Theology for the Masses

Christians have historically had problems figuring out how they should relate to the political establishments in which they resided. As seen in an earlier post, Christians have been too eager to align themselves with Liberal Democracies, especially the United States.  In Resident Aliens, Hauerwas and Willimon critique this notion, saying that instead of being Christianity Lite™, Liberal Democracies need war to justify and solidify identity:

“States, particularly liberal democracies are dependent upon war for moral coherence.” [1]

Damn, I think that’s true.  I had previously viewed governments as sometimes morally good, often morally evil, but most of all, morally neutral. And here was an explanation that the best of these governments have a vested interest in unjust violence [2] . [3] Their warning from history is particularly poignant:

“if Caesar can get Christians [in 30’s Germany] to swallow the ‘Ultimate Solution’ and Christians here to embrace the bomb, there is no limit to what we will not do for the modern world.” [4]

A Church that was nuked in Nagasaki.  Where do our allegiances lie?  With the USA, or with God Almighty?

1. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony, 1st ed. (Abingdon Press, 1989), 35. [↩]
2. if violence is ever justified [↩]
3. Though, we should expect states to act selfishly. [↩]
4. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 27. [↩]

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.–James 3:13-18 (ESV)

Every week I attend a Bible study which is currently going through James. Last night we covered James 3 and a very striking observation came over me: this is a very tightly woven together epistle. James has a very compact work here. continue reading…

From The Rise of Christianity: [1] by R. Stark:

Free-rider problems are the Achilles’ heel of collective activities. […] “Truly rational actors will not join a group to pursue common ends when, without participating, they can reap the benefit of other people’s activity in obtaining them.  If every member of the relevant group can share the benefits… then the rational thing is to free ride… rather than to help attain the corporate interest.” [2]

Do you see this being the case?  The Canonical Church certainly faced these issues and attempted to put measures in place to limit freeloading.  We see it in the Pastorals, James, Peter, etc.  In our zeal to be an Acts 2 Church, do we ever miss out of the pragmatics of the Acts 2< church?

1. Subtitle: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religous Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. [↩]
2. Here Stark is quoting Hetchter (1987:27). [↩]

This post has actually taken a different route than I originally intended. [1] After examining the text, itself, I want to say that I think the Calvinist argument from this text has more legitimacy than I originally thought. However, I cannot affirm the implications of their arguments. I believe Calvinists and Arminians can both affirm the Calvinist reading to some degree, but I believe the implications of said reading is where we will part ways – necessarily.

The text is clear that God intended to ultimately bring about the salvation of Jacob’s house through the selling of Joseph into slavery. This is little different than God using the evil actions of Pilate to bring about the crucifixion of Jesus. In both cases God has a plan in mind and he uses the evil actions of men to work out that plan. The goal is always determined.

However, again, this does not necessarily entail that God determines the evil actions themselves. Notice in our passage, Genesis 50:20, that God has intentions that are his own (to bring about good) and the brothers have intentions all their own (to work evil). That God fully knows their actions and intends to use them to bring about his original plan is not problematic. God intended to have Joseph be the means by which Jacob’s household was saved. And God, possibly, even made Joseph ready to be the savior through suffering. But, the evil actions of Joseph’s brothers are their own and the text never connects God’s determination with their actions.

I truly think this distinction is subtle enough that almost everyone can get on board with it. For those who can’t…

Even if we fully affirm the suggestion that this passage points to God actually ordaining/determining the actions of the brothers, here are some consequences which I think are unavoidable and undesirable.

Necessary, Yet Undesirable, Implications of a Purely Calvinistic Reading of this Text:

First, humans are not to be held responsible for their immoral actions.

Why do I say this? Because in the context of this passage, Joseph’s brothers think Joseph is going to punish them for their evil deeds. But Joseph, in light of his understanding of God’s sovereignty and ultimate purposes of salvation, affirms that they will not be punished. They are not to be held responsible precisely because God was the determiner of their deeds. The responsibility of the human agents, then, is minimized. When God acts deterministically, in this passage, the human agents through whom he acts are not held liable. As Joseph says, “So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” (vs. 21) He will not hold them accountable.

Second, in light of the first point:

If the determinist perspective is true, when a child is molested or a genocide breaks out, not only can we not hold the violators accountable for their actions, but we also must remind the victims that it was God’s action that brought this about and therefore they should not be angry at the oppressors.

These two consequences, to me, are the logical end of using this passage as a starting point for how God universally works. I say, rather, that this passage is an exception which proves the rule and should not be taken as normative.

Determination and What is Normative:

Finally, even if I’m wrong here – and Lord knows I always have the potential for that – there’s a sense in which there is still no need for this text to be normative. That is, it is hermeneutically fallacious to take a single text and make it normative for the way God must always operate. In other words, it is wrong to take a specific statement (especially a contestable one like this!) and universalize it. Both Arminians and Open Theists affirm that God does, in fact, determine certain things (such as the death of Jesus on the cross which happened before the foundation of the world!). But that these things are noted in this way suggests to me that they are not normative. Rather, God’s determinative actions are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Contextually, this means that the extraordinary act of God in saving Jacob’s family meant that He took an extraordinary amount of action in this event. He is demonstrating His providential hand in redemptive history by ensuring that Jacob’s family be saved. Therefore, as Greg Boyd notes, “Under these extraordinary circumstances it should not surprise us to find God involved in extraordinary ways. This text should therefore not be taken as a proof text of how God usually, let alone always, operates.”

Proving Their Point: What Calvinists Need to Textually Demonstrate the Superiority of Their Answer:

In the end, however, I would agree with anyone who says that I did not prove Arminianism from this passage! I have no problem with such a critique. As I said, the Calvinist reading is possible and even likely (on a restricted, localized level). But I believe they are imparting a larger theological/philosophical reading onto this text to come to the conclusion they have. For my part, I think the “text says nothing nearly precise enough to support a particular theory of sovereignty and human freedom to the exclusion of all other competing accounts.” [2]

If Calvinists want to prove their position from this text, to the exclusion of others, they need to provide the following evidence:

They need to provide a text which says explicitly that God caused Joseph’s brothers to have feelings of jealousy (or at least motivated their hearts to have those feelings – i.e. similar to the claims they make about Pharaoh in Exodus).

They need to provide a text which connects the God-determined jealousy with their actions of selling Joseph into slavery.

Demonstrate more clearly the hermeneutical leap from this localized event to a universalized truth

Demonstrate clearly how universalizing this specific story’s truth won’t lead to a lack of accountability for evil actions perpetuated by humans. (I know these Calvinists believe humans are accountable, but I want to know how they get around the lack of accountability in this, their classical text.)

Conclusion:

I actually don’t find the Calvinist reading here all that exegetically wrong. I think their implications from their exegesis, however, are where their errors lie. Did God sovereignly act in the events of Joseph’s brothers? Yes! He intended to bring good out of them. However, this in no way entails 1. That God determined their actions or the evil of their actions, or 2. That, even if he did determine their evil actions, God’s actions here are normative and universal. These are inferences that the text simply does not support. To me, these conclusions come about because of a larger philo-theological framework guiding their interpretation. Indeed, if they took their inferences to the logical conclusion, they end up with no human responsibility – which is exactly what Arminians/Open Theists have been complaining about for years.

In the end, I agree with self-proclaimed Calvinist Walter Brueggemann concerning this text, “This phrase has been endlessly problematic in theological interpretation, as it has lent itself to all kinds of scholastic notions of a blueprint for determinism…[yet] the Old Testament includes no notion of a plan in such a specific and rigid sense.” [3]   In other words, it’s not necessarily that the Calvinist’s exegesis here is lacking, but more that they read too much into this text – whether it be through reading their notions of soft-determinism onto a text which simply can’t bare that weight OR through universalizing a very localized incident.

1. I want to thank Hank over at Think Wink for his helpful response to my original post. I hope here to find some common ground, though, of course, there will always be some disagreement. Hopefully it will become smaller and smaller, though, as we analyze the text. [↩]
2. Walls, Dongell, 150. [↩]
3. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament. 355. I say self-identified b/c Brueggemann has called himself a Calvinist, but I’m not so sure most Calvinists will identify with him. [↩]

I often hear a lot of talk about America and her Christianity, whether it be discussions on her roots or current mission to bring democracy to the world, in the circles I run.  I hear it both ways.  I get emails about Obama being the Antichrist and read blog posts on how Christians should disavow the government.  Well, with all of that in mind, I came across this explosive quote for your consumption and perhaps discussion.

We’re not a city on a hill. We’re temple prostitutes at the altars of materialism and neo-imperialism. – via Lingamish

Whaddya think?  Is that a fair assessment?  Regardless if you think it is or not (it is a bit polemical, but there is some warrant there), I suggest reading the whole thing, especially when it comes to his ideas of what do do now (listed here to generate convo)

1. First of all then, pray for kings and all who are in authority that we might lead quiet and peaceful lives. (I Tim 2:2)
2. Here’s how you handle forwarded emails – reply with “THIS MESSAGE IS STUPID AND UNTRUE. Get a life, people!!!”
3. Mock apocalyptic preachers
4. Let go of abortion as the litmus test for candidates
5. Build God’s kingdom through acts of mercy not political activism

I’m a huge fan of 1, 4, and 5.  It’s really hard for me to insult and mock the ideas of people that I know.  I’d rather just talk with them, rather than attack them.  (at least in the abstract)

Keith Ward, in chapter 6 of Is Religion Dangerous, deals with the issue of morality and the Bible.  He addresses the charge that religious morality is based on an unthinking acceptance of old religious laws.  As his example, he brings up one of the most notorious of religious injunctions – Deuteronomy 20:15-18.

“But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of the nations in the land you will enter. 16 In those towns that the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing. You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you.  This will prevent the people of the land from teaching you to imitate their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God.

Geno-what did you say?  Isn’t that the very piece of evidence that we use to indict the Nazi’s, their attempted genocide of the Jews?  If we are to be morally consistent, shouldn’t we reject this piece of the Old Testament and anything/anyone that relies on this passage/the book/the collection of books that uses it.  Any religion that accepts this as part of their canon (read: Jews and Christians) are guilty of blindly basing their morality on old and outdated religious laws.  There are three ways that religious adherents have approached this problem. 

Approach One : The Morally Primitive Imagining History

This approach looks at the historical record first.  They notice that the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites keep popping back up in the narrative and the archeological record.  As such, the ban was not actually implemented.  Secondarily, they note that the text itself was “written” [1] around 700BCE, but are describing events that are much, much older.  Taking these two points in tandem, they hypothesize that scribes and priests wrote into the narrative God commanding the slaughter of “present day” rival groups to delegitimize any territorial claims they might have.  This moral tradition (that it is ok to slaughter your opponents wholesale for the protection of your group) is morally primitive and is later corrected by the Prophets. [2]  

Pros:

• The Genocide did not happen historically
• God is not a mass murderer

Cons:

• The Text is a pack of lies
• The authors of our text are a bunch of evil liars

Approach Two: A Unique Situation

This next approach bites the bullet(s).  They say – our text says that God gave the command.  However, this is a unique situation and not universally applicable.  God only intended it for the Israelites in this particular situation, which was necessary for the perpetuation of the Israelites.  We see that it is unique because of all of the other moral injunctions in the Hebrew Bible contradict “the Ban.”  This allows us to maintain the integrity of the text while cutting off this law from the others that we can abstract moral principles from.  It was said and it happened [3] but it was only for one situation and one time.

Pros:

• Maintains the integrity of the text and its authors
• The Ban was a one-time affair and not repeatable nor abstractable.

Cons:

• God is evil and bipolar
• We have mass murderers in our religious tradition.

Option Two point Five: A developing God

Ward does not mention this, but it is possible that God is developing along with his creation.  In order for him to know how and what to be and act, he must have something to act and be contrasted against.  After all, how can I know what red is if I have never seen it?  Likewise, how can God know what wrong is unless he has done it?  This is a Hegelian view of God.  Under this view, God had not fully developed his morals yet.  The narrative reflects God’s moral at that point in time.  Later on his morals developed and he understood that all life had value and that it was wrong of him to order the genocides.

Pros:

• God was not evil – only immature and is now mature through his interaction with his creation
• Maintains the integrity of the text

Cons:

• God is a developing being and is not always right and moral

Approach Three: Morally Primitive People Acting on a Self-Correcting Partial Understanding of God

This third approach tries to address the weaknesses of the other two.  It suggests that we have a roughly accurate reporting of what these people think was happening.  That is to say, the ancient Israelites thought that God wanted them to purge all peoples who threatened their identity.  After all, surviving and maintaining your identity was an incredibly difficult thing to do in the ancient world – something we cannot fully grasp in this blessed age of comfort and inconvenience.  They had part of God figured out – that she wants total devotion, but they also had part of him wrong – that he has deemed all human lives of worth and the wholesale slaughter of peoples is wrong.  In time, they would discover more and more about God and come to understand this, but at this time in their development, they had not reached this understanding.   There is some perception of the divine will, but a limited one.  Under this interpretive model, the Bible contains humanity’s developing understanding of God.

Pros:

• God is not evil
• Maintains the integrity of the text and the developing moral understanding of its authors
• The Ban was based on a partial but flawed understanding of God

Cons:

• The Bible is something to be wrestled with, not a direct perfect view of God and its interaction with history (can’t take it at face value)

Out of these three [4] views that Ward presents, I am uncertain as to which I follow.  My background tells me that all live is Gods and he can do with it as he pleases.  Based off of that, option two seems the most viable.  However, I also maintain that God is morally consistent and always has been.  This forces me to at least consider option three.  If I am forced to choose, this is the option I am going with right now, even though I am uncomfortable with how this view forces me to hold the Bible.  As Ward notes on page 138, “Believers have no magical route to moral certainty, nothing that undercuts the hard process of moral analysis and reflection.”  But it is the same for nonbelievers.  They have to give an account of how life can have meaning in the face of nothingness – or at least fleetingness.  If my flame flickers and then is snuffed out – does it really matter what it burned while it was here?  I am not saying atheists cannot give such an account [5] – only noting that it too is a path forged through analysis and reflection and is not self-evident.

1. that is, the “final” version was edited together around this time – not that these traditions were invented at this time. the traditions behind the text are much, much older [↩]
2. see Ezekiel 18:20 [↩]
3. or at least was attempted [↩]
4. four, if you add 2.5, the one that I added [↩]
5. even though I freely admit that I ultimately reject their account [↩]

Father,

we are children who have been given much. You have blessed us with an abundance of all things: food to fill our stomachs, every kind of entertainment to distract and occupy our minds, and every opportunity to adorn our bodies with things

stuff

the trappings of our culture that we think make us beautiful.

Father,

you teach us that the day will come when we are stripped bare of everything we hold dear, everything that we tell ourselves defines who we are, all the things we tell ourselves make us beautiful. And on that day, all you will see are those things that truly define who we are, those things that truly matter because they are the things that matter to you. And you will determine if, in fact, we are truly beautiful.

Father,

may you find on that day children who care really and truly for our brothers and sisters, your beloved creatures crafted so lovingly in your own image. May you find that we were never guilty of stealing from them those things they need to express that image fully.

Teach us to strip ourselves of the finer things of our culture that we may clothe ourselves with the finer things of your kingdom culture. Give us eyes that see the beauty that your eye beholds, that we may learn how to become beautiful in your eyes.

To all the Christian Pacifists out there – How do you interpret Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 4?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.  Pay to all what is due them– taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (NRSV)

I read this and I see a justification for violence, an avenger (ἔκδικος) that uses the sword (μάχαιπαν), by the state as God’s agent of punishment on Earth.  I’ve only glanced around at this, but ἔκδικος, from ἐκδικία, the word for vengeance, is the word for and avenger or punisher.  It only shows up elsewhere in Paul’s writings as an avenger of wrongs in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 where Paul is warning against exploiting other Christians because the Lord is an avenger of wrongs.  Μάχαιπαν, the word for sword, shows up both literally, such as in Acts 16:27, and figuratively, such as in Ephesians 6:17.  Also, worthy of noting, is that Rome was a perpetrator of all kinds of evil, and yet, Paul is still giving this advice.  Oppressive governments, through their physical acts of violence, are being called agents of God’s justice in the world.  Furthermore, the act of resisting these governments will incur God’s judgement!  What are we to do with this?  Is this a case of the religion of Jesus being pitted against the religion of Paul? The closest parallel I can think of is Matthew 22:15-22 – the whole “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” thing – which seems to be in agreement with the above.  But then again how do we unify those teachings with the Sermon on the Mount?  Do we just not worry about the government and work solely through the Kingdom of God for justice in this world? (which is what I lead towards)

Additionally, as a historian, I see this section of Romans as Paul pleading for the Christians there and throughout time to not make themselves a target for Roman persecution thereby giving this fledging movement a chance at surviving.

What about you?  I am curious as to how other’s view this.  Is Paul giving in?  Is he being sneaky?  Should Christian pacifists be cool with governments, even oppressive ones, meting out punishments on God’s behalf in this world?  I am really interested in how some of our self-proclaimed Pacifists, such as Dave, Tom, JR, and Scott, deal with this.

Last week I linked to an article entitled “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” which was 30 pages long – much too long for most people to read.  Today the Codex has published a summary of the article which is about 90% shorter and still present’s the arguments contained therein with little commentary.  Check it out.

Read ::  Yahweh – A Moral Monster? Not According to Copan

Do you buy it? Let us know below!

Of course, I don’t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. As the Scriptures say:

“Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough.”

- Paul, writing to the assembly of Christians in Corinth, 2 Cor. 8:13-15

“And in His teaching He was saying: ‘Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.’ And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.’”

– Mark 12:38-44

The widow in this story is always held up as a model of faithful giving. Though she has almost nothing, she gives everything she has. In doing so, she give far more than all the rich whose monetary contributions were exponentially larger. And so we read Jesus’ statement about her as a commendation. But Dr. Rodney Reeves once asked me this profound question: did Jesus see her gift as admirable or tragic? Just the day before this, Jesus cleansed the Temple and proclaimed its destruction. He’s spent today in the Temple arguing with the religious leaders there. And now he’s criticizing the rich who oppress the poor, and even warns that they ‘devour widows’ houses’ while appearing religious (this of course despite the fact that God said true religion is caring for widows). Here is a woman who is a victim of a corrupt, oppressive religious system, and she’s so enmeshed in the hegemony of that system that she is giving everything she has to the very system that’s oppressing her. Indeed, this woman is tragic. We can applaud her act of giving, but we cannot applaud the object of that gift. We should weep that she’s sacrificing everything for a broken, corrupted system that Jesus has promised will fall.

So too, today. I hear at least once weekly – usually in prayers – that we should be thankful for our soldiers fighting in Iraq who “are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice” because we remember that “freedom isn’t free.” But isn’t it? Isn’t that the point of grace? That we don’t earn any of it? And isn’t it “for freedom that Christ set us free”? In fact, our nation has cultivated a culture of violence and death. And we support our culture of consumption and irresponsibility in large part through our military action around the globe. Now, I’m not going to deny that the American armed forces do a lot of great things. But this does not detract from the fact that they also enact terrible acts of violence in order to support the American way of life. But we know that this life is unbiblical. We are called to use what we need and give the rest away. We are called to serve others first and think of ourselves last. We are called to extol the image of God in all of our brothers and sisters, not to dehumanize them. We are called to care for the poor, to welcome the stranger, not legislate against them. And yet we do the very things we were commanded not to do. And we know that no kingdom is eternal save the Kingdom of God.

And our soldiers are as much victims of this corrupt system as any of us. But they’re so enmeshed in the hegemony of that system (as are we all, I think) that they are giving everything they have to the very system that’s oppressing them (and so many others around the globe). Indeed, they are tragic. We can applaud their act of giving, but we cannot applaud the object of that gift. We should week that they’re sacrificing everything for a broken, corrupted system that Jesus has promised will fall.

Our service men and women don’t need to fight for our freedom. S/he whom the son sets free is free indeed. One man died for our freedom. One man made (literally) the ultimate sacrifice. And he did it that no one else ever need die to purchase what is already paid for.

May we learn what true freedom is.

My church hosted a community-wide prayer meeting. I was asked to deliver the prayer for the least of these. Here’s what I prayed:

God, our Father, we thank you that you are also Adonai Jireh, our provider. We thank you that you have been so good to us, that portion of your people who live in America. We thank you for our seemingly limitless resources, for safety as we go about our daily lives, and for a government that lets us follow you as you command. We thank you for all of these blessings and many more, and we pause to acknowledge that you and you alone are worthy of our love and allegiance.

But we cannot think on our blessings without recalling also those times when we’ve not been so blessed. We remember Egypt. We remember when we came there as immigrants. We also remember when Egypt made us to work as slaves. We remember how your mighty hand led us out from that place of slavery, and how you took us into the wilderness, where we learned that every good and perfect gift comes from you, that you are our source of all things – of security, of shelter, of food and drink. We remember how you led us into our Promised Land, and how you continued to provide for us even there.

We remember these things now, Adonai Jireh, God our Provider, because we must confess that we have often forgotten them. And so as we recount the ways in which you have blessed us, let us remember those in our community and in our world who do not experience the blessings you’ve given us. Let us remember that many around the world still groan under slavery to the power of Sin and Death; we remember that we must teach them how they may be free. Let us remember the poor among us: the homeless, the drug addict, the drug dealer, those trapped in generational cycles of poverty. Remind us that they do not have to earn our compassion or our mercy, just as we did not – indeed could not – earn yours. Let us not give with a spirit of patronage and paternalism, but with a spirit of love, of identification and gratitude. For we believe you when you tell us that by sharing with them, we are sharing with you. Thank you for allowing us to bless you, even as you have blessed us.

Let us remember the strangers among us, too. We remember when we were strangers in Egypt, and we recognize that, as your children, we are all strangers in this world. We confess that we have not shown the hospitality you’ve commanded to those among us whom we perceive to be different. We’ve sought to legislate against the immigrant because he doesn’t look like us. We have mocked the immigrant because she doesn’t sound like us. We have ignored that today, more of your most precious creations, those created in your image are in slavery than at any time in history, and many of them are children. Teach us to love the stranger among us even as you loved us when we were strangers to you.

We thank you for those among us who are involved in caring for the needy in our midst. We ask that you bless Morningstar Counseling, who provides affordable mental health for our community. We remember the Shepherd’s Basket and Central Missouri Food Bank, who share such basic necessities with the families of our community. Bless Open Arms, who ministers to women who are struggling to birth and raise the next generation. Bless Loaves & Fishes and the St. Francis House, who work to redeem the homeless our city ignores. Bless the Intersection and Urban Empowerment, who are committed to reach that part of town many of us fear and most of us pretend doesn’t exist. Teach all of us how to work alongside our brothers and sisters in these ministries. Give us eyes to see how we can get involved with them, and to see how we can love those our society has deemed unlovable.

Finally, teach us to be generous. We live in a world where over 2 billion persons live on less than $1 per day. Teach us to see that solutions the problems of this world are not beyond your people’s reach. Teach us to recycle. Teach us to live simply. Teach us to open our eyes to the poor around us. Teach us to use less and to give more. Teach us to be free from our lifestyle of consumption. We know that you are the God who suffers with the poor. We ask that you would teach your body to suffer with them as well. You have blessed us richly, so that we may be a blessing to the world. We ask that you would consume us, that your heart for our world and for your beloved creations would become our heart as well. Give us eyes to see your work, that we might join you.

Amen.

Meredith and I, along with some friends, will be reading through Ronald J. Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. I just finished reading the prologue and wanted to give my initial thoughts.

My skepticism
I get the need. I do, I really do. My problem is the solution, or lack thereof. I see certain programs that are intended to help these people who desperately need it which fail miserably and actually contribute to worsening the problem. Thus I begin the book with a weary and skeptical optimism. I have been wanting a viable solution, not just money or grain dumping. Something that lifts real people out of real problems. I have come to the conclusion that mere aid is not the way to go forward because it robs from the people the ability to create their own economy and wealth, if the aid even gets to the people in need. Additionally, what I don’t want to do is bring the God of materialism along with the God of Christianity to the Other.

If it was only an issue of money – the problems would be solved. I hear the stat of 8 billion needed to provide the whole world with clean water and how Americans spend that amount on ice cream, yogurt, or blue jeans each year. I am highly suspicious that money is all that it would take. Think about the political instability in the regions that need the clean water. I think you will find that in order to create sufficient infrastructures in a country you also need to build sufficient political and societal structures. Thus, the “if only we gave the money we spend on X to Y, then the problem would be solved” line of thinking seems to be insufficient by itself.

Getting into the ins and outs of providing clean water is not the point of this post, nor it is something that I am sufficiently knowledgeable to talk about in depth. The above paragraph is merely a container of my intuitions on the subject and I recognize that may have my facts wrong.

What I do wanna highlight are some of my thoughts going into this book. I will absolutely support something that I think will work, but I won’t just do more of the same saying “Something is better than nothing” the whole while.

Garnering my Interest

With that said, let me sketch out what Sider has to say in the prologue. He begins saying that free market capitalism lifts people out of poverty and that historically γέ Communism has failed miserably. He says,

“Communism’s state ownership and central planning have proved not to work; they are inefficient and totalitarian. Market economies, on the other hand, have produced enormous wealth. [insert stats on Asia's accumulation of wealth since adopting market economies] … When the choice is between communism or democratic capitalism, I support democratic government and market economies. That does not mean, however, that the Bible prescribes either democracy or markets. Nor does it mean ignoring the problems and injustices of today’s market-oriented economies.”

He had me after that series of statements. I had anticipated an argument centered around a return to a sort of apostolic communism ala the book of Acts. I was weary of such an approach because I just don’t see humans administering that effectively on a large scale. He hints that this willingness to adopt practices rooted in market economies is a departure from earlier editions of the book. I have not seen those, so I can’t comment on that. From the on set, Sider seems be open minded to using practices that work in real life, in the here and now. That is a sticking point for me.

How “Biblical” – and is that a bad thing?

Throughout the rest of the prologue, Sider outlines what he plans on doing in the book. The first goal in part one is get the read to recognize that here is a problem that needs to be addressed, namely that there is a large segment of the human population that do not have the means to provide for themselves and their families and there is another segment of the population, Christians, whose 16 trillion combined annual income could go towards meeting those needs. In part 2 Sider plans to argue that God measures societies by how they care for the poorest among them so that his readers may be convicted and moved into action.

He gives a thought-provoking thesis on biblical economic equality:

God wants every person and family to have an [an] equality of economic opportunity, at least to the point of having access to the resources necessary (land, money, education), so that by working responsibly, they can earn a decent living and participate as dignified members of their community.

I am interested in seeing how he builds that up with biblical support. As of right now, it smacks of modern liberal (historical liberal) economic/political thought more than “biblical” thought. I could be wrong, and I hope I am – just my first impressions. I like the idea, that is for sure.

In part three Sider wants to outline the causes for poverty. He says that “some people are poor because of misguided personal choices and others because of unfair systems.” That is a position that can get the left and the right here at home in a room talking! I am pretty much down with what he is saying there, so left me move on to the most interesting section – the fix.

Giving a way ahead

In part four, Sider seems like he will be advocating micro-loans. Micro-loans are small, usually under $500 dollars, loans that are made to poor families in various parts of the world that enable them to improve their standard of living. This is intriguing. Do they really work? Sider certainly thinks they do, giving and example of a family in India that was able to start a small business because of a micro-loan. Sider says that these micro-loans can “improve a family of five’s standard of living by about 50% within one year.”

More importantly, if this idea works, it may be a way to by-pass the problems I have with current aid programs. It bypasses corrupt leaders, empowers the people to improve their own lives, and diminishes the idea that “the white man should go and save the brown man (who obviously cannot save himself)” both ideologically and structurally.

Despite these promises, I still have questions beyond the practicality of micro-loans. Are there other ways we can or should help? Should we as a political entity pressure our government to pressure other governments into creating fair economic and political structures (there is a question I would like to see answered by someone!!!)? Then there are the details on the micro-loans. He mentions usury being charged on these loans. Is that something we affluent Christians should be charging, or is it more an issue of practicality here. How can we have an organization run if it makes no money to pay for creating and sustaining the structure which provides the service?

I look forward to reading this book and hearing the reactions and reflections from my peers on the subject. If anyone that reads this site wants to read with us, I can give you our reading schedule and shelfit page where we will be posting our reactions.

There is some disagreement over exactly what kind of Pharisee the apostle Paul was before he converted to the Jesus movement on the Damascus road. One thing we do know from the book of Acts is that Paul was a righteously violent one. We read in the early chapters of Acts that Paul was probably quite influential in the stoning of the early Christian martyr Stephen, and that he was on his way to kill more Christians when he met the risen Christ on the Damascus road.

Whatever brand of Judaism he espoused, it was one that saw the early Christian movement as a heretical sect of Judaism – a sect that needed to be violently put down. Violence was considered a justifiable action. Violence, moreover, was the manner in which the true community of Yahweh remained pure. His justification of violence was not merely out of hatred, but more out of righteous anger. His actions were, indeed, justified by the Torah. He was, after all, going to kill those people who said they had experienced Yahweh in the flesh. If there were ever a justifiable reason for violence it would be the protection of the community of Yahweh.

This violent streak changes after Paul’s conversion. While seeing himself in line with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Paul does not act in the manner of Elijah in his interaction with the prophets of Baal. Paul does not see pagan peoples as undeserving of life – even those ones who were oppressive to him and his Christ. Rather, Paul takes the position that through his suffering at their hands, he will “fill up that which is lacking in Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24). That is, he will be a living example of Christ’s unjust suffering at the hands of violent, sinful people. He fully expects this witness (same Gk. word as martyr) to be a living narrative of the death of Christ, and His love for unbelievers.

What I find particularly interesting here is that Paul’s position on violence has a dramatic shift. Before his conversion he sees violence as a justifiable action – especially against heretics. In fact, his Hebrew Bible justifies violent actions against non-Jews as well*. But when Paul converts we find no desire or justification for aggression and violence. As I noted before, even in relationship to Rome Paul command submission as a means of overcoming “evil with good.”

This dramatic change in Paul, combined with other arguments, demonstrates for me that the violence justified and even commanded by God in the Hebrew Bible is not an option for the Christian. Even the Canaanite genocides were performed in order to take the Promised Land from the pagans. Now, for Paul and Christians in general, there is no Promised Land. The kingdom of God transcends a Promised Land.** A people who have no/limited nationalistic identity, a people whose new law of love has surpassed the divinely instructed violence, and a people whose chief example (besides Christ) Paul forsakes violence have no justification for violence.

Paul’s letters are filled with his comments that say something like, “formerly you were {insert something bad}, but now you are {insert something related to being saved by Christ}.” I think his life expemplifies this: Formerly: Righteous Zealot. Currently: Apostle of Peace.

*Yes, I am aware the Torah also provided means of accepting non-Jews. However, I am primarily responding here to the genocides of Joshua.

**Dispensationalists have got it backward.

I heard an interesting quote the other day that I found interesting. I think I’ll present it without any context or commentary and see what sort of comments/responses in evokes. I have my own thoughts, but I think this quote could provoke very interesting (and hopefully fruitful) discussion. It’s short, so here it goes:

I’d rather do violence to a text than violence to a person.

Discuss.