [the Philistine cities];

Yanoam [a city in northern Palestine] is made as that which does not exist;

Israel is laid waste, his seed is not

Hurru [the Horites] is become a widow for Egypt!

All lands together, they are pacified;

Everyone who was restless, he has been bound by the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Ba-en-Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re; Mer-ne-ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life like Re every day.

(Ancient Near East, p. 231).

But today, this Pharoah is known first and foremost for having once mentioned Israel.

And the second is the famous inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, dated to around 830 B.C.:

I am Mesha, son of Chemosh-[. . .], king of Moab, the Dibonite -- my father had reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father -- who made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh [. . .] because he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my adversaries. As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke thus, but I have triumphed over him and over his house while Israel hath perished for ever! (Ancient Near East, p. 211).

He goes in that vein about how he has destroyed Israel, slaughtered Gad, annihilated Nebo, so that Chemosh triumphed over YHWH. But he who laughs last, laughs best, and as with Pharoah and Assyria, and Babylon, and . . . , we all know who getting the last laugh.

Down through the centuries, one thing has been certain: great empires will boast of having wiped Israel out for ever, laying him waste so his seed is not -- and it will be Israel who will write the history of this new Haman that the next generation will read. People feel differently about this miracle of survival, but it is a fact of history worth pondering.

Thirdly one realizes that what this plausible record says, is that it is the record itself, the Law of Moses and its commentary, which has created and ensured the continuity of this extraordinary people. If the Law and the Prophets are the means by which the miracle of Jewish survival has been effected, then the Law itself must be something divine. Something capable of defeating the ravages of time, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, and Hitler must be extraordinarily perfect to achieve its aim and such perfection is not compatible with error.

Now, the Jews themselves will stop there with a divine Torah, Prophets and Writings, making up the Hebrew Bible. Pascal followed a well-worn Christian apologetic when he then argued that for such a divinely-commissioned people to have a mission to make God known and then to have never done it is absurd. Therefore, the Jewish Law must have been made known to the world in some form, and one need only further decide on whether it was so done through Jesus or Muhammad.

But whether or not one makes that step, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible thus can be reasoned as divinely inspired, entirely apart from the Christian New Testament. But, this is only the case as long as the initial plausibility of the story of Abraham, slavery in Egypt, Moses, Joshua, Judges, and monarchy can be accepted. This is, however, exactly the point at contention in recent research on early Israel (more here, here, and here). The conclusion of recent scholarship has been overwhelmingly that, no, the Torah does not possess the minimal plausibility to be taken as a more or less correct of the origin of the Jews. It's not quite in Book of Mormon territory in that respect, but it is getting there, if the minimalist account prevails.

In this situation, if my analysis is correct, the primary arguments needed to get people to open themselves to the truth claims of the Mosaic revelation are not arguments why it is inerrant, but rather arguments why it is plausible -- a very, very different issue. Nitpicking arguments of detail and harmonization to prove the first agenda are actually counter-productive for the second agenda.

How Does One Come to Believe the Gospels?

2008-01-20T13:26:00.000-08:00

How does one come to believe in the authority of the Bible? A comments thread here offers some remarkably helpful (for a comments thread, which is an undemanding measure) thoughts that match my own experience. We say Scripture attests to Jesus and Jesus attests to Scripture, which sounds circular. But it’s not, because the attestation works differently in the different steps of the argument. Three steps may be distinguished.

First one decides that the Biblical account is plausible; that is, that it is more or less reliable, the same way that Thucydides is more or less reliable on the Pelopennesian war or Teddy White on the election of 1960*. In this stage, one puts the source into the witness box, so to speak, and is not shy of cross-examining it for contradictions. On the other hand, as is pointed out by Clare** and Cooky642*** in the comments thread, multiple witnesses of a single event can actually be more convincing if they have slight discrepancies. Given the well-documented vagaries of eye-witness testimony (more here and here), two witnesses will probably produce exactly the same account only if they have gotten together to “get their story straight” before hand. In this stage then, small discrepancies can actually add to the reliability of the points the witnesses do agree on, particularly if these discrepancies stem from some obvious difference in background, temperament, or position of the witnesses. Human qualities in the witness are appreciated, not deprecated. Insisting on inerrancy in this stage is not only unnecessary, but actually hampers belief, because an inerrant witness is too unusual to be believed in, and would need a separate witness himself, and so on in infinite regress. Moreover the marks of inerrancy are too similar to the marks of a coached and cooked up witness’s story not to be suspicious.

The second stage comes when one realizes that these ordinary, prosaic, all-too-human witnesses are describing something truly beyond ordinary human experience. Four ordinary men are testifying to a man who was/is God. The stories of the four witnesses vary according to their to their backgrounds, temperaments, and points of view, but what they agree on is that He did miracles while alive, that the tomb was empty, and that He rose from the dead. A finite witness is encompassing an infinite reality. And this infinite reality asks for belief from you.

The third stage comes when one realizes that the witnesses themselves are playing a part in this divine reality’s plan to come to you. At this point one wants to know as much as possible about the Man to whom they are testifying. The clearer their testimony the clearer one comes to know Him to Whom they testify. And one of the things that the witnesses consistently testify to (in their different ways) is that they have been chosen by Him to bear witness to Him, and that their testimony will be trustworthy. Suddenly, we have a plausible witness making a plausible statement that they heard the divine Man designate these witnesses as men of unquestionable authority. And if that’s the case, then they are more than just human witnesses, rather they are divinely commissioned Apostles. The Apostles as witnesses gave plausible testimony to Jesus as Son of God, and now the Son of God gives irrefragable testimony to the Apostles as inerrant teachers. The authority of the New Testament is thus established.

This is how it happened for me. From my first acquaintance in my teenage years, the four Gospels seemed to be a fairly plausible account of what happened in the life of Jesus, far more plausible than the Dan Brown-style accounts vying with it, all of which reeked of ex post facto hagiography, special pleading, and cooked-up testimony. But I never believed them as the Word of God, until I came to grips at age thirty with the Man that they bear witness to. From then on, the Gospels were not just plausible, but the guide to life, the inerrant witness to the Man we all must know as well as ever we can.

The problem though is, what to do with those small discrepancies that had previously been helpful in establishing the untampered-with authenticity of the four witnesses? If the witnesses are indeed divinely commissioned, they shouldn’t make any errors, right? And couldn’t one bring people to believe in Jesus more rapidly if you could start from the beginning by asserting divine authority for these four witnesses?

That is of course the way many in the church have taken. It is the origin of the idea of harmonizing the four Gospels. In the churches of the Roman Empire, the four Gospels were always read separately, but in the Church of the East in the Persian Empire, from AD 170 to later than 350, the standard Bible was the Syriac translation made by Tatian called the Diatessaron, and arranged not as four Gospels, but as a read straight-through harmony. Even in the Greco-Roman churches, centuries of harmonization have made it very difficult for us to read, for example, Luke’s account of the angels announcing the nativity to the shepherds apart from Matthew’s account of the visit of the Magi.

At the same time the Church has resisted canonizing any one harmonizing scheme. The Church of the East eventually gave up the Diatessaron in favor of the four separate Gospels. So the cleansing of the Temple in the beginning of Jesus’s public preaching career according to John and the cleansing at the end of it in the Synoptics have been just left side by side, for Christians who confess the inerrancy of Scripture to solve as they will. Luther preached on John 2:13-16 thus (in part):

In John’s Gospel the cleansing of the Temple appears to come directly after the baptism of Christ, whereas in Matthew’s Gospel it comes after the entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. It is not important to settle this question. It may be that John has jumped over the entire interval from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry to the last Passover because less interested in the deeds than in the words of Christ. Be that as it may. If you cannot contrive a reconciliation of John and Matthew, let it go, You won’t be damned on that account. (See Roland H. Bainton, Luther’s Meditations on the Gospels, p. 93).

It seems to me there is wisdom in thus keeping the Word both open to those outside and to those inside. To those outside, the Gospels must remain plausible historical documents. The outsider cannot believe (yet) in inerrant witnesses, because he has never met any. But he can believe in reliable witnesses because he has come across such in his living experience. Let the Gospels be that for him then. Do not try to harmonize them, do not try to “get our story straight” and then stubbornly tell the world, “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.“ But do insist that the Gospels are a reliable guide to the life of Jesus of Nazareth and that Acts tells the story of the Church at least as well as Herodotus tells the story of Thermopylae.

But to those inside, the Church must confess the Word as the norm, as the guide of spiritual life, and also as the accurate exposition of the knowledge of the life of Jesus and how the Spirit founded the Church. And if it is wrong, then it would be a blind guide. So to us inside, we have to confess the Scriptures are the infallible words of divinely commissioned Apostles teaching us of Jesus. If you prove to me the Gospels say this or that, then I have to believe this or that or be a disobedient son. And when will we prove to the outsiders that the Bible is indeed inerrant and that the solution to the problem of the different dates of the cleansing of the Temple -- the solution Luther didn’t have and I don’t think anyone else has either -- was obvious all along? When the world is the Church and the Church is the world.

(To be continued)

*Randy Gritter in the comments thread referred to above puts it this way (with a Catholic spin):
Catholics make 2 passes at scripture when they try and provide the rational basis for their faith. The first pass just requires scripture to be generally historically accurate. Then you can conclude that Jesus lived. That he taught certain things. He did miracles. He died. He rose again. He established His church.

Then once you have all those historical events established you can look at the church as the body of Christ and conclude that it must be right when it defined the cannon of scripture. So Mark is right. At this point in the argument you don't need to show scripture is inerrant. You just need to show it provides solid reasons for believing the events described.

**Speaking as a lawyer, a story can actually be more believable when the witnesses don't totally agree on every single tiny detail. If you get a bunch of eyewitnesses to an event that corroborate each other 100%, it's suspicious, since it looks like they've all been coached. When you get a group of honest human beings together, and ask them to recall something that happened, their answers are naturally bound to vary a little bit. But it's only when they vary on the most basic points--"yes, it happened," vs. "no, it didn't"--that the event is called into question.

***Has anyone ever had the experience of witnessing a disaster or even just a traffic accident? If so, you'll know that the police who respond question everybody who witnessed the event. Why? I asked, once. The answer was that everybody who saw what happened saw it from a different angle, and with differing levels of attention. The job of the policeman is to take down all the stories and then evaluate them to see where they agree. Then that's what probably actually happened. Among the divergent memories may be clues to solve the mystery of why it happened.

The Only New Testament Reference to Genesis 3:15

2008-01-15T15:41:00.000-08:00

There's a debate going on at the Boar's Head Tavern about who is it who is being referred to in Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Who will bruise the serpent's head? Jesus or Mary? (You can find posts debating this question here, here, here, etc.)

The funny thing is (along the lines of this post), is that according to the New Testament, it is neither Jesus nor Mary who bruises the serpent's head, but the congregation of the saints (through whom God the Father works). As Paul wrote to the Roman congregation:

For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Has this passage ever received theologization?

Some interesting reads, and a comment about crime and ideology

2008-01-12T10:06:00.000-08:00

Here are some interesting reads:

An article about his Hindu family and Hindus in India react to the rise of Bobby Jindal, the Catholic convert from Hinduism who is now the Republican Governor of Louisiana. (HT: the Corner.) The accent is on Hindu tolerance, but there's traces of an almost submerged story as well. His parents did not attend his baptism, but they did attend the baptism of his wife (another convert from Hinduism). That to me sounds like Bobby Jindal's parents took longer to accept their son's conversion than the article implies.

And another theme that pops up in quotations Hindus only to disappear is the idea that conversion to Christianity is OK for Bobby because Christianity is the American national religion, and so a Christian church is where one would expect to "find God" in a Christian nation:

"She doesn't mind if Bobby adopts the culture of that country, because he is living there," a translator quoted [Jindal's aunt, still living in Punjab] Bansal as saying. "He should and he must adopt the culture of that country. She is delighted that he is more loyal to that country, that land where he lives."

Interesting that she simply assumes the link of Christianity and American culture, which so many American Christians regard as an obvious and elementary category error.

And finally of course, there's the simple fact of fame -- it's so much easier to forgive the faults of your relatives and co-ethnics, when they're famous.

Anyway, although I am "supposed" to criticize this tolerance from the point of view of there being only one truth, law of non-contradiction, etc., I was happy to see the positive feelings these Hindus have for a Christian convert. There are much worse ways to respond to that.

Second, here's a highly amusing survey of campaign non-biographies from the '08 campaign. (HT to a Power Line reading of McCain's campaign book here and here).

Thirdly, a nice review of the Eric Clapton autobiography.

OK, what's that point about crime and ideology? It's this: that ignoring a crime wave is a classic sign of ideological politics. To normal people, that deterring and punishing murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on is an essential role of the state. If the state does this badly, it is doing a bad job. But sometimes you get people saying: well, even if a particular regime is helpless in the face of crime, it is still indefeasibly legitimate, because it is based on correct philosophical principles. In two cases I've seen in my life, crime waves (of varying magnitudes) have been dismissed as unimportant and anyone complaining about them denounced as simply partisans of an philosophically unjust system. Controlling crime was (from this point of view) simply an illegitimate measure of the state's effectiveness. In each case, the voters eventually disagreed, ignored the philosophers, and put in power new leaders who reversed some of the change that had led to supposedly uncontrollable crime.

The two examples are the judicial philosophy espoused by the American New Left in the 1960s and the transition to democracy in the break up of the Soviet Union. Both liberalized to some degree a previously more controlled system, and each one led to a crime wave that was serious in the case of the US (murders more than doubled, from 4.6 per in 100,000 in 1963 to 10.2 in 1980), and grotesque in the Soviet Union (from 9.6 in 1988 to 30.6 in 1993). (Invaluable Wikipedia graphs here.) And in each case, noticing this fact was considered to be the height of bad faith. And in the two cases, the crime wave played a major role in discrediting the party or leader thought responsible for the liberalization: Democrats in the US and Boris Yeltsin in the Soviet Union, and in both cases voters responded by making the other side very popular: Ronald Reagan and Vladimir Putin.

An Epiphany Midrash

2008-01-05T14:19:00.000-08:00

By chance it happens that this Sunday falls on the date of real Epiphany, January 6. While Epiphany was originally the date assigned to Christmas in the Greco-Syriac parts of the Christian world, it has now come to be associated with the visit of the Magi to the Christ child.

In honor of this occasion, I would like to reproduce a story from Marco Polo (in Ronald Latham's translation), a travel writer who gets far less than his deserved respect. Make of it what you will:

Now let us leave Tabriz and turn to Persia, a very great province and at one time a very splendid and powerful one, but now ravaged and devastated by the Tartars [i.e. the Mongols, who conquered Iran in the thirteenth century].

In Persia is the city called Saveh, from which the three Magi set out when they came to worship Jesus Christ. Here, too, they lie buried in three sepluchres of great size and beauty. Above each sepulchre is a square building with a domed roof of very fine workmanship. The one is just beside the other. Their bodies are still whole, and they have hair and beards. [Post-mortem incorruption is a vital sign of sanctity in all medieval religions.] One was named Beltasar, the second Gaspar, and the third Melchior. Messer Marco asked several of the inhabitants who these Magi were; but no one could tell him anything except that they were three kings who were buried there in days gone by. But at last he learnt what I will now tell you.

Three days farther on, he found a town called Kalah Atashparastan, that is to say Town of the Fire-Worshippers. [That is, town of the adherents of the Zoroastrian religion, the pre-Islamic religion of Iran. Magus is in fact the name for Zoroastrian priests.] And that is no more than the truth; for the men of this town do worship fire. And I will tell you why they worship it. The inhabitants declare that in days gone by three kings of this country went to worship a new-born prophet and took with them three offerings -- gold, frankincense, and myrrh -- so as to discover whether this prophet was a god, or an earthly king or a healer. For they said: 'If he takes gold, he is an earthly king; if frankincense, a god; if myrrh, a healer.' When they had come to the place where the prophet was born, the youngest of the three kings went in all alone to see the child. He found that he was like himself, for he seemed to be of his own age and appearance. And he came out, full of wonder. Then in went the second, who was a man of middle age. And to him also the child seemed, as it had seemed to the other, to be of his own age and appearance. And he came out quite dumbfounded. Then in went the third, who was of riper years; and to him also it happened as it had to the other two. And he came out deep in thought. When the three kings were all together, each told the other what he had seen. And they were much amazed and resolved that they would all go in together. So in they went, all three together, and came before the child and saw him in his real likeness and of his real age; for he was only thirteen days old. Then they worshipped him and offered him the gold, the frankincense, and the myrrh. The child took all three offerings and then gave them a closed casket. And the three kings set out to return to their own country.

After they had ridden for some days, they resolved to see what the child had given them. They opened the casket and found inside it a stone. They wondered greatly what this could be. The child had given it to them to signify that they should be firm as stone in the faith that they had adopted. For, when the three kings saw that the child had taken all three offerings, they concluded that he was at once a god, and an earthly king, and a healer. And since the child knew that the three kings believed this, he gave them the stone to signify that they should be firm and constant in their belief. The three kings, not knowing why the stone had been given to them, took it and threw it into a well. No sooner had it fallen in than there descended from heaven a burning fire, which came straight to the well into which it had been thrown. When the three kings saw this miracle, they were taken aback and repented of their throwing away the stone; for they saw clearly that its significance was great and good. They immediately took some of this fire and carried it to their country and put it in one of their churches, a very fine and splendid building. They keep it perpetually burning and worship it as a god. And every sacrifice and burnt offering which they make is roasted with this fire. If it ever happens that the fire goes out, they go round to others who hold the same faith and worship fire also and are given some of the fire that burns in their church. This they bring back to rekindle their own fire. They never rekindle it except with the fire of which I have spoken. To procure this fire, they often make a journey of ten days.

That is how it comes about that the people of this country are fire-worshippers. And I assure you that they are very numerous. All this was related to Messer Marco Polo by the inhabitants of this town; and it is all perfectly true. Let me tell you finally that one of the three Magi came from Saveh, one from Hawah, and the third from Kashan.

Now that I have told you of this matter at full length, I will go on to tell you the facts about many other cities in Persia and the custom of the inhabitants . . .

I think they missed a crucial point

2007-12-15T10:32:00.000-08:00

Did the guy who wrote this post on "Preaching to Smothered Mama's Boys" noticed that actually God blessed Jacob and not Esau? Seems a major oversight. What next? A post on how Saul was really manly, unlike the wimpy David playing the lyre? Or how Lamech exercised headship in his house, unlike the passive boozer Noah?

Sometimes people just can't help letting the cat out of the bag. In the Talmudic times, the Jews used Esau as their code-word for Romans and then Christians in general: macho outdoorsmen who in their self-confidence and rude health have no need for God. If the shoe fits . . .

The Bible has a different model: a man who loves his mother will love his wife.

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

But then, maybe Isaac was a wuss too. He must have had a more macho, outdoors type as a brother, too? Maybe he would be a better model in manly faith for the Reformed, and . . . oops, never mind!

HT: Boar's Head Tavern

"Israel, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten kings?"

2007-12-15T08:52:00.001-08:00

The Advent season is always misplaced for me. The period from Thanksgiving to about a week before Christmas is always filled with the finals and decisions that come from the end of the semester. Nor do we do big decorating in my house.

But on the first Sunday of Advent, I found myself reading 1 Samuel, and realized that this time I had stumbled on powerful Advent reading. (Now why haven't I written about this before? Go read that first paragraph again, please.) As many know, Hannah's song is the model for Mary's Magnificat:

And Hannah prayed, and said,
My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.
There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength.
They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.
The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

A few years ago, I read Robert Polzin's reading of 1 Samuel, Samuel and the Deuteronomist. In one way it's a very typical inter-testamental exegesis delighting in irony (that is, any disjunction between surface meaning and deep meaning), but in another way it's very UN-inter-testamental, preferring ambiguous characters to clearly good or evil, and deeply involved in questions of narrative voice. (More on these features of inter-testamental Bible reading here.) In his reading Samuel emerges as a profoundly ambiguous figure, responsible for Saul's destruction. I don't agree with all his readings -- in part because as a Christian I read it all in the context of a different canon, that includes the Gospels -- but as the blurb for another volume of his says, having read his work, I can't read 1 Samuel the same way again.

Let's go back to Hannah. Did you notice the part at the end? About the king and the anointed? The odd part of that is of course Hannah is singing this at the time of the Judges, when Israel has no king. Higher critics explain this, of course, by saying that this psalm is a monarchic-era psalm retrojected to the time of Hannah. Or that the song is actually about Saul: Hannah says in 1:27 that she "asked for" (sha'ul) a son, and sha'ul is the Hebrew of Saul. So "really" the song is about Saul.

Polzin follows an entirely different tack -- a literary one. What is the author trying to say here? Remember the context: traditionally Joshua to 2 King (minus Ruth which was part of the Writings) were all one book. Polzin follows Noth's identification of this as one work with Deuteronomy, a single history beginning with Moses and concluding with the destruction of Judah. The book is unified by language and themes that form a history and a meditation on the Israel's experience with the Word of God and the monarchy.

So back to Hannah: this song is a foreshadowing of monarchy, of Israel's desire for a king. And why? To have triumph over her enemies, to be able to sing: Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD (Is. 54:1). Her enemy is Penninah because Penninah had children and Hannah had none, just as the nations had kings and Hannah had none.

Hannah's lord tried to comfort her, saying "Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?" but she would not be comforted. She must have sons; she will not bear to be bested by her rival. And so the theme of the work from 1 Samuel to 2 Kings is set: Israel must have a king, she will not bear to be bested by the rival nations. And all along the Lord speaks to her "Israel, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? Am not I better to thee than ten kings?" And Israel's stubborn refusal to listen to this gentle persuasion is the beginning of the Messianic promise. (Just as Israel was right when she protested: "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not" Deut. 18:16).

And so she bears Samuel. One might think (with the higher critics) that there
has been a mistake here, that Samuel is not a king. But no mistake has been made here. For we soon see the theme: the priest Eli has two evil sons, and God pronounces judgment on him to condemn his sons and overthrow the priestly dynasty of Eli. Israel had been ruled by a priest with at the ark. And in 1 Samuel 4, the promise is fulfilled. The priest's family is struck down, and the "glory has departed from Israel." After comic adventures among the Philistines, the ark ended up in a family of Judeans, Abinadab and Eleazer his son, while Israel mourned the absence of the Lord (1 Sam. 7:2-3).* Who then takes up the mantle of authority? Samuel, son of Elkanah, who is an Ephraimite, who judges Israel, holding both religious and political authority simultaneously.

In other words, literarily, 1 Samuel has cued us to respond to Samuel's exaltation as a proto-kingship, a simultaneous exercise of priestly, prophetic, and political authority. And so when Samuel makes his sons rulers after him (1 Sam 8:1-3), we can hardly be surprised -- he is already a dynastic ruler.

And we know what will happen: he too will be replaced, just as Eli was replaced. And the new replacement is introduced in just the same way Elkanah was introduced (compare this passage: Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power: And he had a son . . . to this: Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: And he had two wives . . .)

Now we have all been primed by everything we read outside the text to see the people's demand for a king as unequivocally bad, when they demand of Saul, "now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." Samuel then is unequivocally good. After all, as Americans we know that monarchy is bad, and that knowledge is essential to reading Scripture. And after all as heirs of the Greeks we know that the "regime question" (i.e. what's the best type of government, in the abstract) is the most important question we can ask. This passage MUST be about republic vs. monarchy, because that's what we want to know.

But is that what the text is cuing us to hear? After all the people once before demanded an intermediary, in Deuteronomy 18, and the Lord approved. And Hannah asked for a king, and she received one. And when Samuel as a small boy told Eli that his family was rejected, he said quietly "It is the LORD: let him do what seemeth him good."

But Samuel refuses to accept this! He is angry with the people! God tells him "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee." Well, we can read God in two different ways here, as a passive-aggressive figure who says one thing but means another, or we can see Him as a figure who, while knowing the people's hearts, has determined before hand what He would do. So how does Samuel read him? The first way!

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.

And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

God doesn't really mean what he says! He's just complaining! He not actually expecting me to do anything about it! So Samuel sends the people away. Not until he meets Saul, is he willing to anoint his successor, and even then, only secretly.

Well there is much more to say here, but suffice it to say that in listening to 1 Samuel he hear Hannah singing the carol:

O Come, O Come Emmanuel and ransom captive Israel, that mourns in lonely exile here until the Son of God appear.

But we will also hear the doubts: will the existing dynasty accept the voice of the people? Or use the sins of the people to ignore their voice? And will this new dynasty, born of a mother-to-be's triumphant receipt of a child-king, become a corrupt worldly kingship (whether it has the name like Saul's or doesn't like Samuel's)? And will we then wish there had never been kingship in Israel?

* One can see here the narrower sense of Israel excluding Judah, the biggest of the tribes, which was always somewhat separate.

Why I'm Rooting for John McCain

2007-12-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

1) He says stuff like this in Iowa, about ethanol.
2) He says stuff like this about torture and bogus "ticking bomb" scenarios.
3) He was right all along that anthropogenic global warming is happening, back when his party was denying it; and having been right all along, doesn't need to get hysterical now by overselling it as some world-ending catastrophe.
4) He was right all along about how an increase in US troop numbers in Iraq really could make a dramatic decline in violence, even when everybody else (including me) was ignoring him.
5) No one can ever call him a "chicken hawk," not him or his sons (one in the Marines, one in the Naval Academy).
6) His toughness is about a particular issues (Iraq, Osama bin Laden) in which the US is engaged in struggle right now. It is not simply generic "toughness" for toughness's sake (see no. 2 and no. 7).
7) In debates he emphasizes the humanity of immigrants, and it's not just because they are a vote bank for his party.
8) He votes against pork, and doesn't just talk about voting against pork.
9) He is pro-life, and has a long-standing pro-life record, and his one compromise (supporting embryo-destroying stem cell research) is likely going to become a moot point anyway.
10) Another big area where I seriously disagree with him -- campaign finance reform -- is one where I can at least understand why he votes the way he did, and anyway the vast majority of the American legal class is of the same opinion.
11) The question of health insurance and entitlements are big ones, with unexpected ramifications in the coming years. His record shows he doesn't pander to public illusions (see nos. 1, 2, 8), is willing to go against party orthodoxy (see no. 3, 7), and is a conservative (this year's American Conservative Union rating 65%).
12) He doesn't express some desire to destroy American institutions that have a long track record of working pretty well (like the Federal Reserve), just because they don't fit his ideological dogma. (Read the story of the 1987 crash here, and think how it might have ended without the Fed and its branches.)
13) His campaign is actually related to promoting solutions to current practical problems; it's not about pandering to interest groups, or about projecting some mythic "Reagan" mystique, or about fleeing current practical problems in a throwback to policies that were shown by experience decades (or a century) ago to be inadequate.
14) It's a way of expressing my already deep (and steadily deepening) regret for not supporting him in the primary of 2000.
15) He's not getting traction because somehow people think of him as the past, the old fuddy-duddy, the has-been, and supporting him is a way of striking back at the "15 minutes of fame" mentality in American politics.

UPDATE: Turns out, I'm with Jim.

A Curious Passage from Joshua on the Environment

2007-11-21T08:11:00.000-08:00

A Christian discussion of the environment will usual start with Genesis 1-3, make copious use of the word "steward" and move on from there. It is curious, though, that there is only one passage I know of which gives specific, hand's on advice on how to deal with an problem in a way that takes account of the environment. I've never seen it referred to in that context, so I'll talk about it here.

Here was the problem: the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim were given land in the forested hills and in the lowlands of Canaan. The uplands were hard to farm because of the trees, while the lowlands were the richest lands and had long been farmed. But, the Canaanites (with, historical research suggests, their Egyptian garrisons) occupied the lowlands and were hard for the Hebrews to dispossess. (A big irony is noted by Barry Beitzel in his Moody Bible Atlas, that distribution of Jews in Israel today and in the Judges period is almost exactly inverse. With the exception of the Gaza Strip, the Jews of modern Israel settled almost entirely the Canaanite/Philistine/Egyptian lowlands, while the Jews of pre-Davidic Israel settled almost exclusively the Palestinian lands of the West Bank, the Nazareth area of Galilee, and Jordan.)

So much of their allotment was inaccessible. What to do? Here is Joshua's advice from Joshua 17:

And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, "Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?"

And Joshua answered them, "If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee."

And the children of Joseph said, "The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel."

And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, "Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only; But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong."

So here's Joshua's answer: first clear the hill country by cutting down the forests. Then you will get stronger and can eventually subdue the Canaanites (as happened during the days of the monarchy).

This is also a nice illustration of the peculiar mix of confirmation and incongruities that reading the Bible against archeology gives. As I mentioned before, the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition (what I would correlate with the Deborah age of the Biblical record) is marked by a dramatic increase in dispersed settlements in the upland areas, establishing the Israelite distribution pattern. This reference to clearing the upland forests and then dominating the lowlands is archaeologically confirmed; that is indeed how Israel grew (The upland nature of Israel was observed by those around: see 1 Kings 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their [i.e. Israel's] gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. Cf. Judges 1:19: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.)

But as Donald Redford would undoubtedly note, the "Canaanites" here are, if this account is to be fitted into any plausible historical framework, ruled by the Egyptians of the New Kingdom. So how come Egyptians aren't mentioned? Huh? And the iron chariots seem anachronistic as well. What we seem to have is an account in which real historical realities are being phrased in language that makes sense to the writers, probably in the seventh century.

But back to the environment. Here is a case where clearing forests is seen as a proper response to lacking farmland. Presumably, if we wish to turn to the Bible for teaching on environmental issues, this passage should be front and center.

The Book of Joshua Isn't Fictional

2007-11-01T09:25:00.000-07:00

Christians who have studied the Galileo case like to point out that what the church condemned him for was not so much for denying the literal words of Scripture as for denying the natural-philosophical doctrines, stemming ultimately from Aristotle, that had become attached to these words. I don't know if that is true but if it is, it is a very nice metaphor for what happened to the historicity of Joshua. The process of proving the Bible through archeology inevitable results in a kind of amalgam of Scriptural words with archaeological / historical / sociological commentary. Within this amalgam it is generally the commentary that has proven most amenable to criticism and refutation. The Joshua event as a case of nomadic invasion dated to 1225 BC, or as a case of peasant revolt in 1225 BC -- what have proven most vulnerable in these formulations is the date (1225 BC) and the sociological model (nomadic invasion or peasant revolt) -- not the idea of a massive destruction of Canaanite/Amorite cities connected with a Canaanite Exodus (voluntary or involuntary) from Egypt.

One must also insist that models cannot be allowed to dictate what happened. Nomadic invasions may be rare in the Bronze Age, as are peasant insurrections. But can we really eliminate the possibility of either? Given the diversity and unpredictability of human affairs, what matters is not what probably, or even plausibly, happened -- because so much of our history is not probable, or even plausible -- but what did happen. Think of the Mongols building the world's largest land empire in the Middle Ages: how probable, or even plausible, is that?

I have just finished Donald Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, which is vigorously contemptuous of Biblical religion. Here's an example a propos my previous post on Exodus vs. Joshua. He'll have none of this Exodus good, Joshua bad business -- it's all bad:

One final irony lies in the curious use to which the Exodus is put in modern religion, as a symbolic tale of freedom from tyranny. An honest reading of the account of Exodus and Numbers cannot help but reveal that the tyranny Israel was freed from, namely that of Pharoah, was mild indeed in comparison to the tyranny of Yahweh to which they were about to submit themselves. As a story of freedom the Exodus is distasteful in the extreme . . . (p. 422).

As (despite his disclaimers) a rather fanatic partisan of Egypt, he twice suggests that Canaanites sold into slavery in Egypt or captured as prisoners of war were happy to be enslaved, because at least they had food (pp. 53, 221).

OK, so he doesn't like the Yahweh cult and its worshipers. But he makes a vigorous case that the basic structure of descent into Egypt-sojourn in Egypt in high status-enslavement-Exodus matches roughly the historical sequence of Canaanites moving into the late Middle Kingdom Egypt (c. 2025-1803), the Hyksos ("Foreign Ruler") domination of Egypt (c. 1720-1575) based in the Nile Delta, the conquest of Egypt by the Theban (Upper Egyptian, far southern) 17th dynasty, and the consequent expulsion of the Hyksos kings and the Canaanite population. Archaeology has shown how a basically Canaanite culture was established east of the Nile Delta after the Middle Kingdom, and lasted until the 17th dynasty when the cities therein were burned; Canaanite elements subsequently disappear from the material remains (see pp. 100-102, 114-15, 128-29).

Not only that, he even notes Egyptian records of strange events accompanying the expulsion of the Hyksos: "a roar was emitted by the Majesty of this god [Seth]," "the sky rained" (this is Egypt, remember, raining is not normal), and in an inscription from the reign of Ahmose (c. 1550-1525) which may refer to the same event:

The sky came on with a torrent of rain, and darkness covered the western heavens while the storm raged without cessation . . . . [the rain thundered？] on the mountains, louder than the noise at the 'Cavern' that is in Abydos. Then every house and barn where they might have sought refuge was swept away, . . . and they were drenched with water like reed canoes . . . and for a period of [. . .] days no light shone in the Two Lands (p. 420; cf. p. 128）.

As he also admits:

Nearly every major town in Palestine and southern Syria is found, upon excavation, to have undergone a violent destruction sometime after the close of MB [Middle Bronze] IIC -- that is, the cultural phase roughly contemporaneous with the last stage in the Hyksos occupation of Egypt (p. 138).

This is usually attributed to Egyptian arms, but he points out there is no record of Egyptian sieges being so effective, even in the powerful 18th and 19th dynasty empires. After noting the complete absence of contemporary written sources on this catastrophic event, he speculates that this may actually have been due to a movement of Mitanni and the Hurrians south from the area between Assyria and the Euphrates River (roughly the area on the Syrian-Iraqi border today) -- despite the fact that there is no evidence of any such violent irruption. (There is evidence that Mitannians and Hurrians were not in Canaan around in 1600 and were in 1450, so his speculation is not completely arbitrary.) But a connection with the Joshua narrative is quite as plausible. So in broad outline, one could say that Redford himself sees something like the Exodus event found in Egyptian records and archeology and that the Joshua events are also plausibly associated with archaeological events.

The missing event here is the "Sinai event," that is, the reformation of the Canaanite culture by the Yahweh cult into a new Hebrew culture. (Hebrews and Canaanites were basically identical in material culture and language; what made them different was religion alone, kind of like Dutch and Flemish, or Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats.) Redford himself believes that this descent to Egypt-Exodus-return to Canaan had nothing to do with the origin of the Yahweh cult, which he finds originated a century or two later in the Edom-Midian area (modern southwest Jordan). Around 1425 B.C., 150 years after the Joshua event had smashed the Middle Bronze Age cities, there is an Egyptian record of a shrine to YHWH in the land of the Shasu ("Nomads") around Seir (the older name for Edom).

This reference to YHWH stands alone; there is no direct record of how this cult relates to the Hebrews of Israel. But in the Bible the association of YHWH with the mountains to the south of Israel (not just Sinai / Horeb, but occasionally Seir / Bozrah, cf. Judges 5:4, Is. 63:1) is common. (Cf. also Jethro/Reuel, the priest of Midian -- also southeast of Israel --, and his son Hobab, and the Kenites, who who join the tribe of Judah and seem to be natural Yahwists.)

Redford hypothesizes (note that word! this is a theory based on one enigmatic passage) that the Hebrews as nomads moving into Canaan in 1225 or so, about two hundred years later this reference to "YHWH of the Shasu." (Basically he goes back to the nomad infiltration thesis, but separated from the "conquest", which actually happened much earlier.) Only as the "utterly barbaric" Yahweh cult (his term, p. 276) became nativized in Canaan, and absorbed the distant descendants of the expelled Hyksos, did they adopt their legendary version of the Exodus-Joshua story, merging it with the Sinai legend.

One may have noticed that I have phrased things in a way which no one adhering to the orthodox dating and view of the documents would follow: e.g. "but a connection with the Joshua narrative is quite as plausible." Obviously if the Joshua story was an inerrant account written by Joshua himself, the connection is not just "plausible", but certain and obvious.

This brings up the whole status of the documents (Torah-Former Prophets) in which the Biblical narrative is recorded. If the Torah is by the pen of Moses, then the historicity of the events he records is beyond question. (Theoretically the narratives of the patriarchs could still be legendary). Likewise if the book of Joshua was written by Joshua, the traditional attribution. This would be so even if one did not accept these books as inspired. Let us say Joshua was an evil conqueror; if we had an evil conqueror's first hand view of his actions, we would understand his conquest far better than most historical events of the ancient Near East.

However, the traditional attribution is accepted by essentially no scholar today without a prior theological commitment to inerrancy. And Redford most certainly is not such a one.

This is the point Redford addresses insistently: what is the dating of the Biblical documents? And given their dating, what can they be expected to be accurate on?

Answering this brings up the whole question of what it means to place the Bible in the context of history. And that's another big issue.
(to be continued)

Is the Book of Joshua Completely Fictional? (Cont.)

2007-10-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

(Continued from here)

It is a commonplace that the slavery in Egypt and deliverance by Moses is a peculiarly meaningful theme in Afro-American Christianity. Those who have been historically oppressed identify with the theme of liberation and the overthrow of the powers that be by God's righteous hand.

The other side of this, of course, is that the Joshua event, at least as it is written in Scripture, has peculiarly uncomfortable overtones for liberation-centered Christianity. While one can get some liberatory mileage out of the idea of poor Israelites shouting down the great walls of Jericho, the bottom line is, the book celebrates conquest, and more than that, racially- and religiously-based genocidal conquest (no use softening phrases, that's what it says). As the concept of conquest and replacement of alien races gradually moved from being a natural part of human history to a criminal act (a movement that certainly began no later than the 1770s, was still of not great significance in 1914, but had achieved dominance in 1945 and was certainly completed by 1975), the book of Joshua likewise went from being natural to extremely troubling.

As a result, as the archaeological case evaporated for a historic Joshua event in the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition, it was natural that the idea of a Joshua event would undergo a transmutation. There was little evidence of an invasion and an invasion would be grossly inappropriate for glorification by Scripture in any case: well, then, perhaps Joshua can be turned into something liberatory, something Exodus-like. And if you know what the ideological climate was in the 1960s, you will know know what the war of Joshua was turned into: a peasant rebellion.

This move was first made by George E. Mendenhall, a Lutheran scholar (non-LCMS, of course) -- bio notice here, picture and interview here. It has to be remembered that Mendenhall was not attacking just the Biblical account, but the fusion of the Biblical account with historico-anthropological explanation that analogized the Joshua event with the Arab conquest of the seventh century: supposedly an explosion of purely nomadic egalitarian Bedouin monotheists who invaded from the desert and overthrew the empires of (East) Rome and Persia.

In a 1962 article (you can read it here if you, or your university, subscribes to JSTOR), he pointed out that the "anthropologized" version of the Joshua event, in which the conquest is a nomadic conquest of ethnically alien sedentary people did not fit with the usual pattern of nomadic-sedentary relations or with the archeology of the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition. Bedouins didn't really exist in the Bronze Age, and even if they did, Middle Eastern nomads and sedentaries are usually integrated by kin and economic networks. This viewpoint was later elaborated in later books, beginning with the Tenth Generation.

He then argued that what happened was not an invasion, but a rebellion. Around a small core -- maybe only 70 families -- of Habiru/Hebrew "transgressors" or "rebels" who had rebelled against Egyptian rule*, rebels rallied to their message that YHWH is Lord and therefore Pharaoh/Jabin** isn't. Listening to the freedom riders who had escaped from Egypt bearing a new theology of liberation, the oppressed serfs of the arrogant imperialists in Canaan rose up -- and the walls came tumbling down. The Conquest was really an Insurrection.

Notice how not just conquest, but the idea of racial or religious exclusivism has been eliminated from the Biblical picture, and instead transmuted into their opposites. The assimilation of Rahab has gone from being the exception to the rule.

Mendenhall's Peasant Revolt model operated with the theologian's traditional idealist explanation in which egalitarian theology generates egalitarian sociology. Norman Gottwald, whose massive Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050, was dedicated to the Viet Cong, developed the idea with a materialist twist. Yahwism, and all the other basic religious concepts of early Israel, are simply the ideological reflections of the fundamental reality of the egalitarian, anti-urban revolt:

'Yahweh' is the historically concretized, primordial power to establish and sustain social equality in the face of counter-oppression from without and again provincial and non-egalitarian tendencies from within society. 'The Chosen People' is the distinctive self-consciousness of a society of equals created in the intertribal order and demarcated from a primarily centralized and stratified surrounding world. 'Covenant is the bonding of decentralized social groups in a larger society of equals committed to cooperation without authoritarian leadership' (p. 692).

In short, those who are committed to social egalitarianism are living out Yahwism, and those who aren't, aren't.

(Mendenhall later accused Gottwald of trying to 'force the ancient historical data into the Procrustes' Bed of nineteenth-century Marxist ideology.' Actually, of course, Marx was a big fan of cities; the particular Procrustes' Bed here is not nineteenth-century Marxism, but twentieth-century Maoism and the idea that the rural areas are the bearers of liberation and Lin Biao's slogan "surround the cities from the countryside!" One wonders if Gottwald's rejection of even Mendenhall's limited role for Mosaic freedom riders from Egypt was also influenced by the contemporary Maoist attempts to minimize the significance of Soviet Comintern advisers in the origin of Chinese and Vietnamese Communism.)

This picture was influenced by the archeology, but it is impossible to deny that both Mendenhall and Gottwald's theories are shaped throughout by the need to fashion the Joshua event into something that is non-racial, non-exclusive, non-conquest, and non-genocidal -- a usable theological past, whether it be for a liberal civil rights activist like Mendenhall or a for far left peasant warrior liberation theologian like Gottwald.

But if the Joshua event was really a peasant rebellion, how did it become a conquest? Here is where the monarchy fits in. The formation of the monarchy (whether of the charismatic Saulian type in Ephraim and the North, or of the dynastic Davidic type of Judah and the South) was according to this scenario a betrayal of the original egalitarian message of Yahwism. The revolution having been betrayed by a new revisionist, imperialist ruling class of pseudo-Yahwist bureaucrats (just as Khrushchev's revisionists betrayed the original Leninist revolutionary vision), the history of the revolution was rewritten in the usual direction of pagan imperialism -- legitimation of rule by conquest. Thus what was really a peasant revolt was rewritten as a conquest -- precisely to legitimize the hierarchical, urban version of Yahwism centered on the temple and priesthood in Jerusalem or Bethel, Dan, and Samaria that had supplanted the original egalitarian vision. Yet still within the ruling narrative a counter-narrative of liberation remained hidden in the texts -- to be excavated by Mendenhall and Gottwald in the twentieth century.

Gottwald's magnum opus came out in 1979, exercised a big influence for a while but has now faded. The main grave digger was the Danish scholar Niels Lemche, who did to Gottwald what Gottwald and Mendenhall had done to the Albright-style "nomadic invasion" thesis. Remember what they had done was taken a historico-anthropological explanation of the Joshua event, founded in the last analysis on an analogy (in the earlier case with the Arab invasion), and demonstrated that the supposed analogy was anachronistic and implausible. In his 1985 Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (review here for those of you with JSTOR), Lemche did the same to Gottwald. He pointed out that rural and urban society is generally symbiotic, that "tribes" are not generally egalitarian, that the anthropological schema used by Gottwald is based on a narrow and skewed reading of social anthropology, and in short that the whole peasant revolt scheme lacks solid comparative foundation.

Lemche went on to become one of the founding "minimalists". (Probably the best popular presentation of their viewpoint is Silberman and Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Here's a short presentation of the viewpoint that appeared in Harper's magazine.) Keith Whitelam (more here) has probably been the most explicit in linking this new minimalist school to the contemporary anti-Zionist point of view.

To understand their significance, it is important to keep in mind what Mendenhall and Gottwald still retained of the traditional narrative. They agreed that the Israel of the Judges period (i.e. pre-monarchic Israel) was conscious of their radical break with Canaanite society, and that the Joshua event was a mythologized version of that radical break. They also agreed that the monarchic period, and particularly the forced labor under Solomon was historical, and marked a kind of covert "restoration" of many features of Canaanite society, centered on the urban temple. This restoration was, however, a betrayal of a previously existing radically anti-Canaanite Yahwistic vision.

To the minimalists, however, pre-monarchic Israel was simply a spatially reorganized Canaanite society. There were different, more dispersed settlement patterns (this is documented by Iron Age I and II archaeology), but no real ideological break. It is natural then that the monarchies which developed in the tenth century BC were Canaanite in style. The monarchies were not a betrayal of some earlier unified egalitarian vision, since we have no evidence that such a vision existed. Since David and Solomon were, as the minimalists famously contend, mythical, there were originally two Canaanite kingdoms: Israel and Judah.

So when did the idea of a radical break with Canaanite society happen? First in the declining years of the Judahite kingdom the ideas of monotheism were explicated by a minority. But it is only in the post-Exilic period, when the colonial Zionist settlers returned from Babylon, that an ideology of "We are different! We have nothing to do with these natives! We are not Canaanite! We are not the 'People of the Land,' but conquering immigrants!" became codified in the form of a historical narrative.

This historical narrative was designed to legitimate stealing the land from the native Samarian/Philistine/Idumean/non-fanatic Isrealites (the Palestinians of their day), with a fictitious Exodus event, a fictitious Joshua event, a fictitious unified monarchy under David and Solomon, and a distorted view of the real and historic dual monarchies of Israel and Judah. This distorted view, codified in the fifth or fourth century BC in the creation of the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History anachronistically foisted on those earlier kingdoms the same "We are not Canaanites!" ideology that in fact only become the majority report among the Diaspora. So the Joshua event was indeed a mythical event following the usual pagan Near Eastern ideas of justifying possession by conquest. But rather than being a royal mystification of what was originally liberation, it was all along an ideology of dispossession by a racially and religiously exclusive elite of religious fanatics. In short, there is no theologically usable past in the basic narrative Hebrew Bible, and theologically; the task is to excavate the fundamentally oppressive and exploitative lineaments of the narrative and so liberate ourselves from them.

At present, the idea that there was no Joshua event has been widely accepted. Remember how this happened: 1) Albright and company pegged it to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition (roughly 1250-1210 BC), and analogized it to the Arab invasions. 2) The Arab invasion analogy was shown to be faulty and the archeology of the LB-Iron Age transition shown not to evidence of foreign conquest. Hence the new idea was indigenous peasant revolt; 3) the indigenous peasant revolt model was also shown to be faulty, and the scattered archaeological evidence of destruction of the LB-Iron Age transition in a few lowland cities seemed to have nothing to with the new settlement patterns in the uplands, settlement patterns which were taken as the visible birth of what would later be Israel.

Hence the Joshua event is not even a mystified version of a real conflict; it's just a fiction.

The only conflict left among critical scholars is whether it's a fiction of the monarchic period made to justify monarchy (the mainstream critical viewpoint), or else a fiction of the Persian period made to justify the return from exile and the founding of an exclusivist theocratic temple state (the minimalist position).

(to be continued)

NOTE: A big source of this has been the essays in Ronald E. Clements's World of Ancient Israel.
*This is meaning (at least according to Mendenhall) of the term 'Apiru, found in many Middle Bronze Age cuneiform texts from Assyria (Nuzi) to Egypt (Amarna) which he associates with "Hebrew". This association is controversial for a host of reasons.
** Jabin, king of Hazor, the greatest city of Canaan, appears in inscriptions from Hazor, but it appears to be a title, like Pharaoh, not a name.

Why My Classroom Is Not "Open to the Full Range of Opinions"

2007-10-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

I had a half done essay on the topic, but this guy beat me to it. And his version is shorter and punchier than my long-winded one. So using it as a stepping stone, I'll try to make it even shorter:

Opinions and knowledge are two different things. Academia is concerned only with knowledge, never with opinion. (Knowledge that is probabilistic is OK, as long as we have some way to estimate the degree of probability).

Democracy (i.e. decision by majority vote) is only suitable for deciding subjects on which knowledge doesn't exist.

Hence, any subject or choice which we decide by majority vote is not something which can be profitably discussed in a classroom. Or to put it differently, if a subject is discussed in a classroom, that implies that it should not be decided by democratic methods.

This is why Socrates was unhappy with democracy -- because it was an open admission that politics, the most important field of all, was one in which we lack practical knowledge, and have only opinion.

(I've written about the incompatibility of democracy and expertise/knowledge before here.)

Hat tip here is due to George Leef at Phi Beta Cons. Which is ironic, since the general position of Phi Beta Cons is that the solution to having left-wing opinion in classrooms, is to have right-wing opinion side by its side. The result is further to reduce the amount of knowledge being actually taught our students in the primary institution dedicating to eschewing opinion for knowledge. The supposed cure actually amplifies the underlying disease.

(And yeah, I know this wasn't the post you were expecting. I'll get to it, I promise!)

Is the Book of Joshua Completely Fictional?

2007-10-01T06:46:00.000-07:00

Did the conquest of Canaan by Israelites out of Egypt ever happen? Was there ever a Canaanite city of Jericho with high walls that was conquered by invaders whose descendants founded the later kingdom of Israel and Judah?

In the mid-20th century, the position among most non-inerrantist, mainstream Christians was yes, that these events were broadly historical, even if the supernatural details might have been exaggerated in the telling. W.F. Albright (a conservative, but non-inerrantist scholar, author of The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible) and Kenneth Kitchen (an inerrantist scholar, author of Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II) could be on the same page as saying that the Exodus event and the Joshua event were historical episodes that belonged to the reign of Ramesses II, pharoah of Egypt from 1279 to 1213 B.C. The Joshua event (i.e. the catastrophic destruction of the powerful Canaanite city states) was confirmed by the destruction levels found at the Late Bronze Age-early Iron Age interface. A man like Albright (or his successor Bright, author of A History of Israel) could adhere to the documentary hypothesis, deny any attempt to "prove the Bible," and yet conclude that the broad outlines of the Biblical story -- a period of patriarchal wandering (datable to the Middle Bronze Age I), slavery in Egypt (datable to the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Late Bronze Age in Canaan), Exodus and conquest (dated to c. 1225-1175 B.C.), the period of Judges (Iron Age I), a unified kingdom and then two divided kingdoms (the divided kingdoms around 850 B.C. are the first phase of Israelite kingdom where outside sources clearly confirm the names and events).

This has all changed, and how it changed is an important story.

Two things changed it: the advance of archeology and a change in ideology. Let's cover the advance of archeology first.

The key verse for the "Ramesses was the pharaoh of Exodus" line was always Exodus 1:11: "So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses." Raamses was identified with Pi-Ramesses, founded under Ramesses II's father Seti I (c. 1290-1279), and abandoned by 1130 B.C. Pithom was less easy to identify, but overall it was an open and shut case: the Pharaoh under whom Moses was born was Seti I, and his son, whom Moses challenged was Ramesses II. Since there was a massive destruction level in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze age, dated to around 1200 B.C., Exodus and Joshua were both confirmed. This was the Albright scenario.

This scenario has, however, fallen apart in the meantime. It always had the problem that neither the Exodus event nor the Joshua event are mentioned anywhere in the Egyptian histories of the time. This was not necessarily a deal breaker, since Egyptian royal inscriptions are notorious for only mentioning the positive events, never the negative. But what killed it was the fact that the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Palestine began to show less and less similarity to the Joshua event. Basically, the only major destructions at the Late Bronze Age were Hazor and Megiddo -- both of which are explicitly stated to have not been burned by Joshua in the Book of Joshua. After some moving around of the date, it is now settled that the famous Jericho was destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, around 1560 BC or so, and was an abandoned site by the time of Ramesses.

Yet at the same time, archeology shows major culture change in the LB-Iron transition, change that appears continuous with settlement patterns in documentable Iron Age Israelite civilization. The MB-LB transition, however, shows no major change in settlement patterns or culture. So, archeologically speaking, the beginning of the "Israelite" civilization was indeed in the LB-Iron Age transition -- but that transition was marked by no Joshua event.

One way out for inerrantists was to use the Biblical chronology to date the Exodus and Joshua events to the fifteenth century BC (1450-1410) in the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and then try to redate the archaeology to bring the concluding catastrophe of the Middle Bronze Age into line with it. (This was the approach of John Bimson). Such redating schemes have not won general acceptance, however.

Bimson's point stands, however: as all archeologists now recognize, the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition looks nothing like the scenario in the Book of Joshua. BUT, the Middle Bronze Age-Late Bronze Age transition looks a lot like it.

Virtually all archaeologists relate the Middle Bronze Age II destruction layer in Canaan in some way to the expulsion of the Hyksos (Canaanite pharoahs of Egypt) and the founding of the resurgent native Egyptian Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties (c. 1560-1540). This episode is not seen, however, as the Egyptian histories' version of the Exodus event.

So we are left with this picture. On the one hand, inerrantists feel unable to link Hyksos expulsion to the Exodus event, because despite the broad similarity, they differ in detail, in ways that (unlike the simple absence of any version on the Egyptian side for Ramesses reign) cannot be easily finessed. Yet as a result, inerrantists like Kenneth Kitchen stand alone, and can no longer point to a broad agreement with non-inerrantists like Albright or Bright to justify their position on the historicity of the Exodus and Joshua events.

On the other hand, non-inerrantist archeologists are now committed to a very strange position: Around the middle of the sixteenth century, turmoil in Egypt and the exodus of a large number of Palestinian Asiatics from Egypt was followed by a massive destruction of the city states in Canaan -- but that this event left no trace in Canaanite-Israelite folklore. On the other hand, some time in the divided kingdom, a myth of turmoil in Egypt, exodus of a large number of Palestinian Asiatics and a massive destruction of the city states in Canaan arose -- but that this event had no factual basis whatsoever. Is this really very likely?

(to be continued)

Christianity is the Fulfillment of All Laws

2007-09-24T18:06:00.000-07:00

Spengler makes a powerful point here (go to page 2):

That is why I keep returning to Franz Rosenzweig's remarkable insight that humans are sentient of the death of their cultures as much as they are of their own physical death:

Just as every individual must reckon with his eventual death, the peoples of the world foresee their eventual extinction, be it however distant in time. Indeed, the love of the peoples for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death. Love is only surpassing sweet when it is directed toward a mortal object, and the secret of this ultimate sweetness only is defined by the bitterness of death. Thus the peoples of the world foresee a time when their land with its rivers and mountains still lies under heaven as it does today, but other people dwell there; when their language is entombed in books, and their laws and customs have lost their living power.

A sick cat or dog will crawl into a hole to die. The members of sick cultures do not do anything quite so dramatic, but they cease to have children, dull their senses with alcohol and drugs, become despondent, and too frequently do away with themselves. This is not due to an inborn death-drive, contrary to the odious Freud, but rather a symptom of a culture's mortal illness.

That is why pagans become Christians. That is, individuals embrace Christianity when their pre-Christian culture no longer can transmit their memory as well as their genes to future generations. Christianity, in that sense, succeeds precisely where "natural law" fails. Self-confident and secure pagans do not seek life eternal through belief in Jesus Christ, for they are quite happy to believe in themselves. It is when they have reason to cease to believe in themselves, when the depredations of the empires, or the great tide of globalization, overrun their defenses and expose their mortal fragility.

It's a little hard to tell here where Rosenzweig ends and Spengler begins (I'm guessing on my punctuation). Speaking of which, Rosenzweig seems a thinker well worth reading -- here is Spengler's survey of the various editions.

St. Stephen I, King of Hungary, on How Immigration Makes a Country Strong

2007-09-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

I wanted to refer to this during the immigration debate, but couldn't find it on the web, although the quotation is well known among writers on ethnicity and nationalism. Fortunately I have come into a copy, courtesy of a Hungarian colleague:

It is from St. Stephen's (Istvan) Admonition to His Son St. Emery (Imre), dated to before A.D. 1031:

The guests and newcomers [foreigners] are of so much service that they may rightly be ranked sixth among the royal dignitaries . . . For as the guests arrive from different parts and provinces, so they bring with them different tongues and customs, different examples and weapons, and all this adorns the country and enhances the splendor of the court while deterring foreigners from overweening contempt. For a country of one single language and one set of customs is weak and vulnerable. Therefore I enjoin on you, my son, to protect newcomers benevolently and to hold them in high esteem so that they should stay with your rather than dwell elsewhere.

The picture is of the famous "Crown of St. Stephen," part of the traditional regalia of the Hungarian king.

More on the Canaanite Conquest and Hell

2007-09-22T10:31:00.000-07:00

In the post below, I thought there must be explicit links between the destruction of the Canaanites and the end times, but couldn't find them. Well, as I was reading Joshua again, the link became obvious. You can be found it for yourself by searching for seven + trumpets in the Bible. The only two passages that come up are Joshua 6, when seven priests carry trumpets, which they blast seven times and bring down the walls of Jericho, and Revelation 8, where seven angels carry trumpets, which they blast seven times and bring woe, woe, woe for the inhabitants of the world.

It is a subject which must be approach with fear and trembling, but the link of hell and God's historical judgments on the nations bears on a number of theological implications.

1) As a rule, the herem decrees include children explicitly. An example from 1 Sam. 15:3: " Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." This cannot be separated from the question of condemnation of infants, however much we might like to.

2) The herem decrees are things which God does to people under his wrath, in which He (through his people) is active and they are passive. It is not an automatic result of the Canaanites or Midianites or Amalekites refusing to accept the welcoming attitude of the Israelites. No, it is wrathful retribution. Nor can one ignore that in all the gospel references to wailing and gnashing of teeth, those in such a state are "cast" there, "cut up" and "appointed" to go there, and "thrust out" -- actions of which the damned are the passive objects. That is the Biblical language of the matter. It is also worth noting that in the Biblical representations God works through His people/angels, while in the "sinners damn themselves" scenario, God has no need of representatives.

UPDATE: Joel pointed out a third point, that the linkage to the herem wars places a question mark beside the theological significance of eternity as the touchstone of what hell means. Here we have a single catastrophic, but almost instantaneous, judgment. I don't think it negates the argument for eternal torment by itself, but it definitely suggests a different perspective.

But there is hope in this linkage too. Those who are destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah and in Jericho are anonymous, but those who are saved are named: Lot and his family, Rahab and hers. There are more there as well, forming a theme I have called "the Canaanites as the beloved temple slaves of Jehovah" (in a far too long post here). Both were part of the community of the condemned, by choPublish Postice or by birth. They are those still outside the family of faith -- even on the day of judgment. Yet by the intercession of the family of faith, the red thread hung outside the window, they were exempted from the condemnation that is a type of hell, and that even without entering the family before the day of judgment.

Are there few that be saved?

Agonize, agonize to enter in at the straight gate -- and intercede for the Lots and Rahabs God places in your path.

Remember the Hostage Crisis? Some of Us Old Folks Still Do

2007-09-14T18:22:00.000-07:00

There's a meme going around about Carter (or even Gerald Ford), that the only reason he got a reputation for being weak abroad was because the Republicans cynically saddled the Democrats with the blame for getting us out of a crazy, lost war. Let's leave aside the small detail that the Democrats got us into that crazy war and a Republican president got us out of it.

Even if we brush that off as a detail (we all know that Republicans are always war-mongers, right?) still, the young'uns need to be told by us senior citizens that Carter wasn't hurt just, or even mostly, by the legacy of Vietnam.

What made Carter look like a week president? Let's see . . . Sandinistas take over Nicaragua and ally with Cuba? Soviet Union invades and occupies Afghanistan? Shah is overthrown by Iranian revolutionaries, who proceed to take American diplomats hostage and hold them for over a year? Yup, those were the big foreign policy issues of the day, as I remember; especially that last one.

Imagine: Hillary is president, withdraws from Iraq, which then becomes an isolated and self-absorbed anti-American satellite of Iran. Voters could take that.

But then suppose FARC does a victory march into Bogota. And then Iranian troops parachute in to prop up Hezbollah's newly proclaimed Islamic Republic of Lebanon. And finally anti-American revolutionaries of some new and troubling stripe seize power in Nigeria, take American diplomats hostage, and our attempted rescue fails ignominiously when the helicopters break down en route.

The result, if that were to happen? People would think Hillary is weak, and not because she withdrew from Iraq.

Some Comments on Recent Boar's Head Tavern Stuff

2007-09-11T19:03:00.001-07:00

First, take a look at the quotation cited by Bob Myers from Charles Spurgeon, Baptist, here. (I'm not going to cite it, you've got to click on the link and read it.) It only confirms my belief that Spurgeon's position is in its actual presentation from the pulpit the same as the Augsburg Evangelical position. In other words, it is a correct division of law and gospel. And I have C.F.W. Walther on my side for this position; as he says in Law and Gospel tome, after saying how a good Lutheran will preach the Gospel to someone under affliction of the Law immediately, and showing how Calvinists consider this to be malpractice, he then concedes that Spurgeon follows the Lutheran procedure, although most Calvinists don't. Baptist though he is, what I have read of Spurgeon shows a very Augsburg Evangelical sense of the place of Law and Gospel.

UPDATE: Here is the passage in question, from p. 136 of The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel:

The sects teach false doctrine concerning the Gospel. They regard it as nothing else than an instruction for man, teaching him what he must do to secure the grace of God, while in reality the Gospel is God's proclamation to men: "Ye are redeemed from your sins; ye are reconciled to God; your sins are forgiven." No sectarian preacher dare make this frank statement [i.e. to anyone who asks, "what must I do to be saved?"]. If one of them, for instance, Spurgeon, does do it in some of his sermons, it is a Lutheran element in the teaching of the sects and an exception to the rule. Moreover, he is being severely criticized for it as going too far.

I doubt whether this statement about the "sects" is as true today as it was then. As I scribbled in the margin in my copy there: today we should celebrate how much Lutheranism has infiltrated the Reformed, to the degree that it is Edwards and Bunyan who appear strange to them, not Spurgeon.

Next take a look at the thread for September 11, 2007 (significant date that), beginning with Joel Hunter's florilegium of passages on the blessed enjoying the torments of the damned here.

Now this is placed all in the future: heaven and hell. But it is also connected to the past: the herem "ban" or "dedication" of the Canaanites and things (for example Jephthah's daughter) to destruction, as well as to imprecatory psalms. These "problem" passages are usually treated in isolation, but they are all one thread.

The Book of Revelation, in describing the condemnation of the future links them to these past episodes of sacred story. Describing the fall of "Babylon" (variously interpretable as pagan Rome, or more generally the nexus of luxuries, exploitation and persecution of the saints), Revelation 19 reads:

After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out, "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, for his judgments are true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants."

Once more they cried out,

"Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever."

Now this is said of Babylon, of which the Psalmist (Ps. 137) also wrote:

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

The rejoicing in the future over the destruction of figurative Babylon is prefigured in the rejoicing over the destruction of literal Babylon.

But of course the smoke going up in Revelation 19 recalls the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah -- and Abraham beholding it:

And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD. And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.

So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.

Even more vividly is the triumph over the wicked in the last day linked to the triumph over Israel's enemies in the the day of Moses. Recall Revelation 15:

Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished.

And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

"Great and amazing are your deeds,
O Lord God the Almighty!
Just and true are your ways,
O King of the nations!

At first glance this doesn't seem to have any link to the saints in Heaven rejoicing over the destruction of God's enemies. But it does. This passage is the fulfillment of Exodus 14-15:

The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained. But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.

Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, "I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. The LORD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name.

. . .

The enemy said, 'I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them.
I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.'
You blew with your wind; the sea covered them;
they sank like lead in the mighty waters.

"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?
You stretched out your right hand;
the earth swallowed them.

As James Kugel points out in his invaluable The Bible as It Was (see pp. 345-46), the question of how the Egyptians' bodies being washed on to shore so the Israelites could gloat over them was an significant theme in inter-testamental literature. The theme can thus be assumed to be implicit in the vision of Revelation 15.

The descriptions of the saved in Heaven rejoicing over the torments of the damned in Hell are few in Scripture: perhaps the most explicit is in Isaiah 66:

From new moon to new moon,
and from Sabbath to Sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me,declares the LORD.

"And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Jesus of course cites this passage in Mark 9:48. But description of the blessed looking on in triumph over the punishment of the reprobate, what in the Psalms is called "seeing my desire upon my enemies": that theme is pervasive in the scriptures. (Likewise the converse theme of how the sight of the triumph of the blessed will only add to the misery of the condemned.) It's just that usually the triumph is a triumph in this world, not in the next, and the reprobate are more usually punished with death or painful humiliation, not everlasting torment.

I haven't read much beyond his web-site on N.T. Wright, but I find it curious that this discussion of seeing with satisfaction the humiliation of the reprobate has proceeded without reference to his emphasis on the resurrection, not "going to Heaven." His point is that "going to Heaven" is about my personal, individual salvation, while the resurrection of the dead is about collective justice and making right a world of injustice: in other words, the righteous looking on in triumph over the discomfiture of the unrighteous. (Daniel 12: And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.) If you want to emphasize the resurrection and the prophetic dimension of the new heavens and new earth, then that is the overwhelming Biblical accent on that theme. (There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.)

Linking all these themes raises a problem:

You can take the historical books of the Old Testament and say the plagues on the Egyptians, or the herem of the Canaanites is something you reject and what remains is certainly the Biblical message.

You can take the Psalms and say, as C.S. Lewis did, that the imprecatory Psalms teach a sub-Christian morality and what remains is certainly the Biblical message.

And you can take the New Testament and take away all the warnings of hell in it and what remains may still be the Biblical message.

But if you take away one of those, what warrant do you have for not taking away all three? And if you take away all three, is what you have still the Biblical message?

UPDATE: Walther has something useful to say about hell-fire preaching as well, on p. 134:

[The sects] preach the Law first with great sternness, which is quite proper. We do the same, following the method of the apostles and of Christ. The only wrong feature in this part of their preaching is their depiction of the infernal torments, which is usually done in such a drastic manner as to engage the imagination rather than to make their words sink into the depth of the heart . . . Instead of reducing their hearers to the condition where they profess themselves poor, lost, and condemned sinners, who have deserved everlasting wrath, they put them in a state of mind which makes them say: "Is it not terrible to hear God uttering such awful threatenings on account of sin?" [emphasis added].

In other words, Law preaching is to focus on the fact that the sinner deserves complete condemnation, not on the garish details or extreme physical pains of this condemnation.

A Secret Link?

2007-09-04T08:17:00.000-07:00

I was watching "This Is Spinal Tap" recently (OK now you know how I spent my Labor Day weekend), and in between laughing noticed something truly odd:

Two lines from that movie are the core of J.K. Rowling's Hogwarts concept.

Here's a scene early on, discussing the appalling mortality rate of Spinal Tap drummers (from the transcript here):

Nigel: And....it was tragic really...he exploded on stage.
Derek: Just like that...
David: He just went up...
Nigel: He just was like a flash of green light...and that was it, nothing was left...
David: Look at his face .... it's true, this really did happen.
Nigel: Well, there was a little green globule on his drum seat.
David: Like a stain, really.
Nigel: More of a stain than a globule, actually, and...
David: You know several...you know dozens of people spontaneously combust each year, it's just not really widely reported.
Nigel: Right.

There it is: the core idea of the Avada Kedavra curse -- green flash and that's it. Not to mention that it happens all the time "it's just not really widely reported" -- wizarding secrecy.

And near the end, discussing "where they are now" we learn:

Marty: Denis Eton-Hogg, the president of Polymer Records...
Ian: Yes.
Marty: ...was recently knighted, what were the circumstances surrounding his knighthood?
Ian: The specific reason why he was knighted was uh for the founding of Hoggwood, which is um, a summer-camp for pale, young boys.

With only a little modification, that's the core, the nub, of Hogwarts. "Pale young boys" -- a perfect description of Draco Malfoy.

So this is how it started in 1982: J.K. Rowling watches "This Is Spinal Tap"; death by green flashes and Hoggwood and pale, young boys get thrown into a pot of bubbling fantasy. It percolates in the mind for years until in steps into her imagination Harry Potter, who like Bilbo Baggins in Tolkien's Silmarillion cycle proves the key to somehow turn the developing mythology in a new direction.

And don't you think Dudley would be a Taphead?

2007-09-01T14:35:00.001-07:00

"Faith does not conduct a debate about God and God's righteousness, as does the natural, the redeemed, or the presumably already glorified reason before its own forum. It conducts a dispute with God in prayer and lament."

And therefore faith does not debate universalism, certainly not in terms of ghostly colonialist abstractions like "the native in Africa" or some grotesque scholastic definition of theodicy.

Instead, faith prays, and argues, and laments, for the souls whom God has placed in its path. And this prayer, and argument, and lamentation does not cease when those we love die but continues in prayer and lamentation for the dead, until God finally answers: in resurrection of the dead and the revealing of the secrets of all hearts -- including His own.

When libertarians say "Parents just have to be responsible for what their kids watch . . ."

2007-09-01T13:29:00.000-07:00

have you sometimes wondered whether it was a transparently sleazy cop-out by people who are actually trying day and night to make sure your kids watch trash? Well, wonder no more, Eric Kleiman, director of product marketing for Continental Airlines demonstrates that yes, it is a transparently sleazy cop-out.

Mr. Kleiman was contacted by Bob Tedeschi of the New York Times about the issue of increasingly violent and/or salacious content as found on in-flight movies. Let's just remember you can't "just turn it off" on an in-flight movie. You can't "exercise your role as a responsible parent by controlling the remote" or whatever other phrase it is that sanctimonious libertines use these days. If you chose to make a long flight, you are stuck with having whatever is presented on the screen in full view of you, and any accompanying children, no matter how young. Here's how Mr. Kleiman responds:

“Parents have to be responsible for the actions of their kids — whether they shouldn’t look at the screen or look away,” said Eric Kleiman, director of product marketing for Continental Airlines.

Mr. Kleiman said the changing tenor of airline entertainment was in keeping with the changing standards of network television and other media. “Our approach is consistent with where society is going with this,” he said.

And here's Nina Plotner, another believer that all of must imbibe sleaze (a.k.a. "good things"), whether we like it or not:

Nina Plotner, an account manager with Inflight Productions Inc., which works on behalf of many airlines to review and acquire films, said of the editing procedure, “If we take all the good things out, there’s not going to be a lot left to play.”

Ms. Plotner added: “If you get a complaint, you get a complaint. You can’t please everybody.”

Mr. Kleiman, of Continental, agreed, saying: “People love Pepsi, and we don’t serve that, so there you go, we just ruined their flight. That’s an accurate analogy.” Airlines said they received relatively few complaints.

To which the experience of this couple is a good retort.

Thomas Fine and Sara Susskind of Cambridge, Mass., recently spent two hours on a United Airlines flight distracting their 6-year-old son, Zachary, from the R-rated “Shooter,” which depicts multiple gory killings. [Like shooting his wife in the face and the blood pouring out. Just lovely. Oops, no, that's in "Fracture," which has also been shown on TV with just a little editing.] The sound of gunshots from nearby earphones alerted Zachary to look up, Mr. Fine said. “It’s not like he can look away when he hears the sound, and he’s sitting on a plane bored, and he’s 6,” Mr. Fine said.

Obviously, Mr. Fine, you are a stupid irresponsible father! Stop trying to palm off your failures as a parent on society!

Near the end of the article there is some promised deus ex machina about individual screens. And I know, someone's bound to say, "See? It's all the fault of capitalism! If we just raise taxes on the super-rich, society would be squeaky clean!" Actually, the most salacious in-flight programing I ever saw was on a (state-owned, very much non-profit, heavily subsidized) China Airlines flight. But you know what? The problem isn't the lack of individual screens. It isn't whether the airlines are state-owned or privately owned. It's inside the heads of people like Nina Plotner and Eric Kleiman (and whoever choses movies for Chinese Airlines), and how their meretricious tastes get formed.

Probably by watching in-flight movies as kids.

Spontaneous Generation

2007-08-25T11:07:00.001-07:00

Joel Hunter and Josh S have been sparring over the theological significance of the -- somewhere between "alleged" and "unconfirmed" -- discovery of microbial life on Mars. Here's the news article that started it off, and here's some of the commentary: Joel Hunter starts, John H, Matthew Johnson, Joel's questions on its significance, and Josh S and Matthew Johnson's answers.

This is a strange debate that would have made no sense before Louis Pasteur. Let's review the history of belief in spontaneous generation among natural philosophers. Aristotle and many others believed in it for insects, fleas, mice, and so on. FThis seems to be the pretty general folk belief of unreflective humanity absent any modern biological education.

But a minority current, wielding the slogan omnium vivum ex ovo ("everything living from an egg, i.e. from something already living") began to make headway against this belief, based on purely scientific arguments in the late 1600s -- until the discovery of microscopic life. That pretty much sealed the case for spontaneous generation. Microbes appeared everywhere touched by air, no matter how you sealed it.

But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, spontaneous generation died for three reasons:

1) Louis Pasteur's famous experiment disproved it empirically, at least for the present and short spans of time, and demonstrated that air was full of living spores.

2) Similarly, the unified field theory of biology (otherwise known as Total Common Ancestry) relied on the fact that when life had appeared once, it could no longer appear spontaneously again. This meant that all living creatures could be treated as descended from a single common ancestor.

3) Finally, increasing knowledge of the complexity of even prokaryote cellular life began to open up the possibility of arguments like those of Michael Behe, that even bacterial cells show irreducible complexity.

Suddenly the way was open, as it had never been before, to see any form of life, even bacterial, as a unique creation of God, in a way that a quartz crystal or a nebula isn't. The origin of life for the first time became a topic on which Christian theologians were generally expected to have a different viewpoint from natural philosophers. But this is a development which I think has no foundation in the text of Genesis 1 at all, and was purely governed by the scientific developments I listed above.

Let's look at Genesis 1 on the origin of plants:

And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

For comparison, let's look at the following passage on the origin of the sun, moon, and stars:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

Contrast the two bolded phrases. Reading it without Louis Pasteur and Michael Behe in mind, they can naturally be read as saying that God's creation of plants was mediated by natural processes: He spoke (primary cause) and the earth brought forth (secondary cause). But with the sun and moon, He spoke (primary cause), and He made (no secondary cause). This is in fact the argument made by Gerald Schroeder in his books, Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God: although science cannot show any case, or even any genuinely plausible scenario, of life originating from inorganic matter, it must be so because the plain word of Scripture teaches it.

But why is it that the average Christian today is convinced that the origin of life is a miracle that demands God's direction intervention, but that the sun could have been naturally formed by a contracting cloud of gases? Not because of anything in Genesis, but because science has so far not been able to successfully explain the origin of life, but it has successfully (more or less) explained the origin of nuclear fusion.

As for me, I'll stick with Schroeder's reading.

P.S. If there IS life on Mars, it still might be of terrestrial origin -- and unless it is chemically radically different almost certainly is.

Worldly Asceticism and Chinese Christians

2007-08-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

Here's a funny factoid (I'm getting this from memory and haven't relocated the source). At Yale, the Buddhist club is entirely white in membership, while Campus Crusade is 60% Asian.

Something of the background to this comes from a book I read a while ago: Chinese Christians in America: Conversion, Assimilation, and Adhesive Identities by Fenggang Yang. The writer's story itself is fascinating. Like Jim Ault, he went to a Christian church (here's their web page) to do sociology and ended up being converted. Unlike Ault, who became a documentary film maker, Yang eventually got a respectable academic job (more here), and perhaps for that reason his book lacks the luminescent beauty of Spirit and Flesh -- academia is pretty tough on good story telling.

The book was based on his work in an independent evangelical church for ethnic Chinese in the DC area (main services are in Mandarin with English and Cantonese translation and a separate earlier service in English). His aim was to solve this puzzle: if Chinese immigrants to the US are interested in preserving their culture, why do they convert to Christianity, especially in the narrow evangelical form? And if they are interested in assimilating, why do they attend a Chinese church, instead of a mainstream American one?

Without denying that conversion is first and foremost a matter of the Spirit (he's a Christian, remember?), he makes a strong case that the church he studied saw Chinese Christians neither as assimilating, nor as not assimilating, but rather constructing an "adhesive identity" in which their Christianity functions as a means of identifying with the best of both American and Chinese identities and rejecting what is evil in both.

With regard to Chinese identity, as immigrants (many have crossed multiple boundaries, such as mainland to Taiwan, Taiwan to SE Asia, SE Asia to USA, and so on), they find their Chinese ethical beliefs relativized -- Christianity offers a way to re-anchor them in a transcendent moral framework. Yang summarizes:

Religious conversion in postmodern pluralism can be an act of preserving traditional culture. Postmodern pluralism has a tendency to relativize traditions. The Chinese highly value their cultural traditions, especially Confucian moral values, but traditionalism alone cannot justify the authority of such a system of ethics.* These Chinese immigrants find a good match between Confucian moral values and evangelical Christian beliefs, and the conservative Chinese faith provides an absolute foundation for their cherished social ethics. Therefore, religious conversion to evangelical Christianity indeed helps these people to maintain their Chinese identity. Without the institution of the Christian church, the preservation of traditional Chinese culture could have been more difficult within postmodern pluralism (pp. 198-99).

Christian universalism is, he concludes, constructive not destructive of traditional Chinese culture -- albeit only when that culture is understood as rejecting Buddhism and other explicitly religious elements. "While universalism is achieved, particularism is also affirmed."

Their Christian faith also affirms their American identity. The church Yang studied is a conservative Christian one, one that strongly affirms the basic story of conservative Protestantism: America was built on Christian principles, but has gone astray through forgetting those principles. As one Taiwanese writer wrote in the church newsletter:

The founding spirit of the USA is originated from Christian doctrines. American laws and the humanitarian spirit all have roots in Christianity. Internally this made the American social political system healthy, the nation strong, and the people prosperous. Internationally, then, the USA can advance her military, political, and economic developments, and has become the leader of the free world (p. 123).

A guest pastor preached in Chinese:

We have to work hard to uphold God's words in America . . . We have seen the decline of the strength of the U.S. and the emptiness of American churches. We should have a sense of responsibility for this nation and for all peoples in the world. We must take up the burden to evangelize all peoples in America and the world, not just the Chinese (p. 125).

Statements like this are found all over conservative Protestantism in the USA, but they have added significance here in being written and spoken in a ethnic Chinese church, to an ethnic Chinese audience, and even in Chinese. The implication is clear: Chinese Christians can know and embody the spirit of our founding fathers better than most Americans do -- because they are Christians .

Central to this adhesive identity is the "worldly asceticism" of this generally high-achieving Chinese congregation, embodied in success, thrift, temperance (teetotalling), and sexual restraint and marital fidelity. Yet these "Protestant" values, Yang typically finds enunciated most explicitly in contrast to the surrounding American society, indeed in contrast to the American church.

Here's a story about thrift from comments at a Board meeting:

American society is a consumerist society. This consumerism has influenced our American-born kids. They want to buy this and buy that without thinking of necessity. The kids are indulged too much (p. 110).

And when the pastor bought a house that cost $350,000, and received a non-interest loan from the church, he was criticized"

We should keep expenditures within the limits of income 量入爲出。This is a good Chinese tradition. A good Christian should follow this principle even beeter. When you take up a huge financial burden [like Pastor Tang did], how could you live in peace and focus on ministries for the Lord (p. 111).

"Pastor Tang" was voted out in 1995.

In discussing sexual restraint, Yang quotes a mother of three teenagers:

I was worried for my second son. He is a high school student. The teens fellowship group [which is mostly English-speaking ABC's or American Born Chinese] once was on the edge of becoming a social and dating club. Several parents were worried about this when they sensed the tendencies, but we didn't know what we could do. These are youth at a rebellious age in this free American society. But God is really wonderful. Right then the assistant pastor [who was a white American] gave a sermon: "True Love Waits." It was an excellent sermon. My boy understood the preaching very well and liked it very much. The pastor asked these young people to make a commitment to God, write it down, and keep if for themselves, that they would wait for the true love. After that the teens fellowship returned to normal (p. 113).

Yet American churches can also a source of corruption. One guest preacher told a story about how a big church near a university campus invited two Asian student Christian fellowships (one Chinese and one Indian) to have a joint activity at church. The Chinese and Asian Indians students made the food while the Americans would prepare the program:

The food was of course very delicious, but the program was just unbelievable. The host church provided bingo games -- a kind of gambling -- and belly dancing. During the dance by a half-nude woman, the Christian students were so embarrassed that they all tried to hide their heads. It was just so awkward.

This is the problem of American churches. They have become empty physically and spiritually. . . In these seminaries the Bible is taught as not credible or believable. There is no prayer. Professors of theology smoke in the class and grow ponytail hair. How could these people speak God's words? . . . All failures of America today are because of their rejection of God (pp. 123-24).

Here's a story about success, from a pastor's sermon as paraphrased by Yang:

A Chinese family used to attend an American church. The parents became unhappy about their daughter's getting some B grades in school. When they asked about it, the girl replied, 'I have done my best.' When they asked again, she ruffled, 'I am doing better than many of my friends in school and church. They get C's and B's but their parents still love them without a fuss. Why are you so harsh on me.' The daughter felt disappointed to be Chinese, and the parents felt helpless to respond. Later they found a Chinese church and switched there. After a while, the girl came to tell her parents, 'Compared with other parents in the church, you are not really harsh.' Her gradual change pleased the parents (p. 116).

Yang comments: "A changed reference group and her growing Chinese identity, nurtured in the Chinese church, helped this girl to excel in school."

He also quotes a popular woman speaker in Chinese churches, who uses the American ideas of pride, self-confidence, and "dare to be different" in distinctly, well, different, ways:

"Having American friends is necessary for your kids, but only to a certain degree. . . . Some Chinese children become problem teenagers because they are too Americanized. Don't say 'We must immerse ourselves in American society.' What is American society. Student who are participating in math contests are seen as nerds by [white] American girls. We need to teach our kinds 'Dare to be different.' Teach them to have self-confidence about what they do and be proud of what they are. We must have rules. For example, don't allow your kids to stay overnight with other kids."

She went on to say that white American parents, including those who attend churches, often have low expectations of their children. They ask their children to "do your best," which is often only an excuse for failure. Mixing with such children could bring bad influences on Chinese children. She suggested that it would be more desirable to mix with children of immigrants, such as Asian Indians or Koreans, because they were more conservative in moral values. Better yet, she suggested, bring your children to the Chinese church:

"It is necessary to have friends after school . . . The Chinese church provides this. In the fellowship group it is easier to provide such an environment. We Chinese have a proverb, 'He who stays near vermillion gets stained red, and he who stays near ink gets stained black' 近朱者赤，近墨者黑。Mencius's mother moved three times 孟母三遷 [in order to have good neighbors for her child]. It is very important to have proper friends (pp. 115-16).

Again as Yang points out, they defend their selective distance from American society not just in terms of preserving Chinese traditions, but also in terms of adhering to universal Christian values. "The Chinese church is a plausible structure that helps these immigrant and their children maintain their distinctive value system.

But it is important not to exaggerate the degree of separation . Speakers have to exhort Chinese parents to find Chinese (or at least Asian) friends for their children because structural integration is so universally presumed. Measurable success in mainstream American society is a universal goal. Yang wrote:

Why should one succeed? What is the purpose of success? This would be an important research question. However, I could not even ask this question directly in my interviews because it would sound silly or out of place. Success is a goal that is taken for granted (p. 108).

(He does conclude that success is seen as a way to give glory to God and especially to prove to non-Christian Chinese that Christians are not ignorant or supersititious.)

Elsewhere he writes:

New Chinese immigrants generally trust the educations system, so they send their children to public schools and prestigious universities; they trust the economic system, so they work hard and invest wisely to gain tangible rewards; they trust the socio-legal systems, so they seek gradual changes toward equality. However, they do not trust the media and entertainment industry for encouraging liberal moral values and unconventional lifestyles (p. 197).

This overall trust in American institutions is a rather striking difference between Chinese conservative Protestants and white conservative Protestants, who are notoriously suspicious of these institutions.

I find a few things particularly interesting about this picture:

1) the degree to which Chinese-American Christians have come to treat Christianity as the fulfillment of the Law -- the Confucian law. This model, of Christianity being the only way to preserve the spirit of what I call the "archaic law" in modern society, is something they are trying to live out right now.

As he notes on pp. 147-48, the church newsletter is called "Living Waters" and has John 7:37-38 -- but the first issue also had on the mast-head a poem by the famous Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi:

A square pond opens up like a mirror;
In it glowing light and white clouds are waving together.
No wonder this lagoon is so clear
Because from the springhead comes the living water.

觀書有感

半畝方塘一鏡開
天光雲影共徘徊
問渠那得清如許
為有源頭活水來。

Lovely, isn't it? And to make it better, the title is "Afterthoughts on reading the Book." OK, well, the book he meant wasn't the Gospel, but then again, the book David meant technically wasn't the Gospel either -- although the Gospel was found in it.

2) In emphasizing thrift and frugality and "worldly asceticism" more generally, I think Yang's Chinese church members have really identified an area where American churches have strayed far from the Weberian Protestant ethic and the teaching inculcated in Proverbs. I was embarrassed by the American Christian of those stories. If Americans were straying from this to sell all they have to the poor that would be one thing, but they are instead straying from this to buy McMansions, electronic gadgets, closets full of clothes, and endless nights out at restaurants. I don't usually do the moral scold thing (at least I try not to) but this is really worth scolding about.

What did John Wesley say? "Earn all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can." Maybe it's a dangerous phrase, because most people seem to think "Well, I'll work on that first one, and maybe the second, and when I've got 'em down cold, I'll see about the third", but if you do all three, not just one or two, you will do good for your own soul and others'.

3) Their relentless pursuit of success I am less certain about, although with it goes the trust in mainstream institutions. Both are quite different from many streams in American evangelical-dom in which meritocratic success seems to happen if at all, by chance. Are Yang's church members gaining the world to lose their soul? Let us hope not -- but the possibility can't be denied. And let us hope that their trust, which is in itself always a good thing, will be not be betrayed. I don't think anyone has ever said it before, but I do believe "It is better to have trusted and been betrayed, than to have never trusted at all."

4) Their way of understanding Christian universalism as fulfilling and completing both their Chinese and their American identity is worth considering, regardless of one's ethnic or national origin. "Adhesive identity" as Yang says makes one comfortable in more than one identity and more than one place. This could be a fruitful way of phrasing Paul's conception of the simultaneously Jewish-Gentile Christian church, as I've tried to describe it here. The New Testament is bi-cultural and one can reasonable expect that certain insights in it are best achieved by those who are likewise bi-cultural.

God grant that this will be the motto for this Chinese church's Confucianism and Americanism:

I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation
I understand more than the aged, for I keep Your precepts (Ps. 119:99-100).

*Why not? Traditionalism here is basically "Confucianism" and that is unable to serve as a transcendent justification for three reasons: 1) Confucianism in China itself was attacked as being part of the old "feudal" system -- many reflective Chinese find it no longer tenable purely on its own as a basis for ethical behavior; 2) Confucianism is above all a system of social and political ethics and the American system is not Confucian; and 3) the Chinese he studied are professionally and occupationally thoroughly integrated into American life and do not want to be in a traditionalist enclave.

Cintamani Government, Christian Style

2007-08-13T19:49:00.000-07:00

The only ruler to whom the sixth century French historian Gregory of Tours gives unmixed praise is Emperor Tiberius (ruled 574-582) -- the ruler in Constantinople. He introduces him thus: "Tiberius was a just and charitable man, equitable in his dealings, successful in war [no word on whether these successes fit "just war theory"] and, what is more important than all his other good qualities [take that, "wise Turk" afficianados!], a true Christian" (p. 234-35).

Later on, Gregory describes in more detail his rule:

He distributed among the poor much of the treasure which [the previous emperor] Justin had amassed, and the Empress frequently rebuked him for reducing the state to bankruptcy. 'What I have taken so many years to save,' she used to say to him, 'you are busy squandering in a prodigal way, and without losing much time about it, either.' 'As long as the poor receive alms and those whom we capture are ransomed,' Tiberius would answer, 'our treasury will never be empty. This is the great treasure, as our Lord explained: 'But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.' Let us indeed lay up for the needy in heaven a share of what God has given to us, so that the Lord may deign to give us increase in this world.' As I have told you, Tiberius was a great Christian and a faithful one: as long as he continued to take pleasure in distributing alms to the poor our Lord went on providing him with more and more to give.

One day when he was walking through the palace he noticed on the paved floor a marble slab carved with the Cross of Christ. 'Your Cross, O Christ,' he cried, 'is marked on our foreheads and on our breast as a sign of protection, and here we are walking on it.' He ordered the flagstone to be dug up immediately and removed from where it was. When they had prised it up and it stood on end, they found a second one underneath, marked with the same sign. They told Tiberius what had happened and they had the second flagstone lifted. Underneath they found a third one, and Tiberius made them that up, too. Beneath it, they found a vast hoard of treasure, amounting to more than a hundred thousand pounds of gold. This was taken out of the ground and, as his custom was, Tiberius was able to make even more generous contributions to the poor. Because of his humane charity, the Lord did not ever suffer Tiberius to be in want (pp. 283-84).

High-octane prosperity gospel among sacramental Catholics, taking the politics of Jesus seriously, refusing to water down the Sermon on the Mount -- the possible titles of this little snippet are endless. But I chose to highlight this tale's exact structural identity with a similar Buddhist story of reckless generosity, which soon leads to the problem -- the supply of money dries up -- and the supernatural solution.

Unfortunately, the historians of the East Roman Empire know nothing of this story. Somehow the rulers are always more Christian on the other side of the fence.

2007-08-13T18:29:00.001-07:00

Recently updated my side bar to reflect some of my changing blog reading habits. If your blog disappeared it is almost certainly because you haven't posted at all this summer. Shame on you ...

A Few Words in Defense of Bigness (and other comments on recent iMonk/BoarsHead content)

2007-08-09T09:50:00.000-07:00

At the Boar's Head Tavern John H recently described (a propos Hot Fuzz) the British class system as it pertains to supermarkets. Despite Jason Blair's description of an analogous heirarchy in Minnesota, like John H I am not sure anything similar exists in the US. And I think I know why: because in the US no supermarket chain has national reach. Maybe Target, but they don't always sell food. Walmart is close to national too, but again I don't think it plays a big part in the food market. (Sam's Club does, but it is interesting that the NE has Costco, which seems not to exist in the Midwest.) Moving from Massachusetts to B-ton, I had to learn a whole new set of supermarkets: goodbye Star Market or A&P; welcome Kroger's and Marsh. And except for Aldi's, WalMart, and Super Target (I'm assuming that's a different line of the same chain as "Target") heard of any of the chains listed by Jason. OK, my point: if you have a country which is very big, and where people move around a lot, but the chains are regional, there is too much churning of customers to build a very stable class hierarchy. Bigness (at least of the country) and mobility (at least of people) is coming in for a lot of knocks on the "traditional conservative" blogosphere these days, but it has some compensations . . .

And here is a very interesting post by Michael Spencer about the real grassroots visible unity among Christians in Appalachia. It's a lovely essay, informed by his discerning love for the people of the region in which he works. But I can't help but notice that almost all of the instances of visible unity which he highlights take place in the public sphere, not the church sphere. This isn't "altar and pulpit fellowship" -- this is strong ministries directed at public schools, hospitals, the drug abuse problem, along with the pervasive blessing by the church of family events: funerals and weddings. The base of it all is the assumption:

There is a general feeling in our community that most people are Christians, or if they are not, they will be when they face some of life’s realities. Conversions in our community are frequent, and almost always take the path of a person raised inside the faith returning to the faith of their family and church; the faith of grandparents and parents.

Now in areas with large non-Christian populations this feeling cannot be reproduced. But also it relies on a good deal of practical "Constantinianism" -- the identification of public institutions with the Christian community. You can see the logic here:

Because our community has a large public school that is the primary source of community pride and identity, local churches and Christians focus on ministry in the public schools. This means that organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes are generously supported by churches and the school administration. The lack of religious and cultural diversity in our community means that demonstrations of Christian faith are common in the public schools. Teachers have no fear of prosecution if they read the Bible or lead a class in prayer.

Local ministers have also used the “Ten Commandments” cases in a neighboring county to promote a strong, across-the-spectrum support for public display of the commandments. One day I was giving a test over the Ten Commandments in a high school Bible class, when I noticed, in the middle of the exam, that someone had hung a large, ornate copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall. I had no idea where it came from, but the students were grateful. (emphasis added).

Note that it is not just the relative lack of diversity, but also the identification of Christianity with the community's public institutions that makes this visible unity possible. I don't think this is an accident; I tend to feel that it is "Constantinianism" which is the real check on sectarianism; or to put it differently, it is paying attention to the needs of people defined by locality (a category of public life) which blunts the urge of any creedal body to define the needs of people by ever-more finely divided belief. The question is: how far do you want to go in either direction?

Father and Ruler: Twin Foundations of Human Life?

2007-08-04T18:34:00.000-07:00

There is no life without a father, no supports through life without a ruler. Yet for generations people say, "Loyal duty and filial piety are not equally perfectible." How can this possibly be true? Ruler and father provide the grand foundation for human ethics, loyalty and filial devotion constitute cardinal principles for vassals. How inconceivable that the two, rather than complements to be practiced together, might actually prove mutually harmful! The problem lies, quite simply, with whether the motivation is selfish or selflessly righteous: when acting selfishly, both virtues are diminished; when acting righteously, both virtues can be attained.

Should a son, if his father deploys armies against his ruler, follow his father or follow his ruler? I say, "It is enough that one's physical being honor its dwelling place, while one's ethical will abide by righteous principle." A person who physically dwells with the monarch should abide by the monarch; one who physically dwells with the father should abide by the father. The follower of a ruler must then decline his ruler's charge, indicating, "A son cannot injure his father, so I wish not to receive a command." He should protest to his father as well, "Can you not relinquish your army and revert to our ruler?" Then, if his ruler suffers defeat, the subject dies honorably for him; if his father falters, the son completes mourning duties for his father before resuming service to his monarch. The person who follows his father, on the other hand, must warn him, "As my ruler cannot be targeted for assault, can you not leave your army and revert to our ruler?" Then, if the ruler suffers defeat, he dies honorably for him; if his father fails, he submits to punishment and awaits the pardon of his ruler, resuming service after completing mourning for his father.

No person in ancient times understood filial devotion like Shun, none understood righteous principle like Confucius and Mencius -- men meticulous about ruler/subject, father/son relations. Had they tragically confronted such dilemmas, they would have acted only in this manner. With reference to Congjing and the Zhuangzong emperor, the former accepted death as the cost of abiding by his ruler -- an event to lament! (Ouyang Xiu, trans. Richard Davis, Historical Records of the Five Dynasties, p. 151).

This short essay encapsulates in brief form so many themes, I can only briefly touch on two of them here.

1) Are there real moral dilemmas? Is public virtue and private virtue the same thing? Here Ouyang Xiu states his emphatic belief that no, there are no real moral dilemmas and no there is only one virtue, which is appropriate for both public and private life. "Only after a man serves his parents with filial piety can he serve the ruler with filial devotion," he says elsewhere (p. 233). Can we dismiss this as merely the "Chinese" view? Can we say that not having ever heard the Machiavellian insight that private virtues can be public vices and vice versa, he was simply a dogmatic thinker put forth his ideas without any vivid experience of opposition. Obviously not since, the whole point of the essay is that many practical Chinese of his day were convinced that private and public morality did not coincide, that sometimes to be a good public official or general, one had to be a bad son (a rather extreme example of that is here).

As I've written before, Ouyang Xiu is typical of the Neo-Confucian in the intensity of his belief in the complete congruence of morality at all levels and his resulting emphasis on duty. (One of the most arresting examples of this is the life of Lian Xixian, from which a tidbit can be found here.) Sima Qian, on the other hand, is much more willing to admit the idea that public and private morality might not be totally congruent, or that what is right might be adjusted to some degree according to circumstances.

2) Is government something that appeared late in the history of humanity, an invention or formation of the bronze age, or is it something as fundamental as fatherhood? Ouyang Xiu expresses here the assumption that government is necessary for life and equally fundamental. Ibn Khaldun, the famous fourteenth century Arab historian thought the same:

Consequently social organization is necessary to the human species. Without it the existence of human beings would be incomplete. God's desire to settle the world with human beings and to leave them as His representatives on earth would not materialize. This is the meaning of civilization . . .

When mankind has achieved social organization, as we have stated, and when civilization in the world has thus become a fact, people need someone to exercise a restraining influence and keep them apart, for aggressiveness and injustice are in the animal nature of man. The weapons made for the defense of human beings against the aggressiveness of dumb animals do not suffice against the aggressiveness of man to man, because all of them possess those weapons. Thus something else is needed for defense against the aggressiveness of human beings toward each other. It could not come from outside [the human race], because all the other animals fall short of human perceptions and inspiration. The person who exercises a restraining influence, therefore, must be one of themselves. He must dominate them and have power and authority over them, so that no one of them will be able to attack another. This is the meaning of royal authority*.

It has thus become clear that royal authority is a natural quality of man which is absolutely necessary to mankind. The [Greek] philosophers mention that it also exists among certain dumb animals, such as the bees and the locusts . . . . However, outside of human beings, these things exist as the result of natural disposition and divine guidance, and not as the result of an ability to think or to administer (Ibn Khaldun, trans. Franz Rosenthal, The Muqaddimah, pp. 46-47).

It is one of the major changes in modern thought since the nineteenth century that very few would no assert that royal authority (=sovereignty) is a "natural quality of man which is absolutely necessary to mankind." Ibn Khaldun recognized, as Ouyang Xiu would as well, that there were places where sovereign authority was weak or even virtually absent, yet he did not think that such places were the remnants of mankind's original condition (the legendary "hunter-gatherers" that are our touchstone of natural humanity) but aberrant examples under unusual conditions. One can only speculate about the immense importance of this assumption, that government is some late appearance on the human stage, not part of essential human nature, to the nineteenth and twentieth century libertarian and insurrectionist theories of government.

Ironically, the notions of the eons of government-less "hunter-gatherer" existence defining human nature was first created by anthropologists, and yet the whole enterprise of such deductions about human society in the prehistoric period (for that is what they are -- deductions) has been declared to be an illusion by more than one prominent anthropologist. If that is the case then the viewpoint of Ouyang Xiu and Ibn Khaldun may be worth a new look.

*That is, sovereignty (which Ibn Khaldun knew only in the monarchic form).

"He can, but he can't want what he wants"

2007-07-31T08:15:00.000-07:00

I saw Lawrence of Arabia last night. Who knew that it was not just a great movie, and not just a brilliant exposition of the treacheries of politics, but also a profound meditation on the bondage of the will too?

Another Arab: Ghassem's time is come, Lawrence. It is written!
Lawrence: Nothing is written.

After Lawrence succeeds against all odds in rescuing Ghassem, his Arab comrade Ali acknowledges:

Ali: El Aurens. Truly for some men, nothing is written unless they write it.

But in the end El Aurens himself has to execute Ghassem with his own hand -- and finds he enjoys it. Later after a fool-hardy dare in the belief in his own destiny ends with him beaten and sodomized by a sadistic Turkish officer, he concedes his fleshliness. Rescued by his comrade Ali, he despairs:

Lawrence: Look, Ali, look. (He pinches the white, fair skin of his chest.) That's me. What color is it? (white, fair, the color that means he can't be an Arab, the color that attracted the loathsome attentions of the Turkish officer.) That's me, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Ali: A man can do whatever he wants, you said.

Lawrence: He can, but he can't want what he wants. (Pinching his chest, again) This is the stuff that decides what he wants. You may as well know. I would have told them anything. I would have told them who I am, I would have told them where you were. I tried to.

Of course, those reading the NIV, where sarx is translated as "sinful nature" not "flesh" will not get the point.

By the way, this is a wonderful expression of cintamani (or chindamani) governance (here and here:

Auda abu Tayi: I carry twenty-three great wounds, all got in battle. Seventy-five men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter, I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because I am a river to my people!

(From the almost complete, but occasionally incorrect script here. See also the more accurate but less extensive memorable quotes here).

What a Difference Three Years Makes

2007-07-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

Was it only three years ago that the LCMS synodical convention was a scene of high drama that had even laymen like me on the edge of our seats, wondering how the synod would deal with the great clash of confessionalism vs. generic American evangelicalism? Well, in religion as in politics, three years has been a long time. At least in my neck of the Lutheran woods, one would hardly know the convention even happened. If I hadn't run across this post of Dan's at Necessary Roughness I would have completely overlooked it.

And you know what? Maybe that's not a bad thing. Compared to the fireworks at the convention which resulted in a complete rout of the confessional party, Pastor Stuckwisch reports, there was no partisan struggle this time which resulted in a most beautiful disaster. Of course this could just be "piety" (scroll down to Pastor Beisel's comment)!

If you want the resulting facts, here's a few news releases (Dr. Kieschnick's reelection, approving a new chorepiscopus program, funding restored for a Hispanic ministry at St. Louis -- commentary here, closed communion endorsed -- but not required, evangelism made a top priority, not the top priority, lay deacons studied). Here and here are Pastor Weedon's comments on some of the events. Pastor Beisel's more gloomy take: here, here, and here. I'm sure there's much more out there, but it's late and I'm tired. Have a good one!

Something You Might Have Missed While Reading Harry Potter

2007-07-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

Mark Shea points to an Times article listing "impossible to answer" questions that British children ask their parents about life and God and everything.

And then he provides some really fine answers. No. 17 I find particularly well done. I might quibble a bit with some others, but this is another example (alongside this, for example) of how to answer simple questions people (in this case children) have about God.

By the way, read the comments on the Times article -- it might seem uncharitable to call many of the commenters "a bunch of angry, bitter freaks," but that does seem to accurately summarize the tone . . . Good thing from the sound of it most of them have no children to ask them those questions (yet).

A Somewhat Less Objectionable Form of Darwinism

2007-07-20T11:41:00.000-07:00

At skeptic.com, the biologist David Sloan Wilson has published a serious critique of Dawkins's treatment of religion. To understand where Wilson is coming from, note that skeptic.com is devoted to debunking all claims of the supernatural; a further clue is that Wilson's essay was later re-posted for discussion on Democratic Underground. Wilson is the author of Darwin's Cathedral, an effort to explain religion from the Darwinian, evolutionary viewpoint.

So what possible difference could he have with Dawkins? Quite a bit actually, but principally that he endeavors to explain, that is, not explain away religion. In doing so, he also offers a picture of Darwinism that is subtly, but importantly different from Dawkins's view, and which he claims has in fact superseded Dawkins-style "selfish gene" monism.

Wilson has many hard words for Dawkins' utter lack of interest in the actual body of data on religion. When Dawkins claims that religion is not good for the individual or group, Wilson says he's just ignoring the hard, scientific data -- both experimental and that collected by observation and study of religious life and history. Wilson himself sees "religious studies" as a wonderfully full and accurate body of data on religion which can be used to see in what way religion is adaptive for those who practice it. His look at Jainism is a nice, counter-intuitive example of how a religion which enjoins on its priest total celibacy, pure vegetarianism, homelessness, obsessive cleanliness, and even fasting to death can be beneficial for the group (the Jain congregation) as a whole.

Wilson's main theoretical beef with Dawkins is the later's rejection of group selection. In the Dawkins view, expounded in his Selfish Gene, selection works solely and purely at the individual level. The organism is the gene's way of preserving the gene, and societies are simply the individual's ways of preserving himself. To put it differently, all the genes we find in a population are there because they help the spread of individuals, regardless of their effect on social groups. The contrary viewpoint is the idea of group selection, that is, that some genes spread because they promote group survival. As Wilson argues, Dawkins was expressing the reaction against sloppy forms of group selectionism.

The relevance to this is that if religion is not good for the individual then it is good for nothing, because saying the "religion gene" spread because it was good for the group is group selection, which is not allowed. This plays into Dawkins's argument that religion is a selfish meme, a cultural idea that spreads despite being maladaptive for both individuals and groups.

Wilson claims however that today group selection is back in a much more rigorous form. Dawkins's dismissal of group selection is simply out of date. In other words, it is quite possible that the "r gene" spread because the "r gene" formed groups that are adaptive and persistent.

He also adds in the concept of "major transitions" -- such as that between prokaryote and eukaryote, unicellular and multi-cellular, single organism and colony. Whereas Dawkins sees these major transition as making no difference for the basic selfish gene idea, Wilson (following the argument of Lynn Margulis) argues that contemporary biology shows that such "major transitions" can in fact almost completely suppress individual selection. Your mitochondria have different DNA from your cell nucleus and have been argued to be once independent organisms now assimilated into your cells -- but for selection purposes you and your mitochondria are almost entirely one. Could it be that human groups are another such "major transition," such that culturally and genetically selection is (or in some circumstances can be) almost entirely group based?

Now, this is a pretty minimal argument. What it says is merely that a survey of major religions shows that they can all be plausibly argued to be good for their practitioners, usually as individuals, but always as groups. Truth is not at all at issue here.

But it makes slightly more plausible the idea that traditional wisdom (in the broad sense, the right management of life, including the traditional injunctions of morality, such as the Golden Rule) can be explained as the result of the operation of biological laws. It also opens (at least a bit more than Dawkins would admit) the possibility that humanistic learning (comparative religions, for example) may actually have something to say to biology. It also removes to a certain degree the objection I've long felt that the purely individual-selection, selfish gene paradigm of Darwinian explanation involves injecting poisonous sense of deceit in our view of human social relations (see more here and then here). With the concept of "major transitions" and a (revised) group selection, one can possibly say that something like real altruism does in fact exist, that when someone dies "for the group," this could be considered even in the most hard-headed Darwinian analysis, as an accurate description of what is happening.

Now all this does is perhaps put Darwinism about on the level of Neo-Confucianism or Aristotelian philosophy as doctrines that are compatible with some form of traditional wisdom, if not with Christianity. But given the importance of biology -- in which Darwinism is the fundamentally unifying concept -- for any understanding of the world, that's not nothing.

So don't get your hopes up -- if you are looking for a Darwinian who can reconcile Darwin and the supernatural -- let alone true Christian faith -- he's not your man. But if you are looking for a way in which modern biology can be seen as broadly compatible with humanistic wisdom, then his work, as a temporary way station, is worth a look.

Explaining 2008

2007-07-18T12:19:00.001-07:00

As is generally recognized the Republicans are going to get pounded in 2008 (here, here, here). The most important indicator is the strong turn to the Democrats, particularly among youth. Ronald Reagan's "children" almost made the country majority Republican, but George W. Bush's "children" are going to make it majority Democrat.

The question is though: what will it mean? The failure of Bush as a president? The failure of the Republicans as a party? The failure of conservatism as an ideology? The election won't give a decisive answer to this, since ideologies aren't on the ballot; parties and candidates are (and President Bush isn't). But let's take a look at Britain: there the failure of Tony Blair over Iraq is most definitely his personal failure, not one that will long affect the Labor party or center-left ideology in general.

This is the key: the Bush presidency failed in ways that exactly fit the stereotypical image of the Republican party. (And in the mass view, the Republican party=conservatism, just as the Democratic party=liberalism.) It's that congruence of his failure with the perceived failings of the party that makes his failure "stick" to the party. Each party/movement is susceptible to different such besetting sins. Had Bush been a Democrat, his polls would still be in the 20s, but the Democrats would still have a significant chance to win in 2008. Why? Because his failures aren't "Democratic" mistakes, they're "Republican" mistakes. That may be unfair, but it goes the other way around too. Had Jimmy Carter been a Republican, his mistakes would not have tainted the Republican brand the way they tainted the Democrat brand.

So what are the policies failings that taint the brands?

For the Republicans it's:
1) Starting failed wars
2) High unemployment
3) Slashing programs for deserving poor
4) Abusing executive power

When a Democrat does any of these things (think LBJ and Vietnam) they may become personally unpopular, but the brand doesn't suffer. When Bob Dole pointed out in 1996 -- in response to the usual "aren't you Republicans all war mongers" line -- that the big wars in his lifetime had all been started by Democrats, it was a mere debater's point that made him look like some kind of cynic -- even though it was completely true. Unfair? Well the Democrats have their own crosses to bear:

For the Democrats it's:
1) Allowing America to be humiliated by foreigners
2) High inflation
3) Allowing undeserving poor to live off the public
4) Crime waves

A Republican can have these failures (think the crime wave and the welfare state expansion under Nixon) and not suffer the way Carter did for them.

A major party realignment starts when a Democrat or a Republican president fails in a way characteristic of his party. It is confirmed when the succeeding president of the other party manages to go two terms without a serious failure characteristic of his party. Young voters bond to the President who seemed to reverse the sins besetting the other party, without falling into his own party's characteristic weaknesses. A young voter pulling the lever for Reagan in 1980 "knows" (even if it's not actually borne out by facts) that he's going to be tougher than Carter on Communism, crime, inflation, and welfare cheats. But he that party allegiance won't jell if Reagan gets America into a failing war, or causes massive unemployment, or throws grandma out in the snow.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats are much more aware of their weakenesses than the Republicans are. The DLC, for example, is well aware of these Democratic areas of weakness, and recommends a policy of national strength, fiscal conservatism, get tough on crime, and welfare reform.* Republican "moderates" are, unfortunately, obsessed with the idea that opposing abortion, gay rights, etc., looses the Republicans elections, which is just not the case. Electorally, social issues are either a winner for the conservative side or, more usually, make no difference one way or the other.

What the Republicans really need is an "RLC" devoted to preserving general Republican positions while cautioning the party on the need for: prudent foreign policy (translation: no Iraqs), respect for constitutional checks and balances (translation: no Dick Cheneys), and preserving the safety net (translation: no Hoovers). That way they would know their weakness. As for social conservatism: experience shows that it's really hard to enact a policy in Congress in policy that is radical enough to turn off American voters (the Terry Schiavo business came close, but absent Iraq, etc., would have been only a blip on the screen). It's not the John Ashcrofts "RLC-ers" need to be warning against, it's the "Vulcans" and Alberto Gonzalezes.

You can see the result in the fact that we have now had three Republicans who fell exactly into the trap they should have avoided, while the Democrats have had only one classic Democrat failure.

Hoover tainted the Republicans with unemployment and throwing grandma out in the snow, Nixon with executive abuse compounded after the fact with (strangely enough) failing to end quickly enough the Vietnam disaster his Democratic predecessor started, and Bush now with Iraq, compounded by executive arrogance. The only Democrat to taint his brand was Carter with foreign humiliation, continuing crime, and inflation.

So the big question after 2008 is whether President Clinton and the Democratic Congress will be able to avoid: foreign humiliation, inflation, welfare cheats, and crime waves. Despite the rumors of a leftward swing of the Democrats, I think the continuing consensus of the Clinton wing and the overall environment will keep the Democrats moderate -- but the first could be tougher. If she can't avoid it, then she could find the Democratic realignment vanishing as fast as did the post-Watergate one.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:
I) I could probably add to the Republican list of "besetting sins" a no. 5 "unfair hostility to immigrants and minorities" and to the Democratic list a no. 5 "unfair pandering to immigrants and minorities" with the proviso that the minorities in question change. Before 1945 it was pretty much Jews and Catholics, while after 1965 it became blacks and Latinos.

2) Were the 1968-1972 elections a realignment (one that got aborted by Watergate)? Certainly if you think of crime waves, and undeserving poor and pandering to minorities as besetting sins of the Democrats then they could be (and were) painted as guilty of them. But I think Vietnam scrambled the whole thing. Johnson was a Democrat fighting a senseless war which didn't fit the narrative. As a result in 1968 Humphrey was basically running as a centrist -- in between the radical demonstrators and Nixon (not to mention Wallace). And in 1972, McGovern wasn't the president, and I don't think realignments really happen unless the person(s)/party in the White House (and/or Congress) manifestly screws up. In any case as far as I know, 1968 and 1972 had very few coattails for the Republicans.

3) I should have given the Republican poo-bahs credit for having been very savvy about avoiding the Hoover charge, not actually eliminating any welfare programs until they have been manifestly proven to be really damaging (think welfare reform in 1995). As a result, no Republican president has fallen victim to the "they threw grandma out in the snow" charge since Hoover.

2007-07-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

Light posting for the next few weeks or so.

Let me just say, in relation to this post here and here, that my first Sunday back at my old Lutheran church here that people remembered me and asked how I had been with genuine warmth. In Sunday school we had a presentation by a two members (mother and daughter) about their up-coming AIDS hospice care-mission trip to Kenya, linked with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya (a church in communion with us) and funded in part by contributions from the church and members. There was also a brief announcement about the calling of a synodically trained teacher for the pre-school.

Then the pastor gave a very well prepared and thoughtful class in his ongoing series on miracles. His preaching that day too was challenging and engaging focusing on Galatians: "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Since my family hadn't got back yet, I was invited over to a fellow-parishioner's house that Sunday for dinner and had a great evening.

All Lutheran churches have problems in some areas, some Lutheran churches have problems in all areas. But not all Lutheran churches have problems in all areas.

The Main Reason the Immigration Bill Went Down to Defeat

2007-06-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

The main reason is that the facts presented here were never brought to the attention of the American people (HT: Jonah on the Corner).

According to the World Bank's 2007 Annual Development Indicators, in 1990 Mexico had a fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1, which is the Zero Population Growth rate. That is an enormous decline in the number of Mexican infants per female. The large number of women currently in their reproductive years means that there are still quite a few babies, but as this group ages, the number of infants will decline sharply. If this trend toward fewer children per female continues, there being no apparent reason for it to cease, the number of young people in the Mexican population will decline significantly just when the number of elderly is rising. As labor markets in Mexico tighten and wage rates rise, far fewer Mexican youngsters will be interested in coming to the United States. Since our baby boomers will be retiring at the same time, we could face a severe labor shortage.

It's not just Mexico -- birth rates have been dropping rapidly all over Latin America. "This means less pressure on the United States from illegal immigrants from the entire area, not just from Mexico" explains Robert Dunn, Jr.

Indeed the drop is world wide: "Fertility rates are declining across the globe, but the change is particular striking to our south. The world fertility rate fell from 3.1 to 2.6 over the 1990-2005 period. The population bomb is becoming a fire cracker."

I've commented on the similarly astoundingly rapid drop in Mongolia's birth rate (4.5 to 2.2 in ten years) before (curiously no one answered the question in that post).

I have often retailed the statistic that the average Mexican woman has 2.7 children -- which has never failed to astound people I know. What will I say now that it is 2.1 (compared to 2.0 in the US)? I guess it will lose its shock value because no will believe me any more!

One of the most peculiar facts is that it now seems that Mexican-Americans have a higher birth rate than Mexicans in Mexico! A study says (pdf alert) that "the findings demonstrate dramatic decreases in the fertility rates in Mexico at the same time that continuous increases have been documented in the fertility rates of native-born Mexican-Americans in the US at younger ages."

The Corner's resident secular skeptic, Andrew Stuttaford, points out that this world wide crash in birthrates punches holes in the usual explanations for Europe's low birth rates (including social democracy?) Of course you could always say the Third World is simply imitating the first -- the more I see these crazy changes, the more I begin to believe that birth rates are more and more about fashion and image. Is the big family presented as attractive in glossy magazines? Or is the small family presented as modern and with it?

Anyway, it is funny that these figures were never presented in the debate on immigration. Because it is my anecdotal experience that judging from how astounded people worried about immigration are that Mexico does not have a high birth rate any more, I'd say that 75-80% of the opposition to immigration is driven by anxiety over the perceived birth rates of Latinas. Had President Bush or Senators Reid or McCain simply gone on prime time TV and stated that Mexico's birth rate is now 2.1, then most people would have said, "Oh, well I guess it turns out there isn't any crisis," forgot the issue, and let the elites make the laws they want.