Monthly Archives: August 2012

A pragmatic answer to the pirate’s accusation

Leave a reply

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.“

via The biggest pirate of all.

Thus wrote Augustine of Hippo in his City of God.

What is the difference between a pirate and an emperor? The emperor can offer safe passage over the sea. An emperor can get income from both the originating and the destination port cities and so be motivated to not discourage ocean trade. The pirate can only take as much as he can get at the moment. He has no long term basis for income beyond what he is able to hunt down.

Is it “worth it”? I have no idea how anyone can calculate that. God has allowed empires to arise, and not always (or exclusively) as punishments on the people under them.

We might think about modern republican forms of government where office holders only possess a position of power temporarily and have no authority to dictate their successor. Are such people, only able to benefit in the short term from their decisions, going to behave more like an emperor or king who hope to pass on a thriving inheritance to an heir, or like a pirate getting what he can when he can?

In World War I, the American government worked to destroy Christian empires and dethrone royal dynasties. One might ask if we have essentially criminalized family businesses and replace them with publicly traded companies as the only allowable form of corporation.

The results may not be sustainable.

American Empire: The problem is not simply the Bible

Leave a reply

Eventually, anyone who reads the Bible, will realize that “Empire” is not a word that always describes something evil.

Nevertheless, American Christians find something unsavory about the idea of their government functioning as an empire. The debate is usually over the question of fact: an empire is considered evil and what is denied is that America is one.

I, for one, think that the Bible shows us empires that bring progress in human history. But the problem that lurks in the background, never to be explicitly addressed, is the issue of legality. American Christians typically see government as an entity that depends on legality, rather than an area of anarchy. They hear how Constantine (or Solomon?) had to kill a bunch of relatives and think that cannot possibly be Christian.

But the legal framework in the United States, whether best or not, simply does not allow for an empire. And the move toward it has been through actions on the part of government that warp the division of powers beyond recognition. The President is both war initiator and legislator.

So in my judgment, the antipathy to empire is not Biblically naive, even if the explanations for it are. It derives mainly from the Christian instinct to conserve the law what order is already present in society.

Empire may promise power and order abroad, but even if it could possibly deliver on such promises, it can only mean revolutionary regime change at home. And that is all it has meant at home.

Gore Vidal’s ascription of “homosexual” to the “primitive religion” of Christianity

Leave a reply

Just caught some re-broadcast of a 1988 interview of Gore Vidal, a man whose work I don’t know too well, but whom I am inclined to admire. He certainly made his path to hell but he stood out in the steps he took to get there.

Vidal’s interviewed him for his early book (1948, I think), The City and the Pillar, a heroic book about “gays.” Vidal immediately interrupted and said it wasn’t about gays. It was about two normal young men who had an affair. One went on to live a successful “heterosexual” life, and another didn’t.

Vidal went on to compare the very idea of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” as kinds of persons as a fiction. The words are adjectives, he insisted, that describe kinds of sexual actions. Not persons. He spoke of saying one is one or the other as akin to saying one likes the taste of potatoes and another prefers some other food.

On the sexual preference as food preference analogy, I thought Vidal raised a bunch of obvious questions. For example: is Vidal asserting that marital love has nothing to do with sexual exclusiveness. Is he asserting that marriage and family are ridiculous superstitions? It seems to me that he implied that only primitive religious believers could get jealous of an adulterous spouse. I not only disagree with that, I don’t see how Vidal could claim that we should all find it immediately obvious. Yet it seemed to follow naturally from what he said. (I didn’t get to hear all of the interview, so maybe he addressed the issue.)

With that caveat, I was surprised how much I found myself agreeing with Vidal’s basic argument and disagreeing that the error he was combating stemmed from “primitive religion.” On the contrary, I think the idea of a “gay” or “homosexual” person is a sophisticated rationalization unknown in the ancient world.

I don’t know what connection Vidal would allow between Christianity/ies and the Bible, but certainly the Bible, if anything, is more primitive than the forms of the Christian religion that he opposes. And it contains the monotheism that he hates. But the Bible knows nothing of homosexual persons. It condemns sexual acts 1. that violate marriages, 2. that are same-sex, 3. that cross species, and less severely 4. that are outside of marriage.

The only time one finds something approaching types of sexually perverse persons, is in Paul’s list of types of sinners in First Corinthians 6.9 which speaks of two kinds: penetrators and receptors. There is nothing modern about this list. It includes thieves and swindlers–occupations no one will consider an orientation or addiction. Drunkards also makes the list, so perhaps someone can make a case that the sexual types belong in that more slavish category, but nothing in the text demands it.

This is, in fact, the only category that exists in any real way across the globe outside the modern world. I read a few years ago about an Algerian male applying for immigration as a refugee from persecution to Canada (if I remember it right). When one read his testimony it was obviously a completely different conception of sexual “orientation.” As a known receptive partner, he was fair game for rape from all the surrounding males who considered themselves completely normal men.

We see the same thing happening in our prisons (and is allowed and even boasted in as a deterrent for “white collar” criminals by out authorities–May God smash the system).

The idea of a generic same-sex orientation as a kind of person is a modern invention. It is not primitive at all but a sophistication. And I agree with Vidal that it is mainly a delusion.

What is victory in Jesus for?

Leave a reply

Paul tells us to be joyful and thank the Lord in everything.

One possible inference from this is that our lives are supposed to be perpetually exciting and always wonderful.

Just to state the obvious; this is not true.

To be more specific, God restores us and works through us as we faithfully continue in our labors.

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 ESV).

This passage on work reminds us of what the Apostle has already written in this letter:

To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power (1.11)

And,

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word (2:13-17).

So the very tradition to which we must hold, and for which Paul prays that we may be established in every good work, is also a tradition that tells us to reject idleness and embrace work.

Our tendency to separate “good works” from “working for a living” is not helpful in most cases. Working for a living is one aspect of our good work in the Lord.

And it thus requires Gospel encouragement, which the Lord supplies in his word. For example:

When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:54-58 ESV).

The point that may need emphasis, is that God does not redeem us from ordinary life to escape into a realm of supernatural power. He redeems us to be the powerful agents of change he created us to be in our ordinary work.

And God promises to give us rest.

The last letter of “The Old Testament”

Leave a reply

We read the Gospels as “New Testament” even though they are about a time when the Gentiles and the Jews were two separate peoples (even if both were believers), the Temple is still central, the dietary and cleanliness laws are still enforced, and animal sacrifice is still practiced. What makes them “New Testament” is that they are written after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Even though they record the old world, they are written in the new world.

But I suspect there is one letter in “The New Testament” that was written in the old world by someone who did not completely know how the new world was about to be brought to birth.

In my opinion, James was written before Jesus died. This has nothing to do with any alleged problems with what James writes about justification and good deeds. (The fact he knows nothing about a Jew-Gentile issue in relation to justification is more relevant to my case). The smoking gun is this:

Name any other “New Testament” epistle that encourages believers to endure through suffering without mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus as a past event that should give them encouragement and hope.

Beyond that, lets remember that the Gospels give us precious little information about what went on during Jesus three-year ministry. We know from the synoptics that Jesus sent out “missions” (a group of twelve and a group of seventy sent out in pairs) to preach throughout Israel. We lean in John’s Gospels that Jesus disciples baptized, that they had to flee from the Pharisaic persecution because they were baptizing, and that the religious leaders excommunicated those loyal to Jesus. The Gospels also show us groups in households where Jesus could go to teach and receive hospitality (such as the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha).

Wouldn’t people loyal to Jesus in different areas, who had received baptism from his representatives, meet regularly for prayer, Bible study, and mutual encouragement? Wouldn’t they invite fellow Jews to join them in the hopes of persuading them?

And could not those who had been cast out of the synagogue view themselves as “diaspora” even if they were geographically still in Israel?

I have toyed with this idea before. Recently, I listened to Jeff Meyers’ lectures on James where he argues that the author is James the son of Zebedee and for an early date. I found the lectures quite good (as well as personally convicting on some issues). But I just think the early date is earlier than he thinks. See also this.