Paul's Core Message (1:27-2:30)
1:27 Only conduct your lives worthily of the gospel of the Christ so that, whether I come and see you or you hear things about me because I am absent, you are standing in one spirit, in one soul as you contend for faith in the gospel,
With this verse, Paul seems to begin a new train of thought. He has been sharing thoughts on his current situation--his imprisonment and likely outcome in particular. But now he shifts to what would seem to be his central charge to the Philippians. His main admonition to them, it would seem, is that they need to be unified, to think of each other rather than each focusing on his or her own agenda.
The way this new section begins is striking because Paul does not begin it with some transitional word like "therefore." He begins simply with the word "only," which implies that he is qualifying what he has just said. What he has just said is the positive boasting in the outcome of Paul's trial and his arrival in Philippi alive. Paul has been upbeat, hopeful, and has looked forward to a time of celebration.
With his "only," he begins a charge, a more serious note of instruction and gentle warning about things he has no doubt heard from Epaphroditus. The Philippians have sent Epaphroditus to Paul with material support while he is in prison awaiting trial. And Paul has almost certainly heard news of their conflicts from him as well.
They will all celebrate when Paul arrives, no doubt, and glorify God. But whether Paul comes or even if it turns out that he cannot, they must walk worthily in relation to the gospel about the Messiah. Messiah Jesus is the king of the cosmos. He is the Lord, the master. This is the heart of the good news, that our God reigns through Jesus, the Christ. Being the subject of a king is not a light matter. It demands conduct worthy of the king.
The word that Paul uses for "live your life" is quite unique for Paul's exhortations, it is a word related to a political body, like a nation. The idea of living worthy of your king is thus not so far removed from the connotations Paul is conveying. When one considers both that Paul is a prisoner of another state, Rome, and that he is writing to individuals who live in a Roman colony where Latin is the official language, Paul's statement takes on politically subversive tones. He implies that the citizenship of himself and the Philippians is not with Rome, but with the kingdom of the Christ.
What worthy living does Paul have in mind? He has in mind the unity of the local assembly. Perhaps the disunity of the Christians of those where he is at is fresh on his mind. He has just described a mixed context where some wish him well and others wish him ill. But even more to the point, he will mention two women who worked with him at Philippi who are at odds with each other in some way. Paul's central charge to the church at Philippi is to be unified.
1:28 ... at the same time not being frightened by any of those who oppose [you], which is a sign of destruction for them, but [an indication] of salvation for you--and this [indication] from God.
If Paul faith in Jesus as Christ is politcally subversive, then it is natural that believers will encounter difficulty by the earthly powers that be. It does not seem too likely that the believers at Philippi experienced much opposition from Jewish opponents. Indeed, some have suggested--although it is far from certain--that Jews at Philippi met outside the city at the river because they did not have ten men to form a synagogue. The difficulty with suggestions like these are that we do not know whether such later rules of synagogue formation were operative at the time of Christ.
Other kinds of opposition might come from family or those who found the "atheist" ways of Jews and Christians either ridiculous or, worse, dangerous to society. Roman society had no problem with Jews believing in their God. They only considered it perverse that they did not worship all the other gods, thus often dubbing them "atheists." You simply did not want gods of any kind angry at you, and failure to acknowledge gods thus was a potential liability to a society--the gods might get angry at you.
But unlike those who might think obedience to God only brings prosperity, Paul saw opposition as a sign of the validity of one's faith, an indication that you will be saved when Christ comes to judge the world. If God will overthrow the powers of this age, then opposition by the powers of this age shows you are on His side.
1:29 For you have been graced on behalf of Christ not only to have faith on him but also to suffer for him,
Again, many are not prone to think of suffering as a gift from God. But Paul here indicates that suffering is a great privilege for those who have faith in Christ. It is an honor to suffer for the king. In fact, the opportunity to place faith in Christ is also a great honor, a gift from God.
We probably should not read some highly developed theology into such statements. Paul is not explaining here the relationship between election and faith. He is not making some comment in relation to total depravity. He is simply stating in very general terms that it is a great honor to serve the God who is all in all, and His appointed king of the cosmos, Jesus.
1:30 ... as you have the same struggle of the sort you saw in me and that you now hear is in me.
According to Acts, Paul was imprisoned when he first stayed at Philippi. This imprisonment resulted from conflicts between Paul and the owners of a slave prophetess. Assuming this background, the Philippians had seen Paul struggle with opposition that resulted from his proclamation of the gospel, both from the Romans and from the polytheistic environment of the ancient city.
So particularly if Paul writes from Ephesus, he faces similar opposition from Romans and local merchants of items relating to other gods. If at Rome, he clearly faces difficulties with the Romans. What we can possibly infer from this verse is that the Philippians themselves are experiencing some difficulty in relation to the Roman administration of Philippi or, perhaps less severely, from local individuals.
2:1-2 Therefore, if some encouragement [is] in Christ, if some comfort of love, if some fellowship of spirit, if some bowels and mercies, make my joy full by thinking the same thing [and] having the same love, being like-souls,
So the Philippians are to live worthily of their king in relation to outside pressures and forces. Paul continues here with the next aspect of worthy living, namely, how they are to behave toward one another internally. The word "therefore" suggests that the like-mindedness he is about to encourage relates directly to outside pressures. As they face opposition, they need to have a united face.
The core part of this sentence is Paul's statement to "make my joy full." It seems more likely than not, therefore, that the conditions he mentions have, in the first place, to do with fellowship with him. If there is some encouragment for me in Christ, then you will become unified. If there is some comfort of your love for me, then you will become like-minded. If you fellowship with me in spirit and have "bowels" directed toward me, you will have the same love.
But of course, he clearly wants them to encourage each other, comfort each other in love, show "bowels" of longing toward each other and have a common fellowship in spirit as well. Perhaps then it is not too important to try to determine which party gets the love first in Paul's mind.
But unity with one another is the central message of Philippians, with rejoicing in suffering coming in at a close second. He urges the Philippians to "think the same thing" and be of "like souls." This is a commonality of purpose and loyalty to Christ.
2:3-4 ... thinking about the common interest, not [about things] because of selfish ambition or arrogance, but with humility taking others into consideration before yourselves, each person not only looking out for their own interests but also each for those of others.
Paul now expresses more specifically what it means to think as one and be commonly "souled." It is to put the interests of others above your own. Selfish ambition puts yourself as an individual above your brothers and sisters in Christ. Arrogance thinks that you are more important to God than others. Paul's admonition is basically that they should love one another and look out for the interests of each other.
2:5 Think this way, which was also in Christ Jesus, who...
Some have suggested that the verses that follow are only Paul going off on a tangent to praise Christ. However, such scholars generally suggest this idea because their theology does not have much room for the "imitation of Christ" as a part of Christian thinking.
But the attitude of Christ in the poetry that follows parallels Paul's instructions to the Philippians too closely to sever the connection. Paul wants the Philippians to have the same servant attitude toward one another that Christ demonstrated.
What follows is a poem about Christ. Many if not most scholars believe that this material existed before Paul wrote Philippians. First, it has a unique poetic structure, set off by the relative pronoun "who." Secondly, it includes vocabulary that is unusual in the other writings of Paul we have. Thirdly, comments appear occasionally that seem to interrupt the poetic structure, no matter how it is reconstructed. These interruptions are best explained if Paul is expanding on a poetic structure that existed before he quoted them.
If we conclude that this material existed before Paul wrote Philippians, other questions come to mind. Did Paul himself write it earlier? If not, who wrote it? Does it come from Christians even before Paul believed in Jesus? What kind of a poem is it? Is it a hymn? Did early Christians sing it?
We simply do not have enough evidence to answer all these questions for certain, although we will suggest some possibilities as we move through this "poem."
2:6-7a ... although he existed in the form of God,
he did not consider equality with God plunder,
but he emptied himself,
having taken the form of a servant,
More debate centers on the first line of the poem than over all the rest put together. For example, should we take the line to read "although he was in the form of God" or "because he was in the form of God? Both are possible interpretations.
Throughout the centuries, it was traditional to understand the first two lines to mean something like, "because he was in the form of God, he didn't have to steal equality with God." In other words, Jesus didn't have to try to become equal to God; he was God. This interpretation has sometimes been called the "not a thing he siezed" interpretation (or in Latin, a res rapta), because equality with God was something Jesus already had.
However, "emptying himself" makes more sense if it is a significant contrast with "not plundering." By translating the first line with the sense of "although he was in the form of God, he didn't plunder," we have a better contrast with "but, by contrast, he emptied himself." "Emptying himself" seems to contrast with the first two lines more significantly than it would in the traditional interpretation, which basically ends up saying, "Jesus was equal to God, but he emptied himself."
Even if we translate the first line with "although," there is still more than one possible way to take what the poem is saying. The first we might call the "not a thing to sieze" interpretation (or in Latin, a res rapienda). In this interpretation, Jesus was in the form of God, but was not equal to God. Jesus decides not to try to sieze equality with God but instead even empties himself of the form of God.
Those who interpret the poem this way usually take the phrase "form of God" to mean the image of God, like Adam had. Although Jesus was like Adam, in the image of God, he did not grasp at being equal with God like Adam did. Instead, he emptied himself.
We might raise a couple of significant questions about this line of interpretation. For example, it is not clear that "form of God" is exactly the same thing as "image of God." Form and image are synonyms, but if the poem was thinking Adam, why didn't it simply use the word for image? Secondly, it is hard to see where "form of God" points to something different from "equality with God."
Most scholars currently understand the train of thought to be that, although Jesus pre-existed in some divine form (whatever that might mean for Paul), he did not exploit this equality with God. Rather, he emptied himself and became human in form. This interpretation assumes Christ's pre-existence. It would not, of course, assume that Paul had some developed sense of the Trinity. Most see the "form of God" in some relation to the glory or Shekinah of God, God in what visible form we might speak of.
Jesus does not take advantage or exploit this equality with God. Instead he empties himself and takes the form of a servant. Some suggest that the servant motif echoes Isaiah 53, where the suffering servant suffers for the people of God.
However, in our opinion, the direct contrast of "form of God" is with "form of a servant" in the next verse. Although it is difficult to identify a consistent poetic structure throughout this poem, the material through verse 8 is fairly consistent if we think of two stanzas of four lines each. "Form of a servant" thus helps us hone in on what exactly "form of God" has in mind. And it seems fairly clear from the contrast that it is not visible form but status that is contrasted.
Although Jesus had the status of God and was Son of God, he did not exploit or take advantage of this authority--of being "equal to God." Instead, he emptied himself of this status, and took the form of a servant rather than a king. Although this interpretation is a minority position, it fits the parallelism of the first four lines better than any of the other suggestions.
As such, it is not clear whether Paul has the pre-existent Christ in view or not here--or whether the author of the poem did. He and/or they easily might have, but it is not at all clear from this first stanza alone.
2:7b-8 ... having become in the likeness of mortals,
and having been found in shape as a mortal,
he humbled himself,
having become obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
The parallel structure of this stanza with the first is obvious. Like the first stanza, the first and fourth line have a similar expression, here "having become." In both stanzas, the main verb is found in the third line. Also in both stanzas, Christ willingly lowers himself as a model of the kind of attitude Paul is urging the Philippians to have.
If the stanzas divide up in this way, then we do not immediately see "having become in the likeness of mortals" as the direct outcome of Christ emptying himself of the form of God. Yes, becoming like mortals is taking the form of a servant in the hierarchy of the cosmos. It is not assuming the role of a god or the son of a god. It is lowering oneself to the status of a mortal.
Only with the second line of this stanza does visible human shape come into view. Once again, Paul could certainly have a sense of leaving divine shape and taking on human shape. But this interpretation is far less clear than is often assumed when the poem is read through the eyes of later Christian understanding.
Christ's humility to the point of death mirrors the attitude Paul has had toward his own death and the attitude he wants the Philippians to have toward each other. But of course Paul was never in the form of God! We know from elsewhere in Paul's writings that the cross was the centerpiece of his preaching (1 Cor. 1:23) and that he believed Christ's death to have redeemed God's people from the curse of sin and the Law (Gal. 3:13-14).
Christ's action of "obedience to death" here probably illuminates Paul's understanding of the expression, the "faith of Jesus." While we agree that Paul often has human faith in view when he talks about human justification in the divine court, we also agree that Paul inherited from the early church a sense that the faithfulness of Jesus was instrumental in salvation. We will see this dynamic more clearly when we get to Philippians 3:9.
The expression, "even death on a cross," seems in tension with the structure of the poem up to this point. For this reason, perhaps most interpreters see this line as an expansion of the original poem by Paul. Mention of the cross certainly fits with Paul's signature interests.
Others have suggested that Paul would not have interrupted a known hymn or poem with such comments, that they would have been irritating to individuals who might even be singing along. But if Paul continuously modifies Scripture as he quotes it, surely we cannot assume he wouldn't have modified previous hymnic or poetic material. It was the nature of Jewish translation and interpretation to expand and modify as you quote.
It thus seems far more likely than not that Paul did not create this poem himself. When and where it was created, of course, we have no way of knowing. Some have tried to reconstruct an Aramaic original, which in theory might explain why some of the lines of the poem are disproportionate to the others (e.g., line 2). But such reconstructions remain very speculative and have failed to create a consensus.
2:9-11 Therefore, God also highly exalted him
and graced him with the name above every name,
so that, at the name of Jesus, every knee would bow--of those in the heavens and on the earth and under the earth--and every tongue confess,
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.
If the two previous stanzas had a nice parallel structure, the final "stanza" goes in a different direction. It is of course possible to force a four line structure on these words, but it does not go easily. For one thing, these verses have more subordinate clauses, more logical connectors.
Our first thought is that perhaps it is at this point that Paul began to expand a previous poem that ended in verse 8. The problem here is that the vocabulary in these verses are as or more unique to Paul than that of the first eight lines. Even more significantly, the poetry gives off the kind of "mixed signals" that point to Pauline addition. In the end, we will probably never know for certain what the history of this poem truly was and what original form it took.
The direction of the first eight lines was down, down, down. Christ empties himself of divine status to that of a mortal. Then he humbles himself from mortal status down to the shame of someone crucified. Now the poem moves in the other direction, in the direction of Christ's exaltation. So also the audience, after humbling themselves before the world, will be vindicated with glory.
Christ may have been in the form of God before, but in response to his obedience, God now "highly exalts" him, super-exalts him, perhaps even with a higher status than he had at the beginning of the poem. God gives him the "Name above every name," which is almost certainly YHWH, the divine name. This fact comes out in the final part of the poem with the affirmation of Jesus as Lord. "Lord" was the Greek word that Jews used to translate YHWH.
So it is a virtual certainty that Jesus is given the divine name at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand here. Psalm 110:1 likely stands close in the background--"The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand." It is more difficult for us to wrap our heads around what it might mean for Jesus to become YHWH at some point in time. At the very least, it meant that Jesus assumed the role and status of cosmic king over all the creation.
The statement, "that at the name of Jesus" distracts from the flow of this final "stanza." We wonder if it is an addition by Paul. It makes clear exactly who all creatures are bowing before. Another likely addition is "those in the heavens, those on the earth, those under the earth." It refers of course to all the creation, from heavenly powers to the creatures of the earth to the dead. It is, by the way, another rare hint that Paul does in fact believe that the dead are conscious "under the earth" in the time before the final resurrection.
Although it is very speculative, the final stanza might thus have read in this way originally:
Therefore God highly exalted him
And gave him the Name above every name,
That every knee should bow and tongue confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord.
The application of Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus is astounding. In its original context, this verse clearly refers to God, and it does so in a context that is emphasizing that YHWH is the only God that truly exists. Paul and the poem's author thus apply one of the starkest monotheistic passages of the Old Testament to Jesus, a man that had only recently walked the earth.
At the same time, the poem applies this status and identity to Jesus from the standpoint of the resurrection, as other Scriptures such as Romans 1:3; 10:9; Acts 2:36; 13:33; and Hebrews 1:4-5 do. The Trinitarian debates of later centuries are not yet in view. To call Jesus "Lord" or even "YHWH" is thus to refer to his final and exalted cosmological role in the coming kingdom of God. He is supreme over all the creation and will rule in the kingdom as God's Son.
The final line, "to the glory of God the Father" allows Paul to make such exalted statements. It indicates that Paul still functions within a monotheistic perspective. Jesus is the Messiah, the cosmic king over all creation. But, in Paul's view, Christ will ultimately "hand over the kingdom to God the Father" (1 Cor. 15:24), "so that God may be all in all" (15:28). Despite the cosmic exaltedness of Jesus, he always subordinates him ultimately to God the Father.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
September 11th
Seven years ago this morning, the Twin Towers came down and a plane flew into the Pentagon. It was a surreal morning. I thought the person who first told me was joking.
In the days that followed I think everyone was paranoid that there were Islamic terrorist cells all over the country about to launch attacks everywhere. The then mayor of Marion had cement baracades put around the courthouse to keep them from launching an attack.
It was a great tragedy. A couple thousand people died for no reason, a little man taking out his frustration for the fact that his understanding of religion was not in power in the world.
Today we remember them and their deaths. They were people like you and me, at the wrong time and the wrong place. They were like the much larger numbers in Rwanda or Darfur or Serbia or the Holocaust who were killed because they were from the wrong race, for no valid reason. They were like the much larger numbers of innocent civilians in Iraq who have been caught in the civil war that followed the dethroning of Saddam Hussein, killed either in the cross-fire or because they were the wrong ethnic group, for no valid reason.
We have not let them die in vain if we value those innocents around the world who face similar death and oppression for no reason, if we are their friend to the degree we are able.
The Twin Towers are a reminder that the United States is not invincible, that we can bleed. And the time since has taught us that no amount of force we can muster can stamp out this particular kind of enemy. We are not all powerful. We need others, other nations and we need to convince those in the middle that we are more worthy than our enemies.
The days after 9-11 were a very rare opportunity for the world to look at itself and become a better place. For a brief moment in time, we had the world's ears and sympathies. It is not too late for us to find in this memory a vision for a better world and a bigger world.
The virtuous response is not a retreat into nationalism or a quest for vengeance. I am not saying that we should not seek to bring the perpetrators to justice. What I am saying is that our response should be to identify with all the innocent in the world who suffer at the hands of the evil and the misguided and not think that, in God's eyes, an American death is more atrocious than a child killed in the jungles of Africa for his kidney.
And it is more important for us to keep today's children in the world from becoming tomorrow like those who act against the innocent than it is to kill the terrorists themselves. It is more important to change those who can be changed and influence those who can be influenced than to kill those who can't in the name of vengeance. Then maybe tomorrow, we won't have anything to seek vengeance for--our friends will stop these sorts of enemies for us before they even reach our borders.
In the days that followed I think everyone was paranoid that there were Islamic terrorist cells all over the country about to launch attacks everywhere. The then mayor of Marion had cement baracades put around the courthouse to keep them from launching an attack.
It was a great tragedy. A couple thousand people died for no reason, a little man taking out his frustration for the fact that his understanding of religion was not in power in the world.
Today we remember them and their deaths. They were people like you and me, at the wrong time and the wrong place. They were like the much larger numbers in Rwanda or Darfur or Serbia or the Holocaust who were killed because they were from the wrong race, for no valid reason. They were like the much larger numbers of innocent civilians in Iraq who have been caught in the civil war that followed the dethroning of Saddam Hussein, killed either in the cross-fire or because they were the wrong ethnic group, for no valid reason.
We have not let them die in vain if we value those innocents around the world who face similar death and oppression for no reason, if we are their friend to the degree we are able.
The Twin Towers are a reminder that the United States is not invincible, that we can bleed. And the time since has taught us that no amount of force we can muster can stamp out this particular kind of enemy. We are not all powerful. We need others, other nations and we need to convince those in the middle that we are more worthy than our enemies.
The days after 9-11 were a very rare opportunity for the world to look at itself and become a better place. For a brief moment in time, we had the world's ears and sympathies. It is not too late for us to find in this memory a vision for a better world and a bigger world.
The virtuous response is not a retreat into nationalism or a quest for vengeance. I am not saying that we should not seek to bring the perpetrators to justice. What I am saying is that our response should be to identify with all the innocent in the world who suffer at the hands of the evil and the misguided and not think that, in God's eyes, an American death is more atrocious than a child killed in the jungles of Africa for his kidney.
And it is more important for us to keep today's children in the world from becoming tomorrow like those who act against the innocent than it is to kill the terrorists themselves. It is more important to change those who can be changed and influence those who can be influenced than to kill those who can't in the name of vengeance. Then maybe tomorrow, we won't have anything to seek vengeance for--our friends will stop these sorts of enemies for us before they even reach our borders.
First Swift Boat Ad: Obama on Sex Education
I don't know whether I'll do this much, but I'm hoping that the blogosphere will K-O the kind of nonsense ads that usually accompany a presidential election. I passed over the "lipstick on a pig" debate, which I found absurd and falsely indignant. Obama was clearly talking about McCain's policies, not Palin. McCain himself, indeed Dick Cheney, has used the expression.
And yes, the audience may very well have laughed because of Palin's "lipstick on a pitbull" comment in her speech. I take the fact that she didn't break down and cry because of the hurtfulness of the comment shows that she's "woman" enough to play with the big dogs. If she couldn't handle someone thinking of her views as pigish, then she's not strong enough to be a VP candidate... she is. So this one is for the trash. If the fact that people laughed really hurt you, then you may not be mature enough to listen to politics and should go back to your Dr. Seuss books.
But more significant is the attack ad the McCain campaign is putting out claiming that Obama supported "comprehensive" sex ed in Kindergarten in Illinois and that this is the only education legislation he has ever supported. This article points out how misleading this ad is. Of course both sides are spinning out distortions and I personally reserve judgment on these sorts of rumors about both sides until I have further information.
On this one, "comprehensive" meant through high school. All that Kindergarteners would have learned--and the bill never even went to a vote--is how to resist individuals who might try to touch you in inappropriate places. The ad thus plays into the usual conservative Christian machine that inevitably makes whoever the Democratic candidate is into the anti-Christ.
There are issues where evangelical Christians will side with McCain over Obama, but I don't think education should be one of them. On the matter of education, I have already concluded that Obama is the better candidate. I might add that the very journal that the attack add quotes critiquing Obama on one point, considers McCain a "do nothing" candidate on education.
And yes, the audience may very well have laughed because of Palin's "lipstick on a pitbull" comment in her speech. I take the fact that she didn't break down and cry because of the hurtfulness of the comment shows that she's "woman" enough to play with the big dogs. If she couldn't handle someone thinking of her views as pigish, then she's not strong enough to be a VP candidate... she is. So this one is for the trash. If the fact that people laughed really hurt you, then you may not be mature enough to listen to politics and should go back to your Dr. Seuss books.
But more significant is the attack ad the McCain campaign is putting out claiming that Obama supported "comprehensive" sex ed in Kindergarten in Illinois and that this is the only education legislation he has ever supported. This article points out how misleading this ad is. Of course both sides are spinning out distortions and I personally reserve judgment on these sorts of rumors about both sides until I have further information.
On this one, "comprehensive" meant through high school. All that Kindergarteners would have learned--and the bill never even went to a vote--is how to resist individuals who might try to touch you in inappropriate places. The ad thus plays into the usual conservative Christian machine that inevitably makes whoever the Democratic candidate is into the anti-Christ.
There are issues where evangelical Christians will side with McCain over Obama, but I don't think education should be one of them. On the matter of education, I have already concluded that Obama is the better candidate. I might add that the very journal that the attack add quotes critiquing Obama on one point, considers McCain a "do nothing" candidate on education.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Miscellaneous in the News
Very busy this week--maybe you're enjoying it more because of the absence of long interpretive posts. Somehow we managed for three of our children to have birthdays on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of September. Not good planning!
Also there were some major events this week in the possibility of an MDIV and seminary at IWU. We moved significantly closer to seeing this become a reality this week. Nothing certain and no promises, but the snail moves along.
I heard part of an interview on NPR with Bob Woodward on his latest book having to do with Iraq. He suggested that the violence was decreasing for four reasons:
1. The shift of allegiance from Al-Qaeda to the US by various Sunnis in Al-Anbar province (that is, homegrown Al-Qaeda in Iraq that didn't exist at the time of invasion). This of course happened before the surge. McCain misspoke on this one during some interview.
2. The decision on the part of Muqtada al-Sadr to tell his cronies to stop attacking US troops. Again, this had nothing to do with the surge. If anything, he did it on the advice of Iran.
3. The surge. Clearly with so many troops on the ground, violence is going to be down. The big question is what will happen when the troops lead. We have to hope it will stay down.
4. A secret weapon. Apparently it is classified, but with Woodward talking Manhattan Project as an example of technology making all the difference, apparently we now have something that makes it easier to target people. The Bush administration has confirmed.
I don't personally feel like I have enough information to know whether to pat anyone on the back for the surge yet. I'm willing to. I won't in any case pat Bush on the back since it was an act of desperation to clean up a mess he caused in the first place.
Another interesting item in the news is the new particle collider in France-Switzerland. Certainly I hope it doesn't destroy the earth, but am excited about this sort of stuff. Part of me wonders why this thing is in Europe and not in the US. I hope we're not in the twilight of our culture, where we're fat and enjoying the benefit of past hard working generations without realizing that others are passing us and will leave their children the next prosperity.
Also there were some major events this week in the possibility of an MDIV and seminary at IWU. We moved significantly closer to seeing this become a reality this week. Nothing certain and no promises, but the snail moves along.
I heard part of an interview on NPR with Bob Woodward on his latest book having to do with Iraq. He suggested that the violence was decreasing for four reasons:
1. The shift of allegiance from Al-Qaeda to the US by various Sunnis in Al-Anbar province (that is, homegrown Al-Qaeda in Iraq that didn't exist at the time of invasion). This of course happened before the surge. McCain misspoke on this one during some interview.
2. The decision on the part of Muqtada al-Sadr to tell his cronies to stop attacking US troops. Again, this had nothing to do with the surge. If anything, he did it on the advice of Iran.
3. The surge. Clearly with so many troops on the ground, violence is going to be down. The big question is what will happen when the troops lead. We have to hope it will stay down.
4. A secret weapon. Apparently it is classified, but with Woodward talking Manhattan Project as an example of technology making all the difference, apparently we now have something that makes it easier to target people. The Bush administration has confirmed.
I don't personally feel like I have enough information to know whether to pat anyone on the back for the surge yet. I'm willing to. I won't in any case pat Bush on the back since it was an act of desperation to clean up a mess he caused in the first place.
Another interesting item in the news is the new particle collider in France-Switzerland. Certainly I hope it doesn't destroy the earth, but am excited about this sort of stuff. Part of me wonders why this thing is in Europe and not in the US. I hope we're not in the twilight of our culture, where we're fat and enjoying the benefit of past hard working generations without realizing that others are passing us and will leave their children the next prosperity.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Disappointed with Keith Obermann
Generally, I have enjoyed watching the Keith Obermann hour on MSNBC. He is a little over the top sometimes on the "liberal" side, but no more than O'Reilly or Limbaugh are on the "conservative" side. I have often enjoyed his skewers, although his biases are quite clear.
Last night, though, I thought he continued down the path of backfire by making fun of the fact that Sarah Palin used to attend an Assemblies of God church. Now I imagine most of his audience (and surely he knows most of who's watching) would be with him. He treated tongues speaking as weirdo fanatic.
The news all yesterday was taking a clip out of context in which she prayed for American leaders to know God's will in Iraq--what's wrong with that? Sure, she no doubt thinks she has more than a hunch of what that is. But I see nothing wrong with the prayer.
In short, the news media that play up this sort of stuff are only solidifying the evangelical vote behind McCain and ticking off a lot of people against them in the process. In short, it's STUPID to do. You won't get any "the elite media has a liberal bias" from me. FOX News has a psycho-conservative bias and they're the media too. Limbaugh is the media too.
But those making fun of Palin and making a big deal out of this clip don't have a clue what they're doing. They're going to get lambasted again.
Frankly, I do have serious fears about evangelicals of the Bush/Palin stripe integrating their faith with their politics on a microlevel. It's the same kind of reaction I have had here when I've heard devotionals where a psychology or history or whatever professor here tries to integrate their faith on a microlevel with their discipline. They are integrating a Sunday School level faith with a doctoral level knowledge of their discipline.
The result is not a little strange and often it makes them look stupid as a psychologist, historian, or whatever. It's for this reason that places like Calvin College expend a lot of effort so their faculty are integrating faith with a deep knowledge with their disicpline. More frequently a prof. just rips a verse way out of context with no clue what it meant and then relates it strangely to some concept from their discipline. If I think most pastors have little sense of what the Bible really meant, you can imagine my reaction to other professors.
And so when someone like Palin brings her Sunday School faith to bear on international politics--that's a really scary thing to me. In most cases, I prefer a person with a Christlike heart in office with a head filled more with sound political judgment. Those who are slaves to the civil religion that permeates the evangelical community end up making really bad decisions, like, for example, ignoring the wise counsel of theological consensus (set out by Augustine 1600 years ago) and launching pre-emptive wars on countries that, oops, turn out not to be the threat they thought they were.
Last night, though, I thought he continued down the path of backfire by making fun of the fact that Sarah Palin used to attend an Assemblies of God church. Now I imagine most of his audience (and surely he knows most of who's watching) would be with him. He treated tongues speaking as weirdo fanatic.
The news all yesterday was taking a clip out of context in which she prayed for American leaders to know God's will in Iraq--what's wrong with that? Sure, she no doubt thinks she has more than a hunch of what that is. But I see nothing wrong with the prayer.
In short, the news media that play up this sort of stuff are only solidifying the evangelical vote behind McCain and ticking off a lot of people against them in the process. In short, it's STUPID to do. You won't get any "the elite media has a liberal bias" from me. FOX News has a psycho-conservative bias and they're the media too. Limbaugh is the media too.
But those making fun of Palin and making a big deal out of this clip don't have a clue what they're doing. They're going to get lambasted again.
Frankly, I do have serious fears about evangelicals of the Bush/Palin stripe integrating their faith with their politics on a microlevel. It's the same kind of reaction I have had here when I've heard devotionals where a psychology or history or whatever professor here tries to integrate their faith on a microlevel with their discipline. They are integrating a Sunday School level faith with a doctoral level knowledge of their discipline.
The result is not a little strange and often it makes them look stupid as a psychologist, historian, or whatever. It's for this reason that places like Calvin College expend a lot of effort so their faculty are integrating faith with a deep knowledge with their disicpline. More frequently a prof. just rips a verse way out of context with no clue what it meant and then relates it strangely to some concept from their discipline. If I think most pastors have little sense of what the Bible really meant, you can imagine my reaction to other professors.
And so when someone like Palin brings her Sunday School faith to bear on international politics--that's a really scary thing to me. In most cases, I prefer a person with a Christlike heart in office with a head filled more with sound political judgment. Those who are slaves to the civil religion that permeates the evangelical community end up making really bad decisions, like, for example, ignoring the wise counsel of theological consensus (set out by Augustine 1600 years ago) and launching pre-emptive wars on countries that, oops, turn out not to be the threat they thought they were.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Monday Editorial: Energy and the Environment
The words of the two candidates this year are not drastically different on the subject of energy. Both, for example, are talking about wind and solar, and about renewable energy. Both have even affirmed nuclear energy and clean coal technology. Their main difference has to do with drilling.
McCain has changed his position on off shore drilling in the light of gas prices. I don't remember if Obama has taken a strong position against it, but it would be hard for a Democrat to support it--one of those "don't go there" issues for the party. Meanwhile, Palin has offered Anwar to America. I'm not actually hard set against drilling in Anwar. I think McCain for the moment is still quietly resisting his party's platform on that one, despite Palin's position.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to drilling in itself on the presumption that it can be done without great damage to the local environment. And I suspect it can be done relatively cleanly if it is done right.
However, these are just stop gap measures--ones that won't last very long even at full speed ahead. I'm more afraid they will simply provide an excuse not to get down to business and do what we really need to be doing--weaning ourselves off of oil. Drilling won't make us energy independent--won't even get us close. And it's moving in the wrong direction. Science should be a lot further than it is on these issues and the reason it isn't are 1) big business and 2) Republicans.
The Republicans can talk about the future of energy, but they have resisted it tooth and nail and have in fact held us back from what every Star Trek geek has known since the late 60's. In short, a tie on energy goes to the Democrats, whom we know will actually do something about the long term goal of making us energy independent. All we have are promises from the Republicans on this one, and their record is too poor in this area to be trusted.
On the environment, sure, there are many hard core environmentalists out there with unreasonable demands of what you can and cannot do. I don't think Obama is one of them. The Republicans, meanwhile, have resisted the idea of global warming, once again, until recently when the issue could no longer be ignored. Now they finally acknowledge the warming but question its cause.
What is it about American culture that actually considers being an expert on a topic a sign that you don't know what you're talking about? Have you ever thought about it? A person who is good at math or science in America is a nerd, a geek--an uncool person who obviously should be ignored. Only in America would it be part of our unthinking paradigm that an uneducated moron has more authority to know the right position against the vast majority of those who actually know the evidence and the ins and outs of the issue! This is a sobering thought with huge implications to anyone who seriously ponders it.
The experts on energy and the environment seem to lean heavily in the direction of the Democrats on this particular issue. Of course I doubt the majority of Republicans have an intentional agenda to pollute and exploit the earth. But if we had to ask, on this issue, which party has the more Christian position, I would be hard pressed to see how the Democratic party is not the right answer on this one. The most Christian perspective on the earth sees it as God's earth and as something we should respect and be good stewards of.
So on this issue, as on education, I have to give the vote to Obama.
McCain has changed his position on off shore drilling in the light of gas prices. I don't remember if Obama has taken a strong position against it, but it would be hard for a Democrat to support it--one of those "don't go there" issues for the party. Meanwhile, Palin has offered Anwar to America. I'm not actually hard set against drilling in Anwar. I think McCain for the moment is still quietly resisting his party's platform on that one, despite Palin's position.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to drilling in itself on the presumption that it can be done without great damage to the local environment. And I suspect it can be done relatively cleanly if it is done right.
However, these are just stop gap measures--ones that won't last very long even at full speed ahead. I'm more afraid they will simply provide an excuse not to get down to business and do what we really need to be doing--weaning ourselves off of oil. Drilling won't make us energy independent--won't even get us close. And it's moving in the wrong direction. Science should be a lot further than it is on these issues and the reason it isn't are 1) big business and 2) Republicans.
The Republicans can talk about the future of energy, but they have resisted it tooth and nail and have in fact held us back from what every Star Trek geek has known since the late 60's. In short, a tie on energy goes to the Democrats, whom we know will actually do something about the long term goal of making us energy independent. All we have are promises from the Republicans on this one, and their record is too poor in this area to be trusted.
On the environment, sure, there are many hard core environmentalists out there with unreasonable demands of what you can and cannot do. I don't think Obama is one of them. The Republicans, meanwhile, have resisted the idea of global warming, once again, until recently when the issue could no longer be ignored. Now they finally acknowledge the warming but question its cause.
What is it about American culture that actually considers being an expert on a topic a sign that you don't know what you're talking about? Have you ever thought about it? A person who is good at math or science in America is a nerd, a geek--an uncool person who obviously should be ignored. Only in America would it be part of our unthinking paradigm that an uneducated moron has more authority to know the right position against the vast majority of those who actually know the evidence and the ins and outs of the issue! This is a sobering thought with huge implications to anyone who seriously ponders it.
The experts on energy and the environment seem to lean heavily in the direction of the Democrats on this particular issue. Of course I doubt the majority of Republicans have an intentional agenda to pollute and exploit the earth. But if we had to ask, on this issue, which party has the more Christian position, I would be hard pressed to see how the Democratic party is not the right answer on this one. The most Christian perspective on the earth sees it as God's earth and as something we should respect and be good stewards of.
So on this issue, as on education, I have to give the vote to Obama.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Dogs and Mowers
I'm taking a break today, a "sabbath" from posting... except for this.
Our 2 month old Great Dane was sitting alone on our back deck last night. I was getting ready to mow the back yard and my cheap green push mower was also sitting on the deck.
As I was doing whatever in the house, I realized that our three foot long puppy (!) was barking at something. It turned out to be the mower. I figure he remembered the "animal" from the last time I mowed. He followed close and curious for a while, until I ran over something or other and sent it shooting loudly against the deck. Then Bruce wanted to go inside.
Having a penchant for philosophizing, I realized that Bruce would not distinguish in his mind between animal and machine. He had seen this thing move. He had seen this thing make noise. He was treating it like he would treat any other animal. When androids get really sophisticated, we'll begin to ask these sorts of questions too.
Our 2 month old Great Dane was sitting alone on our back deck last night. I was getting ready to mow the back yard and my cheap green push mower was also sitting on the deck.
As I was doing whatever in the house, I realized that our three foot long puppy (!) was barking at something. It turned out to be the mower. I figure he remembered the "animal" from the last time I mowed. He followed close and curious for a while, until I ran over something or other and sent it shooting loudly against the deck. Then Bruce wanted to go inside.
Having a penchant for philosophizing, I realized that Bruce would not distinguish in his mind between animal and machine. He had seen this thing move. He had seen this thing make noise. He was treating it like he would treat any other animal. When androids get really sophisticated, we'll begin to ask these sorts of questions too.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Explanatory Notes: Philippians 1:12-26
Letter Body (1:12-4:20)
Paul's Situation (1:12-26)
1:12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the things having to do with me have come about particularly for the advancement of the gospel,
With this verse Paul transitions into the letter proper. He begins by talking a little about his current situation. Someone looking on from the outside might think, "This guy is trouble. Look at him. He's in trouble with the law." If Paul is imprisoned at Ephesus, he was at the center of a riot--scary things when you have Roman soldiers nearby, ready to keep order. If he's at Rome as Acts depicts, here's someone who the Romans shipped all the way from Judea to stand trial before Nero. More than that, whoever his God is, his God has let him undergo these trials without rescuing him.
But Paul asserts on the contrary that his trials are serving a nobler purpose. His sufferings are advancing the gospel, the good news that Jesus is king. God is directing his trials to spread the good news.
1:13 ... with the result that [it has become] apparent that my chains [are] in Christ among the whole pretorium and all the others,
In particular, Paul has been able to spread the good news among the Roman soldiers and administration that are around him. The mention of a pretorium is the strongest argument that Paul is in Rome. The praetorian guard was particularly associated with the defense of the emperor. 4:22 further mentions those of Caesar's household.
However, Mark 15:16 refers to Pilate's headquarters in Jerusalem as a pretorium, so it would seem that the word could be used of the place from which the Roman governor administrated. It would thus seem that 1:13 does not clearly tell us anything about Paul's location other than the fact that he is at a place where a Roman governor is seated. And since a household included slaves and all those who administer the house, "Caesar's household" might easily include all those who administrate the affairs of Caesar. The emporer at the time was likely Nero, no matter when Philippians was written, since Nero became emperor in AD54.
1:14 ... and most of the brothers have become convinced in the Lord by my chains to dare to speak the word more abundantly without fear.
Paul saw himself as a model to others who might otherwise have held back in their preaching of the gospel for fear that they would get in trouble. Paul showed that even death--the worst possible outcome--was not to be feared. He thus saw himself as liberating the church from the fear of persecution.
1:15 Some [do it] both because of jealousy and strife. But others preach the Christ out of good will.
At the same time, Paul implies here what we know from elsewhere. Those who believed Jesus was the Messiah were not in agreement on everything. Paul in particular has faced resistance from those he calls "the dogs" in 3:2. While these could be non-believing Jews, it is perhaps even more likely that they are Jews who have confessed Jesus as Messiah but who disagree with Paul on the inclusion of the Gentiles. They would have the Gentiles fully convert to Judaism in order to be saved from God's coming wrath.
It is initially difficult to picture what it might mean for someone to preach the Christ--that Jesus is the Messiah, the king of the Jews--from contentious motives. Presumably the jealousy and strife Paul mentions have in some way to do with him, as the next verse makes clear. But from our perspective today, it is at first somewhat puzzling that individuals at Paul's location might preach Christ with motives relating to him at all.
1:16 The latter [do it] out of love because they know that I am appointed as a defense of the gospel.
What becomes clear in this verse is that the preaching of the Christ has an impact on Paul's situation and coming trial. Paul is perhaps in prison for causing public disorder and disruption, either in Ephesus or in Jerusalem. If he is in Ephesus, we can easily imagine that there were Christian Jews in the city--"Judaizers"--who vigorously opposed Paul's version of the gospel. These are individuals who would be glad Paul was arrested and would see it as God's judgment on him. In Rome, it is still possible that there were such people, even though the original controversy had not occurred there.
The problem is that the continued preaching of the gospel--especially if Paul is at Ephesus--simply keeps alive the reason Paul was arrested in the first place. The Christian message is controversial, indeed subversive to Roman rule. Paul is proclaiming a higher king than Caesar. As long as the gospel in all its controversy continues to be preached, the instability a person like Paul brings to the empire is front page news.
But Paul thinks that his ordeal advances the gospel, and he celebrates those who preach Christ boldy, knowing that it makes it more and more likely that the Roman governor will make an example of Paul. They affirm his values--that death is far from the worst that could happen to you. They believe that God is giving Paul an opportunity to witness to the truth of the gospel. His day in court is his day to proclaim that Jesus is Lord before rulers. Their heart is as Paul's heart.
1:17 The former proclaim the Christ out of ambition, not sincerely, thinking they will increase trouble for me in my chains.
Again, it is initially difficult for us to imagine how there could be Christians who believed in Christ, but preached Christ in such a way as to cause trouble for him. It may simply refer to people like those who loved Paul, but who in contrast enjoyed the fact that they were putting him in the spotlight. They might have portrayed Paul as a trouble maker in the way he went about preaching.
It is of course possible that Paul refers here to those he will call "dogs" in chapter 3. But the fact that he considers their gospel still to be the authentic gospel (see the next verse) probably argues against it.
1:18 But what [does it matter], except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and for this reason I rejoice.
Apparently, Paul's Christian opponents are still preaching Christ authentically enough for Paul to consider it the gospel. They must at least be preaching that Christ is king. Since he does not consider the gospel of the Judaizers to be the true gospel (Gal. 1:6), it seems unlikely that he has them in view here. The tone here also is not as strong as that in chapter 3.
Nevertheless, Paul's attitude here seems different than the one he has had in other situations where others have opposed him. He vigorously opposed those at Corinth who resisted his authority. His letter to the Galatians exudes his anger toward his opponents. If Philippians was written from Ephesus, we can perhaps a progression where Paul has recently dispatched a "harsh letter" to Corinth, one that has not survived but is mentioned in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor. 7:8). If one goes with the northern Galatian hypothesis, Paul has recently written Galatians as well.
But now he awaits his trial and may even be put to death (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8). His attitude mellows, as we see in 2 Corinthians 1-9, written a little after Paul leaves Ephesus. He is on his way to feeling as he will write from Corinth to Rome in a few months--the door on the East is closing for him (cf. Rom. 15:23). He consigns himself to be happy that the gospel continues to be preached, even if he is not the one doing it.
1:19 But I also will rejoice, for I know that this will come out as salvation for me through your petition and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
It is possible that Paul has in mind his acquittal before the Romans here, as he will mention in a few verses. But verse 20 points to ultimate salvation as what Paul has in mind. Paul primarily uses salvation language in relation to escape from God's wrath on the coming day of judgment. Paul continues to walk in faithfulness to God and he believes that he will make it to the end, just as he is convinced the Philippians themselves will.
But their prayers are a key component in him making it to the end, and the help of the Spirit of Christ is essential. We should not resolve the tension between the gracious empowerment of the Spirit and the necessity for Paul to walk faithfully to the end.
1:20 ... just as I am eagerly expecting and hoping that I will not be ashamed in any way but with all boldness, as always, Christ also now will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death.
Here is the direct expression of Paul's confidence that he will make it. Through their prayers and the help of the Holy Spirit, Paul will not be ashamed of Christ before the Romans, but will proclaim his faith boldly as a witness to Christ. Then Christ will be magnified either way, whether by letting Paul live or by his faithful death.
1:21-22 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is a gain. And if [I turn out] to live in the flesh, this [means] the fruit of work for me, and what I will decide I do not know.
So Paul, Stoic-like, consigns himself to whatever outcome may issue. He is not in control--a difficult thing for a person whose personality is to take control. He resigns himself to a situation about which he can currently do nothing.
It is all up to God. If he lives, he will continue to serve Christ in his ministry. If he dies, all the better, for he will be with Christ. He does not know which one God wills, and thus he does not know which one he should want.
1:23 And I am torn between the two, since I have the desire to be released and to be with Christ, [which is] far better by a lot.
Although not very clear itself, this verse is Paul's clearest indication that believers will be conscious between their deaths and the coming resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 both use the metaphor of sleep for the time between death and resurrection, and Paul further portrays death without resurrection as "perishing" (1 Cor. 15:18). From these earlier writings, it would be easy to conclude that Paul did not believe a person would be conscious in the shadowy time between death and resurrection.
In this verse, however, Paul thinks of going to be with Christ at death and considers it a better option than remaining in the world. It seems a different attitude toward death than his earlier writings have. Similarly, while 2 Corinthians 5:6-10 might not refer to the time between death and resurrection, many do read the idea of being "away from the body and home with the Lord" as a reference to this intermediate state.
The majority of interpreters simply take Paul's earlier references to "sleep" as metaphorical and see Paul having a consistent belief in conscious existence between death and resurrection for the entirety of his ministry. Others suggest that Paul's thinking underwent development, perhaps during the time of his debate with the Corinthian church. Still others have suggested that Paul's imprisonment led him to think that he would not survive till Christ's return, where he had earlier expected to be alive for this event. Such a sobering thought might lead to further reflection on our intermediate state.
1:24-25 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary because of you. And since I have become convinced of this [fact], I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your advancement and the joy of your faith,
Paul finally indicates that he believes he will survive his current ordeal. The reason is because he senses God still wants to minister to the Philippians through him, not least to contribute to their joy as they continue in faith. If Paul wrote Philippians from Ephesus, we know that he went on to visit Philippi after he left the city.
Many interpreters also suggest that Paul was acquitted after his appearance before Nero at the end of Acts, although Acts itself does not point in this direction. Its final chapters have a strong sense of foreboding, and Paul tells the Ephesians that they will never see him alive again (Acts 20:25). Given that Acts was almost certainly written some time after Paul was dead, it is more difficult to account for its manner of presentation if in fact Paul was acquitted before Nero.
1:26 ... so that your boasting in Christ Jesus might abound because of me, through my arrival again to you.
If Paul is released, as he anticipates, he plans to visit Philippi. This sense of direction also conflicts with a Roman imprisonment, since Paul's direction in Romans 15:24 is westward toward Spain. He believes his mission in the East is largely finished (Rom. 15:23). It is of course possible that an imprisonment in Rome has changed his sense of direction. But it is hard to think of why, if Paul were in Rome, he would not still plan to head west if he were released.
In any case, Paul's arrival in Philippi would be a matter of boasting for the Philippians, boasting in the mercy of God, boasting in the victory of God of His opponents, boasting in God's answers to prayers. This is not boasting in themselves, but boasting in Messiah Jesus for what he has done for Paul.
Paul's Situation (1:12-26)
1:12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the things having to do with me have come about particularly for the advancement of the gospel,
With this verse Paul transitions into the letter proper. He begins by talking a little about his current situation. Someone looking on from the outside might think, "This guy is trouble. Look at him. He's in trouble with the law." If Paul is imprisoned at Ephesus, he was at the center of a riot--scary things when you have Roman soldiers nearby, ready to keep order. If he's at Rome as Acts depicts, here's someone who the Romans shipped all the way from Judea to stand trial before Nero. More than that, whoever his God is, his God has let him undergo these trials without rescuing him.
But Paul asserts on the contrary that his trials are serving a nobler purpose. His sufferings are advancing the gospel, the good news that Jesus is king. God is directing his trials to spread the good news.
1:13 ... with the result that [it has become] apparent that my chains [are] in Christ among the whole pretorium and all the others,
In particular, Paul has been able to spread the good news among the Roman soldiers and administration that are around him. The mention of a pretorium is the strongest argument that Paul is in Rome. The praetorian guard was particularly associated with the defense of the emperor. 4:22 further mentions those of Caesar's household.
However, Mark 15:16 refers to Pilate's headquarters in Jerusalem as a pretorium, so it would seem that the word could be used of the place from which the Roman governor administrated. It would thus seem that 1:13 does not clearly tell us anything about Paul's location other than the fact that he is at a place where a Roman governor is seated. And since a household included slaves and all those who administer the house, "Caesar's household" might easily include all those who administrate the affairs of Caesar. The emporer at the time was likely Nero, no matter when Philippians was written, since Nero became emperor in AD54.
1:14 ... and most of the brothers have become convinced in the Lord by my chains to dare to speak the word more abundantly without fear.
Paul saw himself as a model to others who might otherwise have held back in their preaching of the gospel for fear that they would get in trouble. Paul showed that even death--the worst possible outcome--was not to be feared. He thus saw himself as liberating the church from the fear of persecution.
1:15 Some [do it] both because of jealousy and strife. But others preach the Christ out of good will.
At the same time, Paul implies here what we know from elsewhere. Those who believed Jesus was the Messiah were not in agreement on everything. Paul in particular has faced resistance from those he calls "the dogs" in 3:2. While these could be non-believing Jews, it is perhaps even more likely that they are Jews who have confessed Jesus as Messiah but who disagree with Paul on the inclusion of the Gentiles. They would have the Gentiles fully convert to Judaism in order to be saved from God's coming wrath.
It is initially difficult to picture what it might mean for someone to preach the Christ--that Jesus is the Messiah, the king of the Jews--from contentious motives. Presumably the jealousy and strife Paul mentions have in some way to do with him, as the next verse makes clear. But from our perspective today, it is at first somewhat puzzling that individuals at Paul's location might preach Christ with motives relating to him at all.
1:16 The latter [do it] out of love because they know that I am appointed as a defense of the gospel.
What becomes clear in this verse is that the preaching of the Christ has an impact on Paul's situation and coming trial. Paul is perhaps in prison for causing public disorder and disruption, either in Ephesus or in Jerusalem. If he is in Ephesus, we can easily imagine that there were Christian Jews in the city--"Judaizers"--who vigorously opposed Paul's version of the gospel. These are individuals who would be glad Paul was arrested and would see it as God's judgment on him. In Rome, it is still possible that there were such people, even though the original controversy had not occurred there.
The problem is that the continued preaching of the gospel--especially if Paul is at Ephesus--simply keeps alive the reason Paul was arrested in the first place. The Christian message is controversial, indeed subversive to Roman rule. Paul is proclaiming a higher king than Caesar. As long as the gospel in all its controversy continues to be preached, the instability a person like Paul brings to the empire is front page news.
But Paul thinks that his ordeal advances the gospel, and he celebrates those who preach Christ boldy, knowing that it makes it more and more likely that the Roman governor will make an example of Paul. They affirm his values--that death is far from the worst that could happen to you. They believe that God is giving Paul an opportunity to witness to the truth of the gospel. His day in court is his day to proclaim that Jesus is Lord before rulers. Their heart is as Paul's heart.
1:17 The former proclaim the Christ out of ambition, not sincerely, thinking they will increase trouble for me in my chains.
Again, it is initially difficult for us to imagine how there could be Christians who believed in Christ, but preached Christ in such a way as to cause trouble for him. It may simply refer to people like those who loved Paul, but who in contrast enjoyed the fact that they were putting him in the spotlight. They might have portrayed Paul as a trouble maker in the way he went about preaching.
It is of course possible that Paul refers here to those he will call "dogs" in chapter 3. But the fact that he considers their gospel still to be the authentic gospel (see the next verse) probably argues against it.
1:18 But what [does it matter], except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and for this reason I rejoice.
Apparently, Paul's Christian opponents are still preaching Christ authentically enough for Paul to consider it the gospel. They must at least be preaching that Christ is king. Since he does not consider the gospel of the Judaizers to be the true gospel (Gal. 1:6), it seems unlikely that he has them in view here. The tone here also is not as strong as that in chapter 3.
Nevertheless, Paul's attitude here seems different than the one he has had in other situations where others have opposed him. He vigorously opposed those at Corinth who resisted his authority. His letter to the Galatians exudes his anger toward his opponents. If Philippians was written from Ephesus, we can perhaps a progression where Paul has recently dispatched a "harsh letter" to Corinth, one that has not survived but is mentioned in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor. 7:8). If one goes with the northern Galatian hypothesis, Paul has recently written Galatians as well.
But now he awaits his trial and may even be put to death (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8). His attitude mellows, as we see in 2 Corinthians 1-9, written a little after Paul leaves Ephesus. He is on his way to feeling as he will write from Corinth to Rome in a few months--the door on the East is closing for him (cf. Rom. 15:23). He consigns himself to be happy that the gospel continues to be preached, even if he is not the one doing it.
1:19 But I also will rejoice, for I know that this will come out as salvation for me through your petition and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
It is possible that Paul has in mind his acquittal before the Romans here, as he will mention in a few verses. But verse 20 points to ultimate salvation as what Paul has in mind. Paul primarily uses salvation language in relation to escape from God's wrath on the coming day of judgment. Paul continues to walk in faithfulness to God and he believes that he will make it to the end, just as he is convinced the Philippians themselves will.
But their prayers are a key component in him making it to the end, and the help of the Spirit of Christ is essential. We should not resolve the tension between the gracious empowerment of the Spirit and the necessity for Paul to walk faithfully to the end.
1:20 ... just as I am eagerly expecting and hoping that I will not be ashamed in any way but with all boldness, as always, Christ also now will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death.
Here is the direct expression of Paul's confidence that he will make it. Through their prayers and the help of the Holy Spirit, Paul will not be ashamed of Christ before the Romans, but will proclaim his faith boldly as a witness to Christ. Then Christ will be magnified either way, whether by letting Paul live or by his faithful death.
1:21-22 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is a gain. And if [I turn out] to live in the flesh, this [means] the fruit of work for me, and what I will decide I do not know.
So Paul, Stoic-like, consigns himself to whatever outcome may issue. He is not in control--a difficult thing for a person whose personality is to take control. He resigns himself to a situation about which he can currently do nothing.
It is all up to God. If he lives, he will continue to serve Christ in his ministry. If he dies, all the better, for he will be with Christ. He does not know which one God wills, and thus he does not know which one he should want.
1:23 And I am torn between the two, since I have the desire to be released and to be with Christ, [which is] far better by a lot.
Although not very clear itself, this verse is Paul's clearest indication that believers will be conscious between their deaths and the coming resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 both use the metaphor of sleep for the time between death and resurrection, and Paul further portrays death without resurrection as "perishing" (1 Cor. 15:18). From these earlier writings, it would be easy to conclude that Paul did not believe a person would be conscious in the shadowy time between death and resurrection.
In this verse, however, Paul thinks of going to be with Christ at death and considers it a better option than remaining in the world. It seems a different attitude toward death than his earlier writings have. Similarly, while 2 Corinthians 5:6-10 might not refer to the time between death and resurrection, many do read the idea of being "away from the body and home with the Lord" as a reference to this intermediate state.
The majority of interpreters simply take Paul's earlier references to "sleep" as metaphorical and see Paul having a consistent belief in conscious existence between death and resurrection for the entirety of his ministry. Others suggest that Paul's thinking underwent development, perhaps during the time of his debate with the Corinthian church. Still others have suggested that Paul's imprisonment led him to think that he would not survive till Christ's return, where he had earlier expected to be alive for this event. Such a sobering thought might lead to further reflection on our intermediate state.
1:24-25 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary because of you. And since I have become convinced of this [fact], I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your advancement and the joy of your faith,
Paul finally indicates that he believes he will survive his current ordeal. The reason is because he senses God still wants to minister to the Philippians through him, not least to contribute to their joy as they continue in faith. If Paul wrote Philippians from Ephesus, we know that he went on to visit Philippi after he left the city.
Many interpreters also suggest that Paul was acquitted after his appearance before Nero at the end of Acts, although Acts itself does not point in this direction. Its final chapters have a strong sense of foreboding, and Paul tells the Ephesians that they will never see him alive again (Acts 20:25). Given that Acts was almost certainly written some time after Paul was dead, it is more difficult to account for its manner of presentation if in fact Paul was acquitted before Nero.
1:26 ... so that your boasting in Christ Jesus might abound because of me, through my arrival again to you.
If Paul is released, as he anticipates, he plans to visit Philippi. This sense of direction also conflicts with a Roman imprisonment, since Paul's direction in Romans 15:24 is westward toward Spain. He believes his mission in the East is largely finished (Rom. 15:23). It is of course possible that an imprisonment in Rome has changed his sense of direction. But it is hard to think of why, if Paul were in Rome, he would not still plan to head west if he were released.
In any case, Paul's arrival in Philippi would be a matter of boasting for the Philippians, boasting in the mercy of God, boasting in the victory of God of His opponents, boasting in God's answers to prayers. This is not boasting in themselves, but boasting in Messiah Jesus for what he has done for Paul.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Explanatory Notes: Philippians 1:1-11
To my horror I realized that I scheduled over a chapter of Philippians reading for Monday's Prison Epistles class so that we could spend extra time in the hymn of chapter 2 thereafter. So I'd better get a crankin'.
_________
Introduction (1:1-11)
Prescript (1:1-2)
1:1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with [your] overseers and deacons,
Although Paul mentions Timothy here in the prescript, the bulk of the letter addresses the Philippians in the singular ("I," "me") and mentions Timothy in the third person (2:19). We can speculate that Timothy may have served as Paul's secretary or amanuensis in the writing of the letter.
Philippians and Romans are the only two places where Paul begins his letter by referring to himself as a "slave" or "servant." In Philemon he does refer to himself as a prisoner. More often he begins by calling himself an apostle. Perhaps it is significant that Philippians and Romans are not letters in which Paul plays up his authority. In Romans he wants to invite the support of his audience and in Philippians he is on some of his most cordial terms.
Paul refers to the audiences of his letters as "saints" or as called to be holy in several of his letters. In both instances the Greek word hagios is involved. To be holy is of course to be set apart as God's. The word itself need not imply any particular inward morality or goodness, as in 1 Cor. 7:14. Something that is God's is not to be treated as "common" or like any other thing. It is on the God rather than human side of the line.
"In Christ" is a characteristic phrase for Paul that appears on nearly every page of his writing. It is for him an essential part of redemption, for we are joined with Christ in baptism, united to his death, so that we might live with him (Rom. 6:4). We live in his faith (Gal. 2:20).
Philippi was a major city of Macedonia, a Roman colony located on the Egnatian Way. Latin would have been the official language of the city, although it doesn't pose any problem that Paul writes in Greek. Acts depicts the founding of the church there during Paul's second missionary journey around the year AD50. If Paul wrote Philippians from Ephesus, then this letter dates only 4 or 5 years later. If he wrote it from Rome, it would date as much as 10 or 12 years later.
The mention of "overseers and deacons" hints at the way Paul's churches were structured. Paul only refers to the church at Philippi in the singular (4:15), so we may only be speaking of a church of 40-50 people meeting in the house of a wealthy patron like the Lydia of Acts 16. This suggests a church governed more by a collection of individuals more than a single leader, unless we are meant to take Epaphroditus in some greater role.
The distinction between overseers and deacons is not made clear. If Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 give any indication, a deacon apparently held less oversight and authority in the assembly, perhaps taking on more of a role of the nuts and bolts of the church. Overseers would then provide more spiritual guidance. Acts suggests that it was Paul's pattern to appoint elders in the churches he founded (Acts 14:23), and it makes sense to say that such elders took on these roles.
1:2 ... grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is Paul's standard and perhaps self-styled way of introducing his letters. The word "grace" (charis) resembles the standard letter greeting (chairein) and so may be a word play. Peace (shalom) was of course the standard Aramaic greeting. So Paul's greetings in a way embody his theology of the unity of Jewish and Gentile believer.
That grace and peace comes from our divine Patron, God, our Father. And it is brokered through the Lord, the risen, cosmic king, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.
Thanksgiving (1:3-11)
1:3-5 I give thanks to my God with every remembrance of you, in every petition of mine for you, making the petition with joy because of our fellowship in relation to the gospel from the first day till now,
Part of the standard format of an ancient letter was a section of thanksgiving to the gods or a word of praise to the gods after the letter opening. Paul's letters, with the exception of Galatians, typically do the same. However, even though the language here is somewhat typical (like "Dear John"), we have every reason to think that Paul meant it sincerely.
This is especially true in relation to the Philippians, perhaps the church with which Paul felt the strongest bond of fellowship.
1:6 ... since I am persuaded of this: that the One who began a good work among you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Paul's thinking holds in tension a sense of human responsibility for action along with a sense of divine direction and determinism. In our opinion, Paul never works out a resolution to this tension, and the contrasting schools of Calvinism and Arminianism are the result, with one group emphasizing the deterministic passages and the other emphasizing Paul's sense of human responsibility.
This particular verse focuses on God as the one working in and among the Philippians. Paul believes he can already discern the trajectory they are on, a trajectory for salvation on the Day of Messiah Jesus. The "Day of the Lord" is of course prophetic language that refers to the day of judgment. In the Old Testament it is the day when God finally brings justice for his people.
For Paul it is the day of Christ's arrival from heaven, the day when the judgment of the world begins. It is also the day of salvation for those who because of faith escape God's wrath in judgment. So Paul believes he can tell that they will be among those who make it till the end and escape the wrath of God when Christ returns.
1:7 ... as it is right for me to think this about you all, because I have you in [my] heart, and since, in my chains and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, you are all my fellow partakers of grace.
Paul does not reveal the full dynamic of why he is convinced God will complete the work God began in them, but perhaps he gives a hint here. He knows that God will complete His work among them because he himself has them in his heart. Presumably, Paul does not think he would care so much about them and long for their fellowship if God had not truly chosen them.
And they feel the same way about him. They walk with him and experience God's favor just as Paul does. Paul may currently be waiting trial in prison for his activities in relation to the gospel, the good news that Jesus is Lord. But such suffering for Paul is an honor, a gift from God. He has been granted the honor of defending the lordship of Christ and confirming it by the fact that he stands firm.
1:8 For God is my witness, as I long for you all with the bowels of Christ Jesus.
Paul does not actually swear by the Lord, but he does invoke God as a witness to the truth of what he is saying. And what he is expressing to the Philippians is his deep love for them, here expressed as a longing of his bowels. It was a commonplace to see the heart as the origin of courage and spirit in the chest. The bowels or abdomen then were the seat of desire of a more fundamental kind. Paul has that sort of bond with the Philippians, and it is the same love that Messiah Jesus also had and has for them.
1:9-10 And I am praying this: that your love might multiply still more and more with knowledge and all perception, so that you can discern the things that are superior, so that you may be pure and without blame on the Day of Christ.
Wisdom and discernment are not major themes in Philippians, unlike Colossians, which Paul might have written at about the same time. Paul does address the potential influence of "Judaizers" in chapter 3, an issue that Paul no doubt thought required good judgment.
But in keeping with the theme of God continuing to work in them until the day of Christ's return, Paul prays that they will know how to live in this world, "to discern the things that are superior." Paul is presumably talking about knowing how to live and make the kinds of decisions that will leave them free of blame.
Paul knows nothing of some blamelessness that is a "legal fiction" in which a person is still as much a sinner as before, but only considered pure from a legal standpoint. This verse focuses on the need for God's people to live in the world in a way that is literally considered blameless and pure to God. He surely implies that it is God that gives them the discernment to live this way. But there is no hint of anything but a full expectation of righteous living.
1:11 ... and be filled with the fruit of righteousness through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
The person who is "pure and without blame" is a person whose life is "filled with the fruit of righteousness." Galatians 5:22-23 spell out the kind of fruit Paul likely has in mind. They are things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
To be sure, this fruit comes "through Jesus Christ." It is not something the Philippians might boast about. In the end, as every praiseworthy thing in the cosmos, the goodness of this fruit goes "to the glory and praise of God."
_________
Introduction (1:1-11)
Prescript (1:1-2)
1:1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with [your] overseers and deacons,
Although Paul mentions Timothy here in the prescript, the bulk of the letter addresses the Philippians in the singular ("I," "me") and mentions Timothy in the third person (2:19). We can speculate that Timothy may have served as Paul's secretary or amanuensis in the writing of the letter.
Philippians and Romans are the only two places where Paul begins his letter by referring to himself as a "slave" or "servant." In Philemon he does refer to himself as a prisoner. More often he begins by calling himself an apostle. Perhaps it is significant that Philippians and Romans are not letters in which Paul plays up his authority. In Romans he wants to invite the support of his audience and in Philippians he is on some of his most cordial terms.
Paul refers to the audiences of his letters as "saints" or as called to be holy in several of his letters. In both instances the Greek word hagios is involved. To be holy is of course to be set apart as God's. The word itself need not imply any particular inward morality or goodness, as in 1 Cor. 7:14. Something that is God's is not to be treated as "common" or like any other thing. It is on the God rather than human side of the line.
"In Christ" is a characteristic phrase for Paul that appears on nearly every page of his writing. It is for him an essential part of redemption, for we are joined with Christ in baptism, united to his death, so that we might live with him (Rom. 6:4). We live in his faith (Gal. 2:20).
Philippi was a major city of Macedonia, a Roman colony located on the Egnatian Way. Latin would have been the official language of the city, although it doesn't pose any problem that Paul writes in Greek. Acts depicts the founding of the church there during Paul's second missionary journey around the year AD50. If Paul wrote Philippians from Ephesus, then this letter dates only 4 or 5 years later. If he wrote it from Rome, it would date as much as 10 or 12 years later.
The mention of "overseers and deacons" hints at the way Paul's churches were structured. Paul only refers to the church at Philippi in the singular (4:15), so we may only be speaking of a church of 40-50 people meeting in the house of a wealthy patron like the Lydia of Acts 16. This suggests a church governed more by a collection of individuals more than a single leader, unless we are meant to take Epaphroditus in some greater role.
The distinction between overseers and deacons is not made clear. If Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 give any indication, a deacon apparently held less oversight and authority in the assembly, perhaps taking on more of a role of the nuts and bolts of the church. Overseers would then provide more spiritual guidance. Acts suggests that it was Paul's pattern to appoint elders in the churches he founded (Acts 14:23), and it makes sense to say that such elders took on these roles.
1:2 ... grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is Paul's standard and perhaps self-styled way of introducing his letters. The word "grace" (charis) resembles the standard letter greeting (chairein) and so may be a word play. Peace (shalom) was of course the standard Aramaic greeting. So Paul's greetings in a way embody his theology of the unity of Jewish and Gentile believer.
That grace and peace comes from our divine Patron, God, our Father. And it is brokered through the Lord, the risen, cosmic king, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.
Thanksgiving (1:3-11)
1:3-5 I give thanks to my God with every remembrance of you, in every petition of mine for you, making the petition with joy because of our fellowship in relation to the gospel from the first day till now,
Part of the standard format of an ancient letter was a section of thanksgiving to the gods or a word of praise to the gods after the letter opening. Paul's letters, with the exception of Galatians, typically do the same. However, even though the language here is somewhat typical (like "Dear John"), we have every reason to think that Paul meant it sincerely.
This is especially true in relation to the Philippians, perhaps the church with which Paul felt the strongest bond of fellowship.
1:6 ... since I am persuaded of this: that the One who began a good work among you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Paul's thinking holds in tension a sense of human responsibility for action along with a sense of divine direction and determinism. In our opinion, Paul never works out a resolution to this tension, and the contrasting schools of Calvinism and Arminianism are the result, with one group emphasizing the deterministic passages and the other emphasizing Paul's sense of human responsibility.
This particular verse focuses on God as the one working in and among the Philippians. Paul believes he can already discern the trajectory they are on, a trajectory for salvation on the Day of Messiah Jesus. The "Day of the Lord" is of course prophetic language that refers to the day of judgment. In the Old Testament it is the day when God finally brings justice for his people.
For Paul it is the day of Christ's arrival from heaven, the day when the judgment of the world begins. It is also the day of salvation for those who because of faith escape God's wrath in judgment. So Paul believes he can tell that they will be among those who make it till the end and escape the wrath of God when Christ returns.
1:7 ... as it is right for me to think this about you all, because I have you in [my] heart, and since, in my chains and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, you are all my fellow partakers of grace.
Paul does not reveal the full dynamic of why he is convinced God will complete the work God began in them, but perhaps he gives a hint here. He knows that God will complete His work among them because he himself has them in his heart. Presumably, Paul does not think he would care so much about them and long for their fellowship if God had not truly chosen them.
And they feel the same way about him. They walk with him and experience God's favor just as Paul does. Paul may currently be waiting trial in prison for his activities in relation to the gospel, the good news that Jesus is Lord. But such suffering for Paul is an honor, a gift from God. He has been granted the honor of defending the lordship of Christ and confirming it by the fact that he stands firm.
1:8 For God is my witness, as I long for you all with the bowels of Christ Jesus.
Paul does not actually swear by the Lord, but he does invoke God as a witness to the truth of what he is saying. And what he is expressing to the Philippians is his deep love for them, here expressed as a longing of his bowels. It was a commonplace to see the heart as the origin of courage and spirit in the chest. The bowels or abdomen then were the seat of desire of a more fundamental kind. Paul has that sort of bond with the Philippians, and it is the same love that Messiah Jesus also had and has for them.
1:9-10 And I am praying this: that your love might multiply still more and more with knowledge and all perception, so that you can discern the things that are superior, so that you may be pure and without blame on the Day of Christ.
Wisdom and discernment are not major themes in Philippians, unlike Colossians, which Paul might have written at about the same time. Paul does address the potential influence of "Judaizers" in chapter 3, an issue that Paul no doubt thought required good judgment.
But in keeping with the theme of God continuing to work in them until the day of Christ's return, Paul prays that they will know how to live in this world, "to discern the things that are superior." Paul is presumably talking about knowing how to live and make the kinds of decisions that will leave them free of blame.
Paul knows nothing of some blamelessness that is a "legal fiction" in which a person is still as much a sinner as before, but only considered pure from a legal standpoint. This verse focuses on the need for God's people to live in the world in a way that is literally considered blameless and pure to God. He surely implies that it is God that gives them the discernment to live this way. But there is no hint of anything but a full expectation of righteous living.
1:11 ... and be filled with the fruit of righteousness through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
The person who is "pure and without blame" is a person whose life is "filled with the fruit of righteousness." Galatians 5:22-23 spell out the kind of fruit Paul likely has in mind. They are things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
To be sure, this fruit comes "through Jesus Christ." It is not something the Philippians might boast about. In the end, as every praiseworthy thing in the cosmos, the goodness of this fruit goes "to the glory and praise of God."
McCain's Speech Last Night
First, let me say that I like John McCain. I sure wish I could have voted for him in 2000. The tone of so much of what I've heard of the Republican convention has really turned me off. McCain gets that the American people are sick of this way of doing politics. Although he didn't get massive claps, I deeply appreciate his comments on reaching across the isle.
[I can't stand Lindsay Graham--if he even gets mentioned in the history books (doubtful), his way of thinking about Iraq is what the footnotes will make snide remarks about.]
I do want to say that I resent the continued insinuation that somehow the Republican party is the party that loves the U.S.A., U.S.A, U.S.A. Anyone can shout "U.S.A" like a drunk at a football game. I want people who can think through complex issues, not just shoot when you can't think of anything else to do. (By the way, when did moose hunting qualify you to be Vice President?)
As nice as McCain is, I thought his speech was pretty flat. Who cares about earmarks? That's part of the way representing your state works. It reminds me of Bush Senior's feeble attempt to advocate lawsuit reform in 1992. Nobody cared (although I voted for him).
I didn't find some of his lines heartfelt. So he said, "we need judges who don't legislate from the bench." Somehow, I don't think this is really his beef. He was reading the party's script on things like tax credits to send your kids to private schools.
I did appreciate what he had to say about hating war and doing everything in his power to keep it from happening. I wish Bush and Cheney had had more of this in them. And frankly, I thought these comments were in tension with the rest of the convention's war rhetoric.
My conclusion: McCain is far more inspiring when people are talking about him than when he is talking himself. I honor his service; I honor the fact that he suffered for so many years in Hanoi... just like I honored John Kerry for his service four years ago. Now that we've got all touchy feely, back to the real topic at hand: who would be the best person to be President of the United States?
[I can't stand Lindsay Graham--if he even gets mentioned in the history books (doubtful), his way of thinking about Iraq is what the footnotes will make snide remarks about.]
I do want to say that I resent the continued insinuation that somehow the Republican party is the party that loves the U.S.A., U.S.A, U.S.A. Anyone can shout "U.S.A" like a drunk at a football game. I want people who can think through complex issues, not just shoot when you can't think of anything else to do. (By the way, when did moose hunting qualify you to be Vice President?)
As nice as McCain is, I thought his speech was pretty flat. Who cares about earmarks? That's part of the way representing your state works. It reminds me of Bush Senior's feeble attempt to advocate lawsuit reform in 1992. Nobody cared (although I voted for him).
I didn't find some of his lines heartfelt. So he said, "we need judges who don't legislate from the bench." Somehow, I don't think this is really his beef. He was reading the party's script on things like tax credits to send your kids to private schools.
I did appreciate what he had to say about hating war and doing everything in his power to keep it from happening. I wish Bush and Cheney had had more of this in them. And frankly, I thought these comments were in tension with the rest of the convention's war rhetoric.
My conclusion: McCain is far more inspiring when people are talking about him than when he is talking himself. I honor his service; I honor the fact that he suffered for so many years in Hanoi... just like I honored John Kerry for his service four years ago. Now that we've got all touchy feely, back to the real topic at hand: who would be the best person to be President of the United States?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Palin's Speech Last Night
I was working on classes last night and missed the live performance, but read through the transcript of Sarah Palin's speech this morning (as well as some excerpts from Guliani's). They struck me as pretty effective for motivating the party base.
For Guliani it was lack of executive experience for Obama and absence of any distinguishing legislation in the Senate.
For Palin it was "look, I'm a Dobson mother" and "Obama never mentioned victory once except in reference to his own campaign."
It seems to me the "no experience" and "my son's going off to Iraq next week" rhetoric works really well with the 60+ and remaining WW2 generation. Drill baby drill works with the business crowd. And holding the baby, I'm a hockey mom, works with the Dobson crowd. I did think it was a little over the top when they handed her the AK47 for the NRA crowd (just kidding).
I find Guliani's speech a more substantive attack. Other than pointing out McCain's experience, which is certainly noteworthy, Palin's speech seemed to me more "posing for pictures with the base" than anything else.
On the other hand, I think most Americans will find the raking over the coals of Palin's personal life irritating. The kind of people that are going for Obama don't like that sort of stuff, although I suspect the Clinton crowd does. In fact, the people going for Obama will find both speeches the same old polarizing approach to politics they are tired of.
The "clinging to guns and religion" quote got some air last night. I find that irritating, because the statement bears serious discussion. I have yet to see those who don't like it actually address the question of whether it has any truth to it or not. Rather, the response has been--"Are you going to let him say that about you! Let's go shoot him in the name of God!"
What did you think?
For Guliani it was lack of executive experience for Obama and absence of any distinguishing legislation in the Senate.
For Palin it was "look, I'm a Dobson mother" and "Obama never mentioned victory once except in reference to his own campaign."
It seems to me the "no experience" and "my son's going off to Iraq next week" rhetoric works really well with the 60+ and remaining WW2 generation. Drill baby drill works with the business crowd. And holding the baby, I'm a hockey mom, works with the Dobson crowd. I did think it was a little over the top when they handed her the AK47 for the NRA crowd (just kidding).
I find Guliani's speech a more substantive attack. Other than pointing out McCain's experience, which is certainly noteworthy, Palin's speech seemed to me more "posing for pictures with the base" than anything else.
On the other hand, I think most Americans will find the raking over the coals of Palin's personal life irritating. The kind of people that are going for Obama don't like that sort of stuff, although I suspect the Clinton crowd does. In fact, the people going for Obama will find both speeches the same old polarizing approach to politics they are tired of.
The "clinging to guns and religion" quote got some air last night. I find that irritating, because the statement bears serious discussion. I have yet to see those who don't like it actually address the question of whether it has any truth to it or not. Rather, the response has been--"Are you going to let him say that about you! Let's go shoot him in the name of God!"
What did you think?
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Explanatory Notes: Approaching Philippians
I am increasingly pessimistic that I will be able to keep up with my goals to do explanatory notes for the two Bible classes I am teaching this semester, the second of which is Prison Epistles. The students are reading through major portions of three commentaries anyway.
But at least I won't give up today. Here is my part of their reading assignment for Friday.
_________
Approaching Philippians
Philippians begins by telling us that its authors are Paul and Timothy, although the bulk of the letter speaks in the first person singular. We should thus think of Paul as the primary voice behind the letter. Perhaps Timothy served as his secretary in writing.
The letter is addressed to all the saints who are in Philippi, including overseers and deacons. At one point he does refer to them as a singular assembly (4:15), although it is hard to know for sure whether this straightforwardly means they could all fit within one house church. If so, then we should think of a rather small community of 40-50.
Paul has some history with the church and a clear fondness for them. He apparently went to Thessalonica from Philippi, a trajectory that corresponds with Paul's course on his second missionary journey. While he was at Thessalonica, the Philippian church alone apparently sent him material support on more than one occasion.
And they apparently have sent support to Paul again as part of the background of this letter. They heard that Paul was in prison awaiting trial (e.g., 1:13) and sent Epaphroditus with support (2:25; 4:18). Prison was not a punishment in the Roman world, but a time of waiting for trial. We can infer from Philippians that at the time of writing he expected a verdict soon and then would perhaps come visit them (2:24). Meanwhile, enough time had elapsed since he was imprisoned for 1) word to travel to Philippi, 2) Epaphroditus to come to him from Philippi, 3) word to travel back to Philippi that Epaphroditus was sick, and 4) word to travel back to Paul of their reaction to Epaphroditus' sickness.
This letter seems, as much as anything, a note of thanks for their support, sent most likely to them with Epaphroditus himself (2:25). He hoped soon thereafter to send Timothy and then to come himself. He also takes the opportunity to address some tension between two of the prominent women of the church (4:2) and, indeed, the importance of unity in general (2:2).
A sidebar in 3:2-11 warns the Philippians of Jews, probably Christian Jews, who presumably might try to convince them, as Gentile converts, to become circumcised and follow the particulars of the Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile. Paul does not indicate that such individuals are already in play at Philippi. He is simply warning them of the issues that he addressed head on in Galatians. Although some have suggested this section might have come from another of Paul's letters and have been placed here, we have no reason not to take the text as it is.
It is a matter of some debate as to where Paul was imprisoned when he wrote Philippians. The traditional view is that he is in Rome, the most obvious place where one would find a praetorian guard (1:13) and those of Caesar's household (4:22). Accordingly, if we followed Acts, we would then date Philippians to the early 60's while Paul was under house arrest in Rome.
On the other hand, Paul's plans to come to Philippi and the apparent proximity of Philippi to his place of imprisonment, allowing for so many cycles of news back and forth, speaks more toward a location like Ephesus and, thus, an earlier date such as the mid-50's. Acts does not tell of an Ephesian imprisonment, but Acts does not tell of other things too. Further, Acts has a tendency to downplay Christian entanglement with secular authorities, choosing rather to blame Christian troubles on "the Jews."
In this light it is significant that Paul apparently did get into a major conflict at Ephesus with a mob (Acts 19:23-41). In 2 Corinthians 1:8, written not long after this crisis, Paul indicates that his opposition in Asia was so fierce that he feared for his life and was afraid he would get "the sentence of death." 1 Clement further indicates that Paul was imprisoned seven times, only three of which we can straightforwardly account for in Acts.
In short, it is more than possible that Paul was imprisoned at Ephesus for a time in the aftermath of the riot. If so, it might contribute to an explanation for why he apparently stayed outside the city limits on his way back through the area a few months later (cf. Acts 20:16). And if Mark can speak of a praetorium in Jerusalem (Mark 16:15), there might certainly have been one in Ephesus.
But at least I won't give up today. Here is my part of their reading assignment for Friday.
_________
Approaching Philippians
Philippians begins by telling us that its authors are Paul and Timothy, although the bulk of the letter speaks in the first person singular. We should thus think of Paul as the primary voice behind the letter. Perhaps Timothy served as his secretary in writing.
The letter is addressed to all the saints who are in Philippi, including overseers and deacons. At one point he does refer to them as a singular assembly (4:15), although it is hard to know for sure whether this straightforwardly means they could all fit within one house church. If so, then we should think of a rather small community of 40-50.
Paul has some history with the church and a clear fondness for them. He apparently went to Thessalonica from Philippi, a trajectory that corresponds with Paul's course on his second missionary journey. While he was at Thessalonica, the Philippian church alone apparently sent him material support on more than one occasion.
And they apparently have sent support to Paul again as part of the background of this letter. They heard that Paul was in prison awaiting trial (e.g., 1:13) and sent Epaphroditus with support (2:25; 4:18). Prison was not a punishment in the Roman world, but a time of waiting for trial. We can infer from Philippians that at the time of writing he expected a verdict soon and then would perhaps come visit them (2:24). Meanwhile, enough time had elapsed since he was imprisoned for 1) word to travel to Philippi, 2) Epaphroditus to come to him from Philippi, 3) word to travel back to Philippi that Epaphroditus was sick, and 4) word to travel back to Paul of their reaction to Epaphroditus' sickness.
This letter seems, as much as anything, a note of thanks for their support, sent most likely to them with Epaphroditus himself (2:25). He hoped soon thereafter to send Timothy and then to come himself. He also takes the opportunity to address some tension between two of the prominent women of the church (4:2) and, indeed, the importance of unity in general (2:2).
A sidebar in 3:2-11 warns the Philippians of Jews, probably Christian Jews, who presumably might try to convince them, as Gentile converts, to become circumcised and follow the particulars of the Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile. Paul does not indicate that such individuals are already in play at Philippi. He is simply warning them of the issues that he addressed head on in Galatians. Although some have suggested this section might have come from another of Paul's letters and have been placed here, we have no reason not to take the text as it is.
It is a matter of some debate as to where Paul was imprisoned when he wrote Philippians. The traditional view is that he is in Rome, the most obvious place where one would find a praetorian guard (1:13) and those of Caesar's household (4:22). Accordingly, if we followed Acts, we would then date Philippians to the early 60's while Paul was under house arrest in Rome.
On the other hand, Paul's plans to come to Philippi and the apparent proximity of Philippi to his place of imprisonment, allowing for so many cycles of news back and forth, speaks more toward a location like Ephesus and, thus, an earlier date such as the mid-50's. Acts does not tell of an Ephesian imprisonment, but Acts does not tell of other things too. Further, Acts has a tendency to downplay Christian entanglement with secular authorities, choosing rather to blame Christian troubles on "the Jews."
In this light it is significant that Paul apparently did get into a major conflict at Ephesus with a mob (Acts 19:23-41). In 2 Corinthians 1:8, written not long after this crisis, Paul indicates that his opposition in Asia was so fierce that he feared for his life and was afraid he would get "the sentence of death." 1 Clement further indicates that Paul was imprisoned seven times, only three of which we can straightforwardly account for in Acts.
In short, it is more than possible that Paul was imprisoned at Ephesus for a time in the aftermath of the riot. If so, it might contribute to an explanation for why he apparently stayed outside the city limits on his way back through the area a few months later (cf. Acts 20:16). And if Mark can speak of a praetorium in Jerusalem (Mark 16:15), there might certainly have been one in Ephesus.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Monday Editorial: Education in America
I have occasion often to think about the American education system. I have two step-daughters at Marion High School and two children in elementary school here. My wife is the social worker at Kendall Elementary School and has worked there in several capacities these last couple of years. Here are some of my thoughts.
1. If I had to choose between whether a child would learn to be a healthy member of society or to learn how to read and do math, I would pick the former. There are plenty of murderers who can read and do math. I would rather they had learned how to get along with others in school.
Of course it is not an either/or. A person can both learn to get along with others and be a healthy member of society and learn how to read and write. But for some reason, a lot of political rhetoric seems to think that the biggest mark of success is a person's scores on a standardized test. Au contraire.
It is for this reason that I think Obama is the better pick when it comes to education. I was disappointed with a comment McCain made at Sattleback about firing teachers who can't teach. Certainly we should fire teachers who can't teach.
But the problem with the American educational system is not the teachers, it's the children... or rather, it is the home environment in which the children are raised. "No Child Left Behind" has good goals (although one sided ones), but it mistakenly places the blame for failed learning on the schools. It is our homes that have failed far more than our schools.
Teachers have to spend so much time doing crowd control that they can't hardly get any teaching done. And those kids who want to learn and have been raised to listen miss out.
2. We would probably do well to differentiate high school students into different tracks earlier on like they do in Europe. My step-daughters don't need calculus. In fact, many a bright student doesn't.
We need to get on the ball by seriously rewarding/recruiting students who can do math and science, and we need to be doing it early. But the others would be better funneled in directions of their own giftage and interests. The now old, "You can do anything you put your mind to" is just a lie, and we would do well to effect an educational system that is more custom made.
What do you think?
1. If I had to choose between whether a child would learn to be a healthy member of society or to learn how to read and do math, I would pick the former. There are plenty of murderers who can read and do math. I would rather they had learned how to get along with others in school.
Of course it is not an either/or. A person can both learn to get along with others and be a healthy member of society and learn how to read and write. But for some reason, a lot of political rhetoric seems to think that the biggest mark of success is a person's scores on a standardized test. Au contraire.
It is for this reason that I think Obama is the better pick when it comes to education. I was disappointed with a comment McCain made at Sattleback about firing teachers who can't teach. Certainly we should fire teachers who can't teach.
But the problem with the American educational system is not the teachers, it's the children... or rather, it is the home environment in which the children are raised. "No Child Left Behind" has good goals (although one sided ones), but it mistakenly places the blame for failed learning on the schools. It is our homes that have failed far more than our schools.
Teachers have to spend so much time doing crowd control that they can't hardly get any teaching done. And those kids who want to learn and have been raised to listen miss out.
2. We would probably do well to differentiate high school students into different tracks earlier on like they do in Europe. My step-daughters don't need calculus. In fact, many a bright student doesn't.
We need to get on the ball by seriously rewarding/recruiting students who can do math and science, and we need to be doing it early. But the others would be better funneled in directions of their own giftage and interests. The now old, "You can do anything you put your mind to" is just a lie, and we would do well to effect an educational system that is more custom made.
What do you think?
A Wesleyan Perspective on Coherence
So what might a Wesleyan understanding of Scriptural coherence be at the beginning of the twenty-first century? Our discussion has dabbled in at least three models of coherence, and we would suggest that all three are potentially valid from a Wesleyan perspective. The first is the pneumatic model, in which the reading of Scripture can be quite individual and particular to a specific group’s understanding. The revival preachers of the holiness movement believed that they had heard God speak through the words of the Bible, and they proclaimed these messages with the authority of God. We would now recognize in their preaching a persistent lack of attention to the original context and, thus, to any likely original meaning of the texts they preached and still preach today.
However, their use of Scripture is not completely unlike the way the New Testament authors themselves used the Old Testament. On what basis could we say definitively that the Holy Spirit no longer speaks in this way? Certainly we could not say such a thing on the basis of the Bible itself. The New Testament never abandons pneumatic exegesis, nor does it indicate that such exegesis will ever be inappropriate in the future.
A second valid way to read the books of the Bible is surely in terms of their original meanings. We do not have full access to these meanings, and we have reason to believe that such readings fall short in themselves from the fullest Christian understanding of these texts. The original meanings are diverse, for they span a thousand years and three languages. They are often situational, since the books of the Bible often addressed particular situations and would have given different admonitions if those situations had been different. They are progressive, if we are to believe that God has led His people to our current understandings as Christians. The Old Testament does not understand God yet as well as the New Testament does, and the New Testament is only the beginning of the understanding that the church would clarify in the creeds.
The coherence of these disparate original meanings is found in our overarching sense of the Christian story. The events, characters, and settings of that story are found in Scripture. The books of the Bible provide the building blocks of the story, the elements of our theological understanding. But our sense of the story itself is larger than the Bible and is ultimately a perspective we take from the outside of the Bible looking in. In that sense, the Bible alone is secondary to the unified perspective we bring to it as Christians.
In short, the most Christian perspective on Scripture and its coherence is one that reads it through the lenses of the “rule of faith” and the “law of love,” as Wesley and Augustine did. Here Green is right to point out that the text understood this way is to us from God. We are reading our mail and not just the mail of people who have been dead for two or three thousand years. Here Vanhoozer is right to see Scripture as a divine speech-act God is communicating to His people. Such meanings are almost certainly different from the original meaning at many points, and such meanings cannot do away with the reality of the original meaning as something distinct from them. But they are the most “Christian” readings that understand the Jewish Bible to be the Christian Old Testament rather than the Jewish Scriptures. And we read the New Testament as the Scripture of the church catholic and not as Gnostics or those early Christians who did not believe Jesus was God.
It remains for the Wesleyan tradition of the future to determine the ways in which its hermeneutic might be distinctive in coming days. We can say, however, that it seems more flexible than several other Protestant traditions and indeed that it might potentially thrive in our current setting. Its ability to accommodate the pneumatic, contextual, and “canonical” approaches to Scripture is a distinctive. At the same time, a further distinction will of course be that it brings with it, as part of its tradition, certain pre-dispositions toward parts of the biblical text. It will emphasize passages that other traditions do not, and it will find different passages to be “clear” than others. And as with the rest of Christendom, it will ultimately see the unity of the text in the unity of the God who gave it and the One whose story it embodies.
However, their use of Scripture is not completely unlike the way the New Testament authors themselves used the Old Testament. On what basis could we say definitively that the Holy Spirit no longer speaks in this way? Certainly we could not say such a thing on the basis of the Bible itself. The New Testament never abandons pneumatic exegesis, nor does it indicate that such exegesis will ever be inappropriate in the future.
A second valid way to read the books of the Bible is surely in terms of their original meanings. We do not have full access to these meanings, and we have reason to believe that such readings fall short in themselves from the fullest Christian understanding of these texts. The original meanings are diverse, for they span a thousand years and three languages. They are often situational, since the books of the Bible often addressed particular situations and would have given different admonitions if those situations had been different. They are progressive, if we are to believe that God has led His people to our current understandings as Christians. The Old Testament does not understand God yet as well as the New Testament does, and the New Testament is only the beginning of the understanding that the church would clarify in the creeds.
The coherence of these disparate original meanings is found in our overarching sense of the Christian story. The events, characters, and settings of that story are found in Scripture. The books of the Bible provide the building blocks of the story, the elements of our theological understanding. But our sense of the story itself is larger than the Bible and is ultimately a perspective we take from the outside of the Bible looking in. In that sense, the Bible alone is secondary to the unified perspective we bring to it as Christians.
In short, the most Christian perspective on Scripture and its coherence is one that reads it through the lenses of the “rule of faith” and the “law of love,” as Wesley and Augustine did. Here Green is right to point out that the text understood this way is to us from God. We are reading our mail and not just the mail of people who have been dead for two or three thousand years. Here Vanhoozer is right to see Scripture as a divine speech-act God is communicating to His people. Such meanings are almost certainly different from the original meaning at many points, and such meanings cannot do away with the reality of the original meaning as something distinct from them. But they are the most “Christian” readings that understand the Jewish Bible to be the Christian Old Testament rather than the Jewish Scriptures. And we read the New Testament as the Scripture of the church catholic and not as Gnostics or those early Christians who did not believe Jesus was God.
It remains for the Wesleyan tradition of the future to determine the ways in which its hermeneutic might be distinctive in coming days. We can say, however, that it seems more flexible than several other Protestant traditions and indeed that it might potentially thrive in our current setting. Its ability to accommodate the pneumatic, contextual, and “canonical” approaches to Scripture is a distinctive. At the same time, a further distinction will of course be that it brings with it, as part of its tradition, certain pre-dispositions toward parts of the biblical text. It will emphasize passages that other traditions do not, and it will find different passages to be “clear” than others. And as with the rest of Christendom, it will ultimately see the unity of the text in the unity of the God who gave it and the One whose story it embodies.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
3 Postmodern Complications
Somewhere in the middle of this section I passed my word limit. Oh well, I'm sure some of you could easily cut out parts of what I've written. I think I'm finally ready for my conclusion after this section. Then the pruning... or I suppose rewriting... will begin.
______________
The post-modern critique of meaning has forced at least some modifications to modernist evangelical hermeneutics. We would argue that these modifications actually cohere better with the hermeneutic of John Wesley and the nineteenth century holiness movement than they do with late twentieth century evangelical hermeneutics. For example, we have already seen the (professed) contemporary evangelical aversion to reading Scripture in any way other than with its original meaning. Richard Longenecker exemplifies this tendency in his study of the way the New Testament itself interprets the Old Testament.[i] His work and the work of evangelical scholarship in general have attempted to minimize the non-contextual orientation of New Testament exegesis.[ii]
Nevertheless, Longenecker is forced in the end to acknowledge that the biblical authors themselves come up short when evaluated by the canons of evangelical hermeneutics.[iii] Rather than let New Testament practice legitimize the pneumatic exegesis that typified groups like nineteenth century revivalists and twentieth century charismatics, he instead gives precedence to the evangelical perspective over the practice of the Bible itself. He relegates New Testament methods of exegesis to an aspect of ancient culture that does not transcend to the present! The guiding principles of evangelical hermeneutics are thus recognized to be based on principles brought to the Bible rather than derived from Scripture itself.
Ironically, Vanhoozer himself is a good illustration of the incoherency of evangelical hermeneutics as it attempts to respond to the post-modern critique of meaning. At the same time that he champions the literal meaning of Scripture, we find him deviating to a different hermeneutic, seemingly unaware, as he searches for a way from the particular meanings of individual passages to an overarching, coherent significance for Scripture as a whole.[iv] Scripture as a whole, he suggests, is a speech-act from God, which means that God has determined the meaning of Scripture as a whole. Certainly we do not fault him for this theological understanding of Scripture—it coheres well with John Wesley’s sense of the analogy of faith.
What it does not cohere with are his own claims with regard to the proper meaning of the Bible as its “literal” meaning. However the audiences of the biblical texts understood the books of the Bible, they did it from within their particular socio-cultural matrices and their accompanying symbolic universes. These diverse meanings constitute the plain (what he means by “literal”) meaning of the books of the Bible. Whatever it might mean to say that Scripture is an overarching, divine speech-act, it is de facto quite distinct from the several, “literal” meanings of the words.
On the other hand, others have taken the post-modern critique on board to the extent that they no longer seem to distinguish between the original meaning of the biblical texts and their own theological appropriation of it. Joel Green, for example, eschews the modernist hermeneutic that bids us think of the books of the Bible as “someone else’s mail.”[v] Unless we are willing to hear ourselves as the “you” of James, he writes, “we are not in a position to hear well the Letter of James as Christian Scripture."[vi] Again, these comments cohere well with the hermeneutics of both Wesley and the Christians of the ages, as well as with the nineteenth century holiness revivalists.
The issue with theological hermeneutics, as we might term Green’s approach, is that it seems to put its head in the sand and simply ignore the elephant in the room, namely, the fact that the meanings we see in the biblical text are almost certainly different from those of the original audiences. On the one hand, the twentieth century philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer rightly pointed out that we inevitably bring along the perspectives of our past, especially the traditions to which we belong, as we try to interpret texts such as the Bible.[vii] The result is that our understandings of the biblical books always blur our context with the original contexts, which inevitably remain somewhat inaccessible to us. Accordingly, Green’s hermeneutic largely gives up the chase. Indeed, it almost impugns the chase as inimical to understanding the Bible as Christian Scripture.
Again, we might easily conceptualize Wesley’s analogy of faith as the appropriate theological context within which to read the books of Scripture, the appropriate tradition within which to fuse our “horizon” with the “horizon” of the biblical texts. The diverse books of the Bible thus take on the coherent structure of faith that we bring to it and become unified Scripture. At the same time, we must recognize that although we may not be able to determine with full certainty what the original meaning of the books of the Bible was, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it must have differed in significant ways from the holistic theological perspective we bring to it by way of the analogy of faith.
We can say such things because of the principle of anachronism. Although we do not know the original meaning of the Bible definitively, we know enough about ancient symbolic universes to see that, for example, Christian understandings of the Old Testament must often differ from the understandings its original audiences would have had in the ancient near east. Similarly, unless we wish to suggest that the Christian thinkers of the second to fifth century had simply lost touch with the original meaning of the New Testament, we must conclude that their conclusions on the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ forged new ground with the biblical texts that differed to at least some degree from their original meanings. Otherwise they would not have had so much to debate.
In short, we see that the coherence of the Bible is as much a function of us as Christian readers as it is a function of the original meaning of these texts. The books themselves, as far as their original authors are concerned, largely were not written with a view to each other. The authors of the “Jewish Bible” by and large did not interact with each other to explain how, for example, comments the prophetic tradition makes about sacrifices (e.g., Jeremiah 7:22; Psalm 40:6-7) might fit with the assumptions of the Levitical tradition. It is true that New Testament authors do provide a certain perspective from which to find unity in the “Old Testament.” But the very label, Old Testament, implies a perspective that is not intrinsic to the Jewish Bible itself in its several original meanings.
Nor do the New Testament books tell us how to integrate their teachings with one another. James does not have a footnote at James 2:24—“a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”—that explains how this statement coheres with Romans 3:28—“a person is justified by faith and not by works of law.” Whether we like it or not, we are forced to take these two diverse biblical comments and construct from them a unified Scripture. We do this work of integration by assuming a unified stance in relation to the biblical text as a whole. We will presumably draw the elements of this unified stance from the materials of the Bible itself, but the stance must de facto be one assumed from the outside of the Bible looking in. We have no other choice; we can do no other.
[i] Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.
[ii] Ben Witherington on Nazareth.
[iii] Longenecker
[iv] Meaning, First Theology
[v] Seized by Truth, 51.
[vi] ***, 55.
[vii] Truth and Method
______________
The post-modern critique of meaning has forced at least some modifications to modernist evangelical hermeneutics. We would argue that these modifications actually cohere better with the hermeneutic of John Wesley and the nineteenth century holiness movement than they do with late twentieth century evangelical hermeneutics. For example, we have already seen the (professed) contemporary evangelical aversion to reading Scripture in any way other than with its original meaning. Richard Longenecker exemplifies this tendency in his study of the way the New Testament itself interprets the Old Testament.[i] His work and the work of evangelical scholarship in general have attempted to minimize the non-contextual orientation of New Testament exegesis.[ii]
Nevertheless, Longenecker is forced in the end to acknowledge that the biblical authors themselves come up short when evaluated by the canons of evangelical hermeneutics.[iii] Rather than let New Testament practice legitimize the pneumatic exegesis that typified groups like nineteenth century revivalists and twentieth century charismatics, he instead gives precedence to the evangelical perspective over the practice of the Bible itself. He relegates New Testament methods of exegesis to an aspect of ancient culture that does not transcend to the present! The guiding principles of evangelical hermeneutics are thus recognized to be based on principles brought to the Bible rather than derived from Scripture itself.
Ironically, Vanhoozer himself is a good illustration of the incoherency of evangelical hermeneutics as it attempts to respond to the post-modern critique of meaning. At the same time that he champions the literal meaning of Scripture, we find him deviating to a different hermeneutic, seemingly unaware, as he searches for a way from the particular meanings of individual passages to an overarching, coherent significance for Scripture as a whole.[iv] Scripture as a whole, he suggests, is a speech-act from God, which means that God has determined the meaning of Scripture as a whole. Certainly we do not fault him for this theological understanding of Scripture—it coheres well with John Wesley’s sense of the analogy of faith.
What it does not cohere with are his own claims with regard to the proper meaning of the Bible as its “literal” meaning. However the audiences of the biblical texts understood the books of the Bible, they did it from within their particular socio-cultural matrices and their accompanying symbolic universes. These diverse meanings constitute the plain (what he means by “literal”) meaning of the books of the Bible. Whatever it might mean to say that Scripture is an overarching, divine speech-act, it is de facto quite distinct from the several, “literal” meanings of the words.
On the other hand, others have taken the post-modern critique on board to the extent that they no longer seem to distinguish between the original meaning of the biblical texts and their own theological appropriation of it. Joel Green, for example, eschews the modernist hermeneutic that bids us think of the books of the Bible as “someone else’s mail.”[v] Unless we are willing to hear ourselves as the “you” of James, he writes, “we are not in a position to hear well the Letter of James as Christian Scripture."[vi] Again, these comments cohere well with the hermeneutics of both Wesley and the Christians of the ages, as well as with the nineteenth century holiness revivalists.
The issue with theological hermeneutics, as we might term Green’s approach, is that it seems to put its head in the sand and simply ignore the elephant in the room, namely, the fact that the meanings we see in the biblical text are almost certainly different from those of the original audiences. On the one hand, the twentieth century philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer rightly pointed out that we inevitably bring along the perspectives of our past, especially the traditions to which we belong, as we try to interpret texts such as the Bible.[vii] The result is that our understandings of the biblical books always blur our context with the original contexts, which inevitably remain somewhat inaccessible to us. Accordingly, Green’s hermeneutic largely gives up the chase. Indeed, it almost impugns the chase as inimical to understanding the Bible as Christian Scripture.
Again, we might easily conceptualize Wesley’s analogy of faith as the appropriate theological context within which to read the books of Scripture, the appropriate tradition within which to fuse our “horizon” with the “horizon” of the biblical texts. The diverse books of the Bible thus take on the coherent structure of faith that we bring to it and become unified Scripture. At the same time, we must recognize that although we may not be able to determine with full certainty what the original meaning of the books of the Bible was, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it must have differed in significant ways from the holistic theological perspective we bring to it by way of the analogy of faith.
We can say such things because of the principle of anachronism. Although we do not know the original meaning of the Bible definitively, we know enough about ancient symbolic universes to see that, for example, Christian understandings of the Old Testament must often differ from the understandings its original audiences would have had in the ancient near east. Similarly, unless we wish to suggest that the Christian thinkers of the second to fifth century had simply lost touch with the original meaning of the New Testament, we must conclude that their conclusions on the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ forged new ground with the biblical texts that differed to at least some degree from their original meanings. Otherwise they would not have had so much to debate.
In short, we see that the coherence of the Bible is as much a function of us as Christian readers as it is a function of the original meaning of these texts. The books themselves, as far as their original authors are concerned, largely were not written with a view to each other. The authors of the “Jewish Bible” by and large did not interact with each other to explain how, for example, comments the prophetic tradition makes about sacrifices (e.g., Jeremiah 7:22; Psalm 40:6-7) might fit with the assumptions of the Levitical tradition. It is true that New Testament authors do provide a certain perspective from which to find unity in the “Old Testament.” But the very label, Old Testament, implies a perspective that is not intrinsic to the Jewish Bible itself in its several original meanings.
Nor do the New Testament books tell us how to integrate their teachings with one another. James does not have a footnote at James 2:24—“a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”—that explains how this statement coheres with Romans 3:28—“a person is justified by faith and not by works of law.” Whether we like it or not, we are forced to take these two diverse biblical comments and construct from them a unified Scripture. We do this work of integration by assuming a unified stance in relation to the biblical text as a whole. We will presumably draw the elements of this unified stance from the materials of the Bible itself, but the stance must de facto be one assumed from the outside of the Bible looking in. We have no other choice; we can do no other.
[i] Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.
[ii] Ben Witherington on Nazareth.
[iii] Longenecker
[iv] Meaning, First Theology
[v] Seized by Truth, 51.
[vi] ***, 55.
[vii] Truth and Method
2 Modernist Evangelical Coherence
Pre-modern interpretation might find coherence between diverse portions of the Bible in several ways. For example, Origen (ca. 185-254) believed that at times it would be “absurd and impossible” to take the biblical text literally.[i] To be sure, he believed that far more of the biblical text was meant literally than the portion “with a purely spiritual signification.” But at points where the literal meaning did not coincide with Origen’s overall understanding, he interpreted the text allegorically.[ii]
Augustine (ca. 354-430) similarly set down the rule:
"Whatever exists in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or sound doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; sound doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor."[iii]
Both Origen and Augustine thus used allegory and non-literal interpretation as tools to affirm the truthfulness of Scripture. They could interpret allegorically when the text said something that did not fit with their understanding—for Augustine especially when something did not fit with the rule of faith or the law of love. But they could also use it as a tool of coherence, to fit diverse parts of Scripture together that seemed to conflict in some way with each other.
The Protestant emphasis on the literal—or more accurately, the plain meaning of Scripture—thus removed a handy tool for affirming the truthfulness and coherence of the Bible in the face of apparent contradiction. In good evangelical fashion, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart give as one of their foundational hermeneutical principles the notion that “a text cannot mean [today] what it never could have meant to its author or his or her readers.”[iv] If we apply this dictum to Genesis 1:27 (which Fee and Stuart do not), we cannot understand the “us” in the statement, “Let us make humanity in our own image,” as a reference to the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was not hammered out until the fourth century AD and thus Genesis would hardly have had this meaning to anyone in the second millennium before Christ. Unlike Wesley, the modernist evangelical hermeneutic gives priority to the probable historical meaning of the text over a theological significance such as Wesley himself drew from it.
Kevin Vanhoozer similarly writes, “The Spirit may blow where, but not what, he wills.”[v] Such language is striking in its restrictive tone, but it is a reflection of Vanhoozer’s theological sense of the Spirit as one who bears witness to the Son, the Word (e.g., John 16:13), rather than being the word itself or the one who generates truth. For Vanhoozer, the function of the Spirit is as “the one who leads the community into the single correct interpretation: the literal sense.”[vi]
It is at this point that we might point out that the Wesleyan tradition for which this book is written has John Wesley himself more for a grandparent than as a parent, namely, the Wesleyan traditions that formed their identities in the holiness revivals of the late 1800’s: Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Free Methodists, and so forth. For those in these traditions, a “Wesleyan” hermeneutic cannot simply turn to John Wesley for precedent, but must look at the hermeneutic of its revivalist parents—even if to dismiss it. Mark Noll would call our forebears “fundamentalists,” but his use of this label skews the historical phenomenon—conspicuously in a way that exonerates his own theological sympathies of the label.[vii]
Rather than apply the term to individuals like J. Gresham Machen, who actually took the “fundamentalist” side in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy within the Presbyterian Church, he applies it to “Pentecostals, holiness revivalists, and dispensationalists.”[viii] In other words, he applies the term to those whose reaction to the challenges of modernism were emotional, experiential, and who tended to remove themselves from the discussion rather than those who reacted intellectually and actively. This is a one-sided perspective on history at best. It also obscures the nature of the fundamentalist hermeneutic as a mechanism for finding coherence in the biblical text.[ix]
We have classified Wesley’s hermeneutic as “pre-modern” because of his relative inattention to historical-cultural and literary context. Nevertheless, he was quite forthright about the “analogy of faith” as key to the coherence of his interpretations. By contrast, the holiness-Pentecostal movements of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were more “pneumatic” in their use of Scripture.[x] The Spirit might reveal directly to you what He wanted a specific passage of Scripture to mean for you.
At the same time, these movements had interpretations they held in common, such as Acts 2 as a reference to entire sanctification. Unlike Wesley, however, who looked more to the common tradition of Christianity for the coherence of Scripture, these groups found the coherence more in the theology of their particular group. They mirrored American culture in its democratic form, where everyone gets to vote and everyone’s vote counts the same.[xi] Distinctive theologies were often set from the beginning of such movements by charismatic founders whose stamps continue to this day.
Needless to say, the pre-modern hermeneutic of both Wesley and the holiness revivalists stands in significant tension with the contemporary evangelical hermeneutic we saw in Gordon Fee and Kevin Vanhoozer. Contemporary evangelicalism grew out of the fundamentalism of the early twentieth century as an attempt to read the books of the Bible in context while also affirming the coherence and truthfulness of Scripture in its historical meaning. It was, however, more sophisticated in its understanding of context and in its method of integrating diversity in the Bible than those groups that would become the fundamentalists of the late twentieth century. Many holiness groups joined the evangelical movement mid-century either unaware of the difference with the pneumatic interpretations of their past or, perhaps, to distance themselves from them.
We might thus speak of two Wesleyan hermeneutics in the late twentieth century, with many hybrids. Wesleyan scholars and academics largely absorbed the evangelical, contextual hermeneutic. For this group, we can hardly speak of a distinct Wesleyan strategy for finding the coherent meaning of Scripture, other than the fact that they looked at the biblical text with Wesleyan interests in mind. At the same time, perhaps the bulk of Wesleyans continued to interpret and integrate Scripture by defining the words and integrating them “as it seemed right in their own eyes,” eyes forged by Wesleyan sociology, using the inherent flexibility of words to make them take on meanings that could fit together and cohere with Wesleyan tradition.
[i] “On First Principles,” 18.
[ii] “On First Principles,” 19. When it comes to the law of Moses, Origen speaks of the “irrationality” and “impossibility” of observing many of the laws literally (“On First Principals,” 17).
[iii] “On Christian Doctrine,” 3.10.14.
[iv] How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 74.
[v] Is There a Meaning in This Text? 429.
[vi] Meaning, 415.
[vii] The Rise of the Evangelicals. The Scandal of the American Mind
[viii] ***
[ix] Frei.
[x] Dayton
[xi] Noll.
Augustine (ca. 354-430) similarly set down the rule:
"Whatever exists in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or sound doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; sound doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor."[iii]
Both Origen and Augustine thus used allegory and non-literal interpretation as tools to affirm the truthfulness of Scripture. They could interpret allegorically when the text said something that did not fit with their understanding—for Augustine especially when something did not fit with the rule of faith or the law of love. But they could also use it as a tool of coherence, to fit diverse parts of Scripture together that seemed to conflict in some way with each other.
The Protestant emphasis on the literal—or more accurately, the plain meaning of Scripture—thus removed a handy tool for affirming the truthfulness and coherence of the Bible in the face of apparent contradiction. In good evangelical fashion, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart give as one of their foundational hermeneutical principles the notion that “a text cannot mean [today] what it never could have meant to its author or his or her readers.”[iv] If we apply this dictum to Genesis 1:27 (which Fee and Stuart do not), we cannot understand the “us” in the statement, “Let us make humanity in our own image,” as a reference to the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was not hammered out until the fourth century AD and thus Genesis would hardly have had this meaning to anyone in the second millennium before Christ. Unlike Wesley, the modernist evangelical hermeneutic gives priority to the probable historical meaning of the text over a theological significance such as Wesley himself drew from it.
Kevin Vanhoozer similarly writes, “The Spirit may blow where, but not what, he wills.”[v] Such language is striking in its restrictive tone, but it is a reflection of Vanhoozer’s theological sense of the Spirit as one who bears witness to the Son, the Word (e.g., John 16:13), rather than being the word itself or the one who generates truth. For Vanhoozer, the function of the Spirit is as “the one who leads the community into the single correct interpretation: the literal sense.”[vi]
It is at this point that we might point out that the Wesleyan tradition for which this book is written has John Wesley himself more for a grandparent than as a parent, namely, the Wesleyan traditions that formed their identities in the holiness revivals of the late 1800’s: Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Free Methodists, and so forth. For those in these traditions, a “Wesleyan” hermeneutic cannot simply turn to John Wesley for precedent, but must look at the hermeneutic of its revivalist parents—even if to dismiss it. Mark Noll would call our forebears “fundamentalists,” but his use of this label skews the historical phenomenon—conspicuously in a way that exonerates his own theological sympathies of the label.[vii]
Rather than apply the term to individuals like J. Gresham Machen, who actually took the “fundamentalist” side in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy within the Presbyterian Church, he applies it to “Pentecostals, holiness revivalists, and dispensationalists.”[viii] In other words, he applies the term to those whose reaction to the challenges of modernism were emotional, experiential, and who tended to remove themselves from the discussion rather than those who reacted intellectually and actively. This is a one-sided perspective on history at best. It also obscures the nature of the fundamentalist hermeneutic as a mechanism for finding coherence in the biblical text.[ix]
We have classified Wesley’s hermeneutic as “pre-modern” because of his relative inattention to historical-cultural and literary context. Nevertheless, he was quite forthright about the “analogy of faith” as key to the coherence of his interpretations. By contrast, the holiness-Pentecostal movements of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were more “pneumatic” in their use of Scripture.[x] The Spirit might reveal directly to you what He wanted a specific passage of Scripture to mean for you.
At the same time, these movements had interpretations they held in common, such as Acts 2 as a reference to entire sanctification. Unlike Wesley, however, who looked more to the common tradition of Christianity for the coherence of Scripture, these groups found the coherence more in the theology of their particular group. They mirrored American culture in its democratic form, where everyone gets to vote and everyone’s vote counts the same.[xi] Distinctive theologies were often set from the beginning of such movements by charismatic founders whose stamps continue to this day.
Needless to say, the pre-modern hermeneutic of both Wesley and the holiness revivalists stands in significant tension with the contemporary evangelical hermeneutic we saw in Gordon Fee and Kevin Vanhoozer. Contemporary evangelicalism grew out of the fundamentalism of the early twentieth century as an attempt to read the books of the Bible in context while also affirming the coherence and truthfulness of Scripture in its historical meaning. It was, however, more sophisticated in its understanding of context and in its method of integrating diversity in the Bible than those groups that would become the fundamentalists of the late twentieth century. Many holiness groups joined the evangelical movement mid-century either unaware of the difference with the pneumatic interpretations of their past or, perhaps, to distance themselves from them.
We might thus speak of two Wesleyan hermeneutics in the late twentieth century, with many hybrids. Wesleyan scholars and academics largely absorbed the evangelical, contextual hermeneutic. For this group, we can hardly speak of a distinct Wesleyan strategy for finding the coherent meaning of Scripture, other than the fact that they looked at the biblical text with Wesleyan interests in mind. At the same time, perhaps the bulk of Wesleyans continued to interpret and integrate Scripture by defining the words and integrating them “as it seemed right in their own eyes,” eyes forged by Wesleyan sociology, using the inherent flexibility of words to make them take on meanings that could fit together and cohere with Wesleyan tradition.
[i] “On First Principles,” 18.
[ii] “On First Principles,” 19. When it comes to the law of Moses, Origen speaks of the “irrationality” and “impossibility” of observing many of the laws literally (“On First Principals,” 17).
[iii] “On Christian Doctrine,” 3.10.14.
[iv] How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 74.
[v] Is There a Meaning in This Text? 429.
[vi] Meaning, 415.
[vii] The Rise of the Evangelicals. The Scandal of the American Mind
[viii] ***
[ix] Frei.
[x] Dayton
[xi] Noll.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain Appoints Woman as VP Running Mate
After last night's speech by Obama, I didn't think there was any way he could lose the election. Regardless of how he came across to Republicans over 40 and die hard FOX News watchers, I was convinced that he would be perceived by swing voters and most of those under 40 as mirroring their hearts.
But in an ingenious move, McCain has named Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Absolutely ingenious! I thought he'd probably appoint Romney, which wouldn't have gained him hardly anyone except maybe some Libertarian defectors. I can see some Clinton supporters going for her.
At the same time, most Clinton supporters could only vote for Palin/McCain if they were, as one pundit put it, "post-rational." Palin has a stronger pro-life position than McCain does, and most of Clinton's most radical supporters are completely on the opposite end of the spectrum.
One way or another, I'll be happy if I have a woman to consider in the presidential election in 8 years.
:-)
But in an ingenious move, McCain has named Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Absolutely ingenious! I thought he'd probably appoint Romney, which wouldn't have gained him hardly anyone except maybe some Libertarian defectors. I can see some Clinton supporters going for her.
At the same time, most Clinton supporters could only vote for Palin/McCain if they were, as one pundit put it, "post-rational." Palin has a stronger pro-life position than McCain does, and most of Clinton's most radical supporters are completely on the opposite end of the spectrum.
One way or another, I'll be happy if I have a woman to consider in the presidential election in 8 years.
:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
