Iowa and the Poles of Protestantism (by Diana Butler Bass)
Now that the people of Iowa have chosen Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama as their nominees for president, pundits will spend much of the next few days (until New Hampshire at least) analyzing the results. Many will note religion as an important factor—especially as evangelicals turned out largely for Huckabee.
But evangelicals are not the only religion story from Iowa. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama represent something much more profound in American politics and religion. With Huckabee as a Southern Baptist and Obama as a member of the United Church of Christ, the two men symbolize the poles of Protestantism, the divided soul of America's majority religion.
In the late 19th century, American Protestantism divided into fundamentalist and modernist camps. In the political realm, fundamentalists believed that personal conversion was the foundation of politics. If Jesus changed individuals, individuals might change society if God so called them. But they more typically shied away from politics as sinful, defining it as an essentially hopeless enterprise. They eschewed social change in favor of a kind of feisty Jesus-centered ethics of personal responsibility, private prayer, and morality. They bemoaned the possibility of political change without being born again.
Modernist Protestants argued that politics existed as part of larger social structures—economic, social, and class systems. These structures were corrupted by sin and injustice. Yet, they could be transformed through human goodness and God's justice. Instead of emphasizing individual morality, modernist Protestants extolled a political theology of the common good regardless of personal faith. As a result, they stressed hope, change, and the future in their politics—and its communal emphasis tended to resonate with African-American Protestants.
During the last century, these two visions have gone through several historical permutations. However, they continue to shape American Protestantism. As a Southern Baptist, Huckabee emphasizes Christian conversion, personal morality, and individual character. Obama, as part of a liberal denomination, articulates the communal vision of progressive Protestantism, appealing to human goodness, optimism, and social justice. Whereas Huckabee speaks of the "zeal" of individuals to "do the right thing" and act heroically, Obama preaches on "building a coalition" to transform the nation through innovation and creating a new global community. They are replaying, in dynamic new voices, an old disagreement in American religion.
The Iowa winners represent the two major traditions of Protestant political theology. If Huckabee and Obama wind up as presidential nominees, it would be the first time since the Great Protestant Divide that candidates so clearly articulated these two versions of religion and politics—and so clearly have the opportunity to reshape an old argument. Although it is far too early to make such predictions, the next election could be a referendum on the Protestant political soul.
Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) is one of Sojourners' Red-Letter Christians and the author of six books, including Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (HarperOne, 2006).
Add to:
Category: Elections, Faith and Politics
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Dr Butler Bass--My sense is this was a divide in American White Protestantism. Is that the case? How would that shape your analysis?
(Note: If we assume 70% of the Iowa Evangelical turnout was Republican; and trust the polls that 47% of that group supported Huckabee; then we have exactly 1/3 of the Evangelical turn-out supporting the "Baptist pastor/govenor". And we will continue to hear the analysis that Huckabee has the Evangelical vote. As if there is "An Evangelical Vote." And these kinds of numbers, to the best of my knowledge, also tend to exclude the reality that African-American Christians hold to a evangelical theology at a higher rate than white Christians. If the numbers were more racially inclusive the overall Democrat-Republican breakdown of evangelicals would be quite even. i.e. 25% of evangelicals are Black and likely 85% of this group are Democrat)
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 4, 2008 10:33 AM
Dear Let Justice,
Yes, the argument within Protestantism was primarily in white churches (and non-liturgical ones, at that). However, the Fundamentalist-Modernist divide had an impact on African-American churches through two significant ways: 1) black churches within white denominations, and 2) seminary-educated African-American clergy who attended majority white seminaries.
In the first case, black congregations (such as Obama's own Trinity UCC, an historically black church in a majority white denomination, the UCC) tended to create their own answers to Fund/Mod tensions by combining impulses from liberal Protestant thought with distinctive theologies and practices from African-American Christianity. Thus, these congregations responded to the larger theological divide in ways that side-stepped some of questions bedeviling white Protestants.
In the second case: Think Martin Luther King, Jr. He was clearly influenced by the Protestant liberal tradition (and neo-orthodoxy) through his graduate education. Then, he refracted aspects of liberal Protestantism through the black experience.
In both cases, African-Americans tended to maintain spiritual experience as an important component of liberal theology (something that many white liberal theologians rejected in the early 20th century in favor of rationalism). Experience, when melded with the African tradition of story-telling, created a very different liberal Protestant voice, one that often stands outside easy categorization.
Thus, both in congregations and through learned clergy, black churches both participated in the Fund/Mod divide--while, at the same time, creating an alternative theological space drawn from the African-American experience and Christian narratives.
I think that Obama well-represents this tradition of engagement with liberal Protestant thought AND restructuring that theology in a spiritually innovative way because of the social context of his faith. Hence, he had the opportunity to renew the tradition he represents while offering a refreshing--and inclusive--interpretation of it.
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | January 4, 2008 11:41 AM
This analysis is a powerful and insightful theme of Sojourners which has been sounded through the years beginning with Jim's Call to Conversion. I think it describes outlooks that go well beyond those who are active participants in a faith. Unfortunately , I think it is increasingly a fantasy about how we see ourselves and America's political role in the world, rather than an accurate description of divergent and substantive action.
Both of these outlooks have deeply mingled through many years with a cruel and cynical pragmatism or perhaps Social Darwinism would be a better term. This pragmatism allows both sides to ignore systemic racism and class warfare, imperialist wars often directly on behalf of private financial interests which have no constitutional foundation, atomic arsenals and a bloated military budget, an elective system mired in bribery, and a move toward extreme executive power which has currently led to unprecedented and unlawful torture and spying on citizens . Bill Clinton's economic policies(GAT, NAFTA) have been devastating for the environment and for the poor and have reinforced an oil based economy, oil which even as it is depleted, overheats the globe and becomes the basis for wars. On the big issues the morality of both kinds of Protestantism has been too easily corrupted by the the love of money.
The smiles of Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are pleasant enough but our society needs more than vague rhetoric and hope filled smiles into which we cast our votes for a better future. We need a shared vision that will not hide its injustice in jails, ghettoized neighborhoods, foreign sweatshops, nuclear stockpiles, and oceans choked with plastic. Voting can be an instrument of change or an exercise in wishful rhetoric without substantial action.
Posted by: jonabark | January 4, 2008 11:41 AM
I am interested in the 'differences' between the Protestant poles of political opinion, and there is one additional idea that I believe is true, and it is this: the 'evangelical left' tends to be very active and vocal in their support of their candidate. The polls seemed to have a pretty good handle on what Obama was going to do in Iowa They were able to accurately measure the activist, vocal supporters.
On the other hand, the pollsters could never quite figure out the 'evangelical right.' And i think the primary reason is - - the 'right' just doesn't tell pollsters what they are thinking, who they are favoring. I think they may even lie to them. Frankly, I think I might mislead them intentionally, if one were to come around. The general feeling among conservatives seems to be, "It's nobody's business who I am voting for, but mine." I really believe that the only people who are really surprised about the floor-mopping that Huckabee gave the Republican field in Iowa are the pollsters and the media; everybody who was involved knew what they were going to do, they just weren't talking!! That may well be an additional difference that Ms. Butler-Bass hasn't addressed.
Posted by: joekc | January 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Diana:
Thanks once again for your thoughtful commentary.
In addtion to the complexities of adding the African-American component to the mix, I think the differences within Protestantism in general are much more complex than the idea of the two poles would seem to indicate. The two poles, I believe, represent the extremes: on the one hand, a more or less rigid fundamentalism and on the other, a more progressive Christianity. But many churches are somewhere in between these two poles, aren't they?
I attend a church that's part of a mainline denomination which is regarded as fairly liberal overall, but our own congregation is rather conservative. Some of the ideas expressed in our adult Sunday school class, for example, reflect fundamentalist thinking to one degree or another. I'm sure my congregation isn't unique. Also, like you (if I recall correctly what you wrote in Christianity for the Rest of Us), I've participated in both kinds of churches: I grew up in a mainline church, married the daughter of a mainline clergyman, but attended, for quite a few years, an independent church that had its roots in the 1970s charismatic movement. When we moved to a different city, we rejoined the mainline, for many reasons I won't go into here.
Maybe Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama represent thinking that's close to the two poles you discuss, but I wonder if most of the people in the pews, like me and many people I know, sit somewhere between the two. And I wonder what that tells us for how we're going to process and sort out the disparate and often conflicting messages that this election year promises us.
PS: I've been reading Kathleen Norris' Dakota. In her essays, Norris reveals the two poles you discuss here as they existed and operated in her own life, through her family's history (her two grandmothers specifically). It's fascinating how I'm finding this topic cropping up in several places.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 12:45 PM
I'm believe that Jim's "God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat" is a red herring. No one seriously claims either of the above. The question isn't what GOD is, but what "godly Americans" should be. And those who can't imagine that god favoring a political party, think for a minute. The "godly people" of Germany could easily have kept the Nazis out of power, if only they had support the Liberal Democratic Party when that party was in a position to defeat the Nazis. Instead, the Catholic Church bowed to Hitler's wishes and disbanded its explicitly Christian "Centre Party" and allowed its members to join the Nazi Party.
So contrary to Jim Wallis, I argue that because the Democratic Party has a much better record of promoting the values of the Gospels than the Greedy Old Party, that party has EARNED the endorsement of enlightened "Liberals Like Christ". See http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Democrats .
Posted by: Rev Ray Dubuque | January 4, 2008 1:08 PM
Don,
As you rightly point out, theory is no match for the mess of reality. The poles I describe in the blog (I always have to remember to keep it simple--and in 500 words or less!) are theological pure forms--and exist mostly in church leadership circles, intellectual communities, are held by clergy and theologians, and written about by journalists. They did--and do--exist. And they have been formative in the American Protestant experience.
But the pews are often a different matter. In "Christianity for the Rest of Us" (thanks for noticing!) I write about "lived religion" and its complexities. In the book, I had about 300 pages to do so...a much more nuanced forum than a blog. As you note, there are more conservative congregations in liberal denominations--just as there are liberal evangelicals who worship in conservative churches.
Christianity is shaped by both its theory and theology and its lived practices and experiences. So, both angles of analysis are helpful--as you so thoughtfully point out in your response. A blog, however, can only do one at a time!
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | January 4, 2008 1:19 PM
How ironic is it that the "Southern Baptist" denomination grew out a defense of SLAVERY and Evangelicals in Iowa have chosen a Southern Baptist to oppose Obama? Ironically, The "Evangelical" version of "do the right thing" was wrong about slavery, wrong about women's rights, wrong about civil rights, wrong about the Bush administration and probably wrong to stand in the way of "Change," led by Obama. If Evangelicals really want to "do the right thing," then perhaps they need to vote for the Democratic candidate in November. That's not a strange idea; Democrats have helped to elect Republicans from time to time and 2008 offers Evangelicals an excellent opportunity to return the favor.
Posted by: John Wilson | January 4, 2008 1:52 PM
“[T]he Catholic Church bowed to Hitler's wishes and disbanded its explicitly Christian "Centre Party" and allowed its members to join the Nazi Party.” Rev Ray Dubuque
“In February 1933 Hermann Goering banned all Catholic newspapers in Cologne, citing that ‘political’ Catholicism — ie commenting on government policy — would not be tolerated. Responding to protests, he denied this was part of a deliberate campaign against Catholics; the government, he claimed, would “seal its own doom with such a policy.” Though the ban was lifted, it sent a warning tremor through the largely Catholic Rhineland, and gave an accurate indication of possible future government moves. A further straw in the wind was apparent when Storm troopers (SA) broke up meetings of Christian trade unions and the Catholic Centre Party. The Manchester Guardian reported one such incident on February 23, 1933 — a prominent politician, Adam Stegerwald, was attacked while speaking at a meeting in Krefeld, and a number of priests were hurt in the fracas.
“There was a brief — and carefully engineered — lull in anti-Catholic provocation when Hitler turned his attention to strengthening national unity in the face of potential enemies at home and abroad. He made a public appeal for the Church to negotiate the terms of a new Concordat (Church-State agreement); an offer he knew the Vatican would find hard to refuse. Almost from the outset, however, discussions took place against a drumbeat of threats that the SA would be unleashed on defenceless Catholics unless agreement were quickly reached. Pope Pius XI and his Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) were faced with a dilemma. If they refused to negotiate with the legally appointed government, Hitler would undoubtedly publicise his terms and claim that the Vatican was anti-Nazi and obstructionist. Any written agreement, Pacelli maintained, would offer a better basis for the protection of civil and religious rights than no legally constituted agreement at all. After all, Lutherans had similar safeguards.
“In fact, large-scale arrests were already taking place. Thousands of Catholic Center Party (Zentrum) activists were in concentration camps by the end of June 1933. Although well aware of the ominous situation, government negotiator and Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen (himself a Catholic), told journalists that relations between the Reich and the Vatican were “so friendly” that it had taken only eight days to sketch the main outline of the proposed Concordat. This was duly signed in July 1933 and specified that certain activities — education, youth associations, Church rallies — were legally guaranteed by the Reich. In return, the Church’s support for the Centre Party and its ally the Bavarian People’s Party would be withdrawn. Actually, the Centre Party, under relentless pressure from the Nazis, had already voted itself out of existence even before the final signing of the Concordat, a fact that Pacelli lamented as it handicapped his negotiating stance.
“In view of the controversy that later surrounded the Concordat, Pacelli always argued that the Church had to accept the lesser of the two evils presented to it. Without the agreement, Catholics would have been left to the mercy of SA, SS and Gestapo hit squads. With the agreement, they at least had legal grounds on which to protest injustices. The Secretary of State was realistic enough to remark to a British Embassy official he understood perfectly that attacks on Catholics would not cease, but “they will hardly break all the articles at the same time.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 4, 2008 2:57 PM
Posted by: John Wilson | January 4, 2008 1:52 PM
'How ironic is it that the "Southern Baptist" denomination grew out a defense of SLAVERY and Evangelicals in Iowa have chosen a Southern Baptist to oppose Obama?'
So - you are saying that the make-up of the Southern Baptist of over a century and a half ago and their defence of Slavery, which was wrong, is the same denomination today?
Well - that being the situation I believe you might also say the same about the KKK and their favorite Son - Robert Byrd?
What about the Southern Dem's and their leadership of Wallis (George not Jim) and their treatment of Black's in the 60's. There the same today aren't they?
I really hope this was an lol. BUT - if you are serious about this it is an LOL.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 4, 2008 4:18 PM
How ironic is it that the "Southern Baptist" denomination grew out a defense of SLAVERY and Evangelicals in Iowa have chosen a Southern Baptist to oppose Obama? Ironically, The "Evangelical" version of "do the right thing" was wrong about slavery, wrong about women's rights, wrong about civil rights, wrong about the Bush administration and probably wrong to stand in the way of "Change," led by Obama.
This is a new day in evangelicalism and the old right-wing calculus is [PTL, to use a pun] dead. Even Huckabee rejects the old "social Darwinism" mentality that the poor get what they deserve -- and for that he was beaten up by the likes of Bob Novak for not being a "true conservative."
What about the Southern Dem's and their leadership of Wallis (George not Jim) and their treatment of Black's in the 60's. There the same today aren't they?
Nope. Most left the Democrats for the GOP when Reagan was first elected to the presidency.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 4, 2008 4:30 PM
Of the two, Obama and Huckabee, there is only one where I can see a clear connection between his stands on issues and the teachings of Jesus: Obama follows Jesus in his desire to end the war, welcome the immigrant, and offer universal health care. Also, his denomination, the UCC, blesses gay relationships. Therefore, I can see Obama as bring Christian values into the political arena.
I can't see the same connection between Jesus' teachings and Huckabee's stands on issues. I can't see how anyone can start with Jesus and move to support for the Iraq war, the deposing of undocumented immigrants, support of the death penalty, and lack of support for guaranteed universal health care. If someone can show me how you can move from the teachings of Jesus to any of Huckabee's opinions, I would like to read it.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 4, 2008 5:23 PM
It's always cute watching white folks comment on black spirituality and practice. I think Diana, I think you are right it's just funny to watch. It's cool to see such a well developed and accurate portrayal of that. So many whites are afraid to comment on the black spiritual development.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 6:30 PM
Remember that 17% of eligible Iowa voters showed up to caucus. In Venezuaela 69% vote. Is a country full of people who don't even vote in the face of war, torture, mass surveillance and econonomic devastation fit to preach democracy to the world?
Posted by: jonabark | January 4, 2008 6:37 PM
jonabark,
Ofcourse it's not. But that won't stop us. It is more about our economic interests anyway.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 8:44 PM
Diana, you failed to do your homework. In fact, Huckabee has not represented that fundamentalist stereotype. As a Southern Baptist leader, he never supported those who sought to turn the denomination into that mold, and those leaders still resent him and refuse to support him. Have you missed the story that most of the name fundamentalist leaders have not supported Huckabee, and have split their support among a variety of Republicans, even supporting ones that represent the antithesis of what they theoretically stand for to avoid the threat of Huckabee, who they regard as a liberal?
Huckabee in fact has championed the idea that Christian faith has to address the "economic, social, and class systems." He has a long history of blasting the power structure for oppressing the poor. As Governor, he supported progressive social programs to address the needs of the poor. His political record earned him the ire of the "Club for Growth" (called by Huckabee the Club for Greed). Conservative Republicans blast Huckabee as a tax-and-spend liberal. Huckabee responds that Jesus said we would be judged by what we did for the least of these.
There is a long history of evangelicalism associated with populism and reform. Jim Wallis has sometimes said he is a 19th century evangelical. Well so is Huckabee. He has brought back evangelical fervor for a populist, the first time we have seen that at the national level in a long time. While conventional liberals were looking for this to come out of the Democratic Party, Huckabee surprised them by doing it as a Republican.
Why is Huckabee so strapped for funds while Obama and his Democratic cohorts are rolling in dough? The people with the money feel Huckabee is a threat, while they see Obama, Clinton and Edwards (along with Huckabee's Republican challengers) as safe supporters of the status quo. And, Diana, they do their homework.
The days of the limousine liberals are over. Huckabee is distrusted by the limousine liberals and by the conservative establishment, yet he is able to win with a shoe string campaign as a populist evangelical. The times they are a-changin'.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 4, 2008 8:48 PM
Ashpanez,
I would gladly take a stab at your 'Move from Jesus to a Huckabee opinion' challenge--if you really want an answer. My prior attempts to dialogue with you have largely met non-responses. You ask many good questions. But I am not sure you want to dialogue.
Further, I think there to be quite a difference between saying, "At the place I am in understanding Jesus, I just arrive at very different policy positions than Mike Huckabee" and saying, "I see no way to start with Jesus and end up with even one of Mike Huckabee opinions."
I can see how Christians can arrive at the exact opposite of my positions and I suspect you can as well. So in all honestly I don't really take your question seriously.
What is one specific position you most disagree with Huckabee on?????
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 4, 2008 10:31 PM
I would like to see someone start with the teachings of Jesus and end up supporting the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 4, 2008 11:14 PM
Darwinism/evolution was the issue that took the wind out of the fundamentalist sails back in 1925 and good ol' William Jennings Bryan was a kind of sacrificial lamb for the fundamentalist cause.
I don't know that much about Mike Huckabee but should his fortunes continue to rise, I sincerely hope he can steer clear of kowtowing to that element in the Republican Party that would seek to make abortion or homosexuality the "be-all" and "end-all" in his quest for the White House.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 5, 2008 1:16 AM
"Of the two, Obama and Huckabee, there is only one where I can see a clear connection between his stands on issues and the teachings of Jesus:"
That's because you are a Democrat. Is it at all possible to get beyond the "support my candidate or else you are not a Christian" paradigm? I know, I know... The religious right did the same thing. Is this the solution?
"Remember that 17% of eligible Iowa voters showed up to caucus. In Venezuaela 69% vote. "
Pithy response: Look what that got Venezuela.
Serious response: This is, to say the least, an apples to oranges comparison.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:22 AM
"I would like to see someone start with the teachings of Jesus and end up supporting the war in Iraq."
I want to start on common ground. Starting with the teachings of Jesus, tell me how you end up supporting the use of a police force in America.
If you can do that, I can get you the rest of the way. If you can't, then we are at an impasse, and you are advocating anarchy in Christ's name.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:26 AM
Could somebody tell me where they are getting only 17% of eligible voters in Iowa caucused? We had record numbers for both parties.
Also, Dr. Bass is wrongly characterizing Governor Huckabee. While he is socially and theologically conservative, he has not neglected social justice. His record as Governor of Arkansas and his position statements prove that. The problem with the contrast is that it shouldn't exist at all.
Posted by: Shane Vander Hart | January 5, 2008 4:59 AM
Dr. Butler-Bass, you mention that Huckabee emphasizes Christian conversion, personal morality, and individual character. There is certainly an emphasis on that in the Bible. It seems to me that the "fundamental" and "progressive" poles of Protestantism are emphasizing different areas of the same gospel! Isn't it true that these poles should not be in a mortal conflict against each other but rather a creative tension to accomplish Christ's goals?
Second, there is an inherent limitation on progressive Christianity. That limitation is Jesus Christ and His Word. A Christian progressive will eventually find it impossible to keep up with secular progress unless one removes Christ out of the picture or direct contradicting Scripture. As the left moves further left (aka "progress") beyond the teachings of Christ and His Word, will progressive Christians try to stop that or will they go along anyway?
Posted by: doc75 | January 5, 2008 7:45 AM
I think Diana oversimplifies Huckabee's message to one of an emphasis on personal salvation and personal action in order to fit him into the box of a fundamentalist and seperate him completely from Obama.
I'm generally a conservative guy and I read the Wall Street Journal, National Review, conservative blogs, and other right-of-center publications. They'll all trashing Huckabee because they seem him as some sort of Religious Leftist. They see him as someone who would not hesitate to use the fedearl government to help someone in need and worry that he will lead the Republican party down the wrong path this election. I don't think he's as "bad" as all that, but I don't think he's quite the fundamentalist/traditional religious conservative that discourages government assistance for the needy in place of personal salvation and individual action that Diana makes him out to be. Look at his record in Arkansas. Perhaps, because he's being criticized by the free market right and being called a fundamentalist by the religious left, he's found a good middle ground to unite people.
Posted by: Eric | January 5, 2008 7:58 AM
canuckle - Huckabee rarely comments on those issues unless asked by reporters or voters. He's not using them the way some Republicans and Democrats have used them in the past, which is good to see, in my mind.
Posted by: Eric | January 5, 2008 8:02 AM
I speculate the emphasis of DBB piece is that liberal-fundamentalist conflict has been played out on a thousand stages over the past century and she sees distinctions between Obama and Huckabee's theological underpinnings which still give evidence of that conflict.
I doubt she would contend these two candidates can be understood by placing them in one of those two camps. The question then becomes to what extent the paradigm is even useful in understanding either of these two candidates or the socio-political-theological landscape.
I appreciate it is very hard in writing a couple paragraphs to both lay out a generalization, defend it, and identify some of the limitations of the argument.
Thank you DBB for returning with a couple additional comments to expand/clarify your argument. I appreciate the content and the style of dialogue it sets.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 5, 2008 8:42 AM
I don't think a police force should be allowed to use deadly force against criminals. I don't think I can say, "I forgive you," in one breath, and then say, "Now, you kill him!" to someone else. I don't think I can hand someone my coat to someone who stole my shirt just to watch someone else beat the guy to death with a club. I think that the government has the right to restrain people--Paul willingly submitted to being in prison even after the earthquake let him out--but not to kill them.
Peter says we should live such good lives that government restraint isn't necessary. Paul says that the government is there to do us good. The sword symbolizes that power for Paul, but I don't think Paul means the government can use the sword to behead people. Certainly, a Christian can't take someone to court, and then ask the government to behead someone on the Christian's behalf.
I think a Christian can support a police force which uses non-deadly means to restrain lawbreakers. But the fact that such a force has to exist means we Christians aren't doing our jobs of creating those social conditions free from hunger and poverty so that crime isn't necessary.
Your turn.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 5, 2008 10:39 AM
"I don't think a police force should be allowed to use deadly force against criminals."
So if someone is shooting at a police officer, a police officer may not fire back. Under no circumstance may a police officer use deadly force. Okay.
But they may use painful force, right? Can you draw a line between the words of Jesus and the use of painful force?
"I don't think I can hand someone my coat to someone who stole my shirt just to watch someone else beat the guy to death with a club."
You watch too much TV.
"Certainly, a Christian can't take someone to court, and then ask the government to behead someone on the Christian's behalf."
Why is this certain? If someone were to kill my wife, I would feel very comfortable asking the court to behead him on my behalf.
In the past, I have used a discussion of Romans to bolster my contention that God permits nations to go to war. You responded by saying something to the effect of "don't tell me what Paul says, I want to know what Jesus says," as though the two were somehow in conflict.
Since Romans seems to be back on the table, I would argue that using the sword for justice allows a government to respond to a nation that has repeatedly rebuffed efforts to bring it under control.
Iraq had invaded a nation, hatched a plan to assassinate our president, refused to adhere to no-fly zones, allowed weapons inspectors to inspect its own facilities, and committed something approximating genocide against its own people.
From a biblical standpoint, if the government can use the sword for justice, it is permissible to use the sword against the purveyor of all of the above.
That does not mean that it was the most effective plan, that this plan served our interests, or that the plan was executed particularly well, or that we should have gotten involved. Those are matters of policy.
You seem to anticipate this argument by saying:
"
"The sword symbolizes that power for Paul, but I don't think Paul means the government can use the sword to behead people."
To which I respond:
Then why use the term? Why is a sword a symbol of power? Because it's shiny? No, because it can kill. You don't think Paul meant it that way, but the way the entire passage reads screams loudly against a pacifistic interpretation, in my view.
The KJV versions says "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Is executing wrath simply another symbol of generic power or authority? That is not a reasonable reading of the text.
It then goes on to say that government wields the sword not only for wrath, but for the sake of conscience. In other words, the wrath exhibited by the government has the capacity to clear our conscience.
The only reasonable counterargument to this is that God has installed other leaders, who are accorded similar power. This would be a compelling argument against interefering with another nation's civil war.
However, that was clearly not the case with Iraq. Saddam had committed acts of violence, invading other countries, and feigning as though he had intentions of continuing his efforts. We also had evidence (you can argue whether that evidence was compelling or not, but it existed) that Saddam was going to utilize chemical weapons as part of those efforts.
I believe that Romans provides a scriptural path for a government to interfere when a national leader is acting in such an aggressive manner toward other nations.
From there, the argument is tactical, and nothing I have written suggests we are required to support the Iraq war.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:57 PM
I think that you are stretching a general piece of advice from Paul to cover situations it was never meant to address. That verse says nothing about international relations.
When Paul uses the word "sword" he means the sword of the Spirit. Jesus said, "Put down your sword." The Gospel is also seen as a sword. There is no evidence that the image of the sword means you are allowed to use the sword for the death penalty.
If someone killed someone close to me, I hope the Holy Spirit would give me the same strength to forgive that Jesus used on the cross, or that Stephen used when he was killed, or that the Amish used recently when the schoolchildren were killed. Jesus said that we were no longer to use an eye for an eye, but to forgive as we have been forgiven. As hard as it is for me to admit, I am just as much a murderer as the person who killed my loved one, and just as much in need of mercy, so there is no basis upon which I can condemn him.
Society would have the authority to separate a murderer from the rest of society, but not to kill him. I agree with the Pope on this.
Incidentally, I did start with Jesus. I used principles from the Sermon on the Mount before I got to Paul and Peter. I'd like to see you defend the war in Iraq starting with Jesus--then you can go on to Paul. I still haven't seen a connection between the teachings of Jesus to support for the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 5, 2008 4:43 PM
"That's because you are a Democrat. Is it at all possible to get beyond the "support my candidate or else you are not a Christian" paradigm? I know, I know... The religious right did the same thing. Is this the solution?" Kevin S.
Agreed. But that opens a wider question. In what way does our Christian faith inform and shape our political stances?
"I have used a discussion of Romans to bolster my contention that God permits nations to go to war. You responded by saying something to the effect of "don't tell me what Paul says, I want to know what Jesus says," as though the two were somehow in conflict." Kevin S.
Agreed. And how does that allow Christians to participate in war.
" Saddam had committed acts of violence, invading other countries, and feigning as though he had intentions of continuing his efforts. We also had evidence (you can argue whether that evidence was compelling or not, but it existed) that Saddam was going to utilize chemical weapons as part of those efforts." Kevin S.
The US also gave Saddam satellite photos of Iranian troop positions in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam then used chemical weapons on those Iranian troops. Should the politicians who made the decision to give Saddam the intelligence information knowing he would use poisonous gas against the Iranians be brought up on charges as well?
"I still haven't seen a connection between the teachings of Jesus to support for the war in Iraq." Posted by: Ashpenaz
Because it is impossible to show one.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 5, 2008 5:38 PM
"I think that you are stretching a general piece of advice from Paul to cover situations it was never meant to address. That verse says nothing about international relations."
And what verse does speak specifically about international relations? I would note that the eye/cheek versus do nothing of the sort.
"When Paul uses the word "sword" he means the sword of the Spirit."
The government is permitted to use the sword of the spirit? That doesn't make sense. How can a symbolic sword of a spirit be used to execute wrath? You are selecting an alternative meaning solely to arrive at your pre-determined conclusions.
"so there is no basis upon which I can condemn him."
Sentencing him to death is not the same as condemning him to hell.
"Incidentally, I did start with Jesus."
But you didn't link the teachings of Jesus to the right of police to use painful force.
"I'd like to see you defend the war in Iraq starting with Jesus--then you can go on to Paul. "
Well, the dichotomy between Jesus and Paul is a figment of your imagination, not mine. However, what I want you to do is justify the use of a police force to apprehend and imprison criminals, so that I understand where you find in the Gospels a call for the use of any force.
Thus far you have used the example the Paul willingly staying in prison to justify a police force. By this token, the existence of martyrdom argues for the death penalty. Of course, it does not, so your going to have to draw a more direct link than the simple fact that Paul stayed in prison after an earthquake.
Where does Jesus speak to the right of the government to use painful force, even in the act of restraint?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 6:23 PM
"Should the politicians who made the decision to give Saddam the intelligence information knowing he would use poisonous gas against the Iranians be brought up on charges as well?"
If Iran wants to bring up charges, they are within their rights to do so, scripturally. We would similarly be within our rights to obey them, and if they wished to enact them by force, we would be within our rights to defend ourselves. Surely you agree.
What you are obviously suggesting is that we have no right to engage in this war because we had aided Saddam in the past. Address, then, a hypothetical. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and had plans to sell them to Al Qaeda, would we have been required to allow him to do so, on the grounds that we aided him in the past?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 6:30 PM
Here are the passages from the Sermon on the Mount which I use as the basis for my understanding of both the police force and the military:
25Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Jesus accepts the reality that the government has the right to detail prisoners. But this passage tells us we are to avoid going to court at all. Peter says that we should be living good enough lives so we don't get into trouble.
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Even if the police are available to us, we should go the extra mile when someone wrongs us. We should be merciful and not ask the police to retaliate for us. You can't forgive someone and ask the government to kill him for you--particularly when you are a murderer, too, having called your enemy a faggot (which is the real meaning of "Raca").
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I don't see how you can move from love for your enemies to support for the war in Iraq. I don't see that Jesus limits this to personal relationships. It seems to me to apply to personal enemies and national enemies.
If you want to redefine "enemy" to mean what you want so you can indulge in war, then I get to redefine "eunuch."
(I don't think I actually am redefining eunuch--my point is, you think I am. Here's a place where you are redefining a word to match your preconceived opinion.)
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 5, 2008 7:40 PM
Ashpenaz, I can understand you not supporting how we got into this war. However, I can't understand what is Christian about breaking a country and then leaving it a mess. I think there is something awfully not Christ-like about that.
As for saying a police force can't kill, that shows an incredible lack of understanding of how police forces operate. Killing is the last thing they want to do. Even in stopping an armed suspect, police will try to get them to put their weapons down prior to using lethal force. In the situation where an armed individual or group is killing innocent people, there is a moral obligation for the police to use lethal force to put a stop to it.
Posted by: doc75 | January 5, 2008 8:40 PM
I wouldn't leave Iraq in a mess. I respect Islam, and I think Muhammed (pbuh) was a great political thinker. Therefore, I would pull all the Americans out and advise the Iraqis to use the principles spelled out in the Koran and the Hadith to build a just nation. They have who they believe is God's final prophet to guide them--they don't need us.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 5, 2008 10:00 PM
What Paul says (But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil)about political rulers is utter nonsense. It would have god supporting Idi Amin, Joseph Stalin, the Holocaust, the mass killing of the Native Americans, and all the political atrocities of history. Are you really saying these are the "ministers of God" , that they do God's will even as they violate all Gods Law. Jesus never said anything like this.
Your arguments for the propriety of the attack on Iraq are feeble and don't hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. Iraq's attack on Kuwait was over and there was no compelling evidence that another military offense was underway. They were in fact co-operating with weapons inspectors and we had access to the entire country to search for WMD. We are signatories to the UN charter that makes wars of aggression illegal. From the first day of the war we ignored the Geneva accords as regards civilians and prisoners. This invasion also violated the Constitutional requirement that such a war be declared by Congress. In short a handful of utra right wing geo political stategists who knew nothing about war were violating fundamental commitments of law, and using the fear and anger from 9-11 to start a war by lying to the American people and getting 70 % of the populace to believe Saddam was connected to 9-11. Before this campaign there was virtually no concern in the Congress or the press about a threat from Iraq. There was no move in Britain to invade Iraq. None of the Gulf states were calling for such an action. This was cooked up by the neo-cons( who turned out to be not nearly as smart as they thought they were) and didn't start in a Bible study group or an open ethical and Constitutional decision making process.
Jesus was not enthusiastic about the sword. He said thay that live by the sword shall die by it. He challenged the eye for an eye morality of the Torah, and he would not have made a good policeman since he released a criminal from her lawful punishment.
As far as the supposed plot to kill Bush. This justifies killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? How will their deaths resolve an ineffective attempt at revenge? How is collective punishment either just or an example of Jesus' teaching and example? The US has killed many world leaders and supported some of the cruelest dictators in history. Are you saying Al Quaeda was justified in their attack because of these crimes? You seem to oppose anarchy, but isn't this what we have brought to Iraq, and Haiti, Vietnam, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Guatemala?
The information the Iraqi government under Saddam gave to the UN about weapons of mass destruction has been proven to be far more accurate than the lies told by George Bush and Colin Powell to justify this war.
You seem to think of war as some kind of legal game governments play under rules defined by Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul never justified wars of aggression and James, who actually knew Jesus, had nothing good to say about war.
The heart of Jesus teaching was to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is not what we have done in Iraq. If we are to see the change Jim is talking about we must learn this precept.
Posted by: jonabark | January 6, 2008 2:25 AM
"I wouldn't leave Iraq in a mess. I respect Islam, and I think Muhammed (pbuh) was a great political thinker. Therefore, I would pull all the Americans out and advise the Iraqis to use the principles spelled out in the Koran and the Hadith to build a just nation. They have who they believe is God's final prophet to guide them--they don't need us."
Yes. That's worked out really well. Especially when Americans basically pulled back into their bases in 2005 and 2006 and said "we'll let the Iraqis handle it." The method you propose for Iraq has also worked wonders in Taliban-led Afghanistan prior to 2002 and currently in the Gaza Strip. Back to Iraq, your method has so much potential since there are basically three strongly different viewpoints of Islam.
Posted by: doc75 | January 6, 2008 9:10 AM
jonbark you say, "What Paul says (But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil)about political rulers is utter nonsense."
Well, it's Scripture. If you're going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are or are not Scripture, I suggest you're in with the wrong crowd here.
jonabark also says, "Jesus was not enthusiastic about the sword. He said thay that live by the sword shall die by it. He challenged the eye for an eye morality of the Torah, and he would not have made a good policeman since he released a criminal from her lawful punishment."
In that case, he wasn't acting like a policeman, he was acting like a judge. And, doing a fine job in that role.
If you want to see Jesus as a policeman, please refer to John 2:14-17. I have quoted it below for your reference.
John 2:14-17: 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Posted by: doc75 | January 6, 2008 9:37 AM
Jesus says that we should leave vengeance to God, not the state. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." Peter says, "I have to obey God rather than men." These statements seem to directly contradict Paul in Romans. How can that be? And which statement do you use as a foundation? I start with Jesus.
I believe that the state does have the right to detain people who are a danger to society and separate them so they can't do any harm, but the state doesn't have any right to punish criminals. The fundamental purpose of imprisonment is protection and reformation, not punishment. And our job is to visit prisoners and comfort them.
Speaking of eunuchs, you have not shown me where in Scripture it shows that eunuchs were either castrated or celibate. Potiphar was not celibate, and the Ethiopian eunuch was not castrated--he was free to worship in Jerusalem, and Philip who had been healing multitudes in Samaria did not heal him, so the eunuch must have been physically intact. Jesus simply says that eunuchs were people who were born without the inclination toward traditional marriage--He says nothing about their celibacy or castration. Surely, if Jesus could restore an ear, he could restore a, well, you know...
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 6, 2008 12:55 PM
I think the author over reaches in her description of Barack Obama. Obama is not running as an independent or third party reformer. He is running as a candidate of the other party that has so far over seen unjust wars, the continuation of racism and sexism, the lack of healthcare for most working people, the sham of public education, failed to defend the rights of workers or advocate a living wage, the rape and exploitation of the Third World for its own purposes.
So yes it sounds good but he doesn't represent my idea of a liberating Christ, a Christ that takes the side of the poor and the oppressed. He represents a system that promises to do neither. That's the truth no matter what his rhetoric says.
Posted by: Mel | January 6, 2008 1:54 PM
"It would have god supporting Idi Amin, Joseph Stalin, the Holocaust"
I disagree. The passage says that the government is to executre wrath upon those who do evil, not that they should use the sword to conduct evil. This would seem to argue that government should use the sword against the Stalins of the world.
"Iraq's attack on Kuwait was over and there was no compelling evidence that another military offense was underway."
I would argue that there was, but that is different from the question of whether governments may go to war.
"They were in fact co-operating with weapons inspectors and we had access to the entire country to search for WMD. "
This simply isn't true. If we did, we wouldn't have had faulty intelligence in the first place. The argument I have heard was that Saddam was just about to give us complete access right before we started the attack. I don't buy it.
"In short a handful of utra right wing geo political stategists"
A dark Jewish cabal, if you will. Yes, I've read the conspiracy theories. But let's get back on topic.
"Jesus was not enthusiastic about the sword."
Then why did Peter have one in the first place? Had he been hiding it from Jesus the whole time?
"He said thay that live by the sword shall die by it."
He did say that. Do you know the context of this statement? He said that about any number of earthly things. If you live by your possessions, you will die by them. If you live wihtout investing your talents, you will die for your selfishness (and, really, your lack of boldness).
This wasn't a last-minute aphorism, a before-I-go piece of wisdom before Jesus got to the business of dying. He is telling Peter not to to interfere with God's plan, which is exactly what Peter was trying to do. This was not a comment on the use of violence by government.
"He challenged the eye for an eye morality of the Torah,"
Which isn't really relevant to the question of whether governments may protect their interests by going to war.
"and he would not have made a good policeman since he released a criminal from her lawful punishment."
This is a peculiar reading. Jesus was not a policeman, and he called the men (who certainly slept around, likely with the woman) out for their hypocrisy. Again, however, this does not say anything about whether government may go to war.
"As far as the supposed plot to kill Bush. This justifies killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? How will their deaths resolve an ineffective attempt at revenge?"
I'll set aside the question of whether we ought to be held scripturally responsible for the acts of depraved extremists who are willing to kill their own people. My point was that Saddam had established a long history of warlike behavior. Even Jim Wallis agreed that we needed to remove him.
"You seem to oppose anarchy, but isn't this what we have brought to Iraq, and Haiti, Vietnam, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Guatemala?"
No.
"The heart of Jesus teaching was to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Not really.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 2:50 PM
"What you are obviously suggesting is that we have no right to engage in this war because we had aided Saddam in the past. Address, then, a hypothetical. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and had plans to sell them to Al Qaeda, would we have been required to allow him to do so, on the grounds that we aided him in the past?" Kevin S.
That has truly proved be be a hypothetical since it has now been proven that Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Why don't you address what should happen to the US politicians who helped Sadam at a time when they knew that he was using chemical weapons? How does your Christian ethic inform your sense of justice in this regard? Please answer the question instead of diverting attention with a hypothetical.
Kevin S: "He also accepts the reality of war. If reality acceptance is equal to endorsement, then my case is made for me."
But it doesn't and you haven't.
Someone said: "The heart of Jesus teaching was to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Kevin S responds: "Not really."
Not a surprising response from you Kevin. It is pretty much consistent with the positions you have articulated on this blog.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 6, 2008 3:15 PM
"Jesus says that we should leave vengeance to God, not the state. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." Peter says, "I have to obey God rather than men." These statements seem to directly contradict Paul in Romans. How can that be? And which statement do you use as a foundation?"
Have you ever asked yourself these questions? Or did you immediately jump to the assertion that Paul is full of crap. If Paul is full of crap, this has dangerous consequences for how we view the rest of scripture.
Here is how the viewpoints can be reconciled. A government should be a tool for executing justice. Government exists for a reason, and Paul enumerates one of these reasons.
However, our first allegiance is to God, not the government. If you government is conducting an unjust war, (again, setting aside the question of whether our present effort constitutes injustice) we should embrace Godly values over governmental allegiance.
To the eunuch issue, which is off topic... The reference to potiphar being a eunuch was almost assuredly a reference to his political position. Many officers were eunuchs, and the terminology of the day was applied to all of them. Many translations (including the NIV) reflect this fact. Potiphar was not celibate, and likely had sex with his wife (and etc???)
Jesus does not define Eunuch, nor does he use the term in relation to the way it applied to Potiphar (which would make no sense).
Have you ever considered the fact that your theology so often requires you to assume that Bible does not say what it says, except for when it seems to mean what you need it to mean? That's called reading your own worldview into the Bible. Exploring gay theology (esp. Walter Wink) will lead you down this road, but the road ends by making a lie of scripture.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 3:17 PM
Was Phoebe a deaconess or a deacon's wife?
Was the apostle's name Junia or Junias?
What did Paul mean when he said "Women should keep silent in the churches?"
No one thought of asking these questions until women started reading the Bible with a "woman's" eye. Until women's ordination was an issue, Phoebe was a wife and Junias was a man and women were silent as far as preaching. Until women started pointing us to an accurate understanding of the words and sayings in Scripture, we were trapped in a non-Scriptural, patriarchal understanding.
This is a thread about progressive theology, represented by the UCC, and fundamentalist theology, represented by the Southern Baptists. That's why an understanding of the word "eunuch" is as important as understanding the word "deaconess."
The writers of Scripture did not have an understanding of homosexuality as an inborn, biological orientation. They did, however, observe, that there were men who, from birth, seemed to be uninterested in sex with women. Because of their lack of interest, these men were frequently chosen to guard the harem, and they were given the title "bed-keepers."
Castrating them would have made them weaker, so that probably wasn't very common. They were undoubtably sexual partners with various members of the royal court (even those who had been castrated could play the passive role). As far as we know, these bed-keepers were physically intact, sexually active men who weren't interested in women. Their job title became a synonym for lack of interest in women: eventually, the word "bed-keeper" or "eunuch" became a catch-all word for men who weren't interested in women, much like "hairdresser-type" is a catch-all word for gays today.
Eunuch is not a synonym for gay or homosexual as we understand it today, but it's a term that was applied to men who, for various reasons, weren't interested in traditional marriage. Jesus says nothing about castration or celibacy. Jesus says traditional marriage isn't for everyone, and He uses the catch-all term, "eunuch," to show what he means. Jesus has healed multitudes, and He doesn't suggest eunuchs need "healing" or "reparative therapy." In mentioning the role of eunuchs, I think Jesus is welcoming all those who are marginalized because of their sexual orientation into His Kingdom.
Progressive Christians, like Obama and the UCC, are able to realize that our changing understanding leads us to read the Bible in new ways which show us what the Bible is really saying. Huckabee and the Southern Baptists, who believe that homosexuality is a choice and an abomination, show their unwillingness to take Scripture seriously. They want to cling to human traditions and definitions rather than discover what Scripture really says.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 6, 2008 3:59 PM
What did Paul mean when he said "Women should keep silent in the churches?"
Context, context, context. In those days women and men sat separately in the church and the women had little idea of what was going on they continually asked their husbands, disrupting the worship services.
Eunuch is not a synonym for gay or homosexual as we understand it today, but it's a term that was applied to men who, for various reasons, weren't interested in traditional marriage. Jesus says nothing about castration or celibacy. Jesus says traditional marriage isn't for everyone, and He uses the catch-all term, "eunuch," to show what he means.
Au contraire -- in those days able-bodied people were married in their early 20s and marriages were carefully, carefully arranged. The term "eunuch" did mean someone who could not function sexually, and such men were even barred from the Jewish assembly. In the book "What's So Amazing About Grace?", Philip Yancey refers to the ethiopian eunuch as having "damaged testicles," and since he's been to the Middle East I would agree with his interpretation.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 5:23 PM
"That has truly proved be be a hypothetical "
That's why I called it a hypothetical. I threw it out there to establish common ground. It speaks to the consistency of your argument. Please address it.
"No one thought of asking these questions until women started reading the Bible with a "woman's" eye."
If you are suggesting that women in pastoral roles is one step on the way to open acceptance of homosexuality, then we are in agreement.
"They did, however, observe, that there were men who, from birth, seemed to be uninterested in sex with women."
So the Bible is simply a collection of the observations of man. It is written to codify what the writers believe? Why, then, put any stock in it?
"Castrating them would have made them weaker, so that probably wasn't very common."
That was the point, and yes it was.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 5:31 PM
This is from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
"We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."
So, yes, we can assume that the inspired writers of Scripture did not think of homosexuality in terms of an inborn, biological orientation. They could, however, comment on what they saw based on their understanding at the time. What they saw were men who were not interested in women being made into guards over the women of the royal household. Their role as guards meant they had to be strong, so it is unlikely they were castrated.
Philip Yancey, as much as I like him, didn't live 2000 years ago. Before people understood what homosexuality was, they applied the term "eunuch" to men who weren't interested in women for whatever reason. It had nothing to do with being castrated or celibate.
So, was Junia an apostle or not? Was Phoebe a deaconess?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 6, 2008 6:27 PM
P. S. The Ethiopian eunuch couldn't have been castrated since he'd been worshipping in Jerusalem, probably at the Temple--where else would he worship? Also, Philip didn't heal him, so he must not have been damaged. Just thought I'd mention that again since you seem to have missed it.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 6, 2008 6:30 PM
"That has truly proved be be a hypothetical " James Martin
Kevin S: "That's why I called it a hypothetical. I threw it out there to establish common ground. It speaks to the consistency of your argument. Please address it."
I asked you: What should happen to the US politicians who helped Sadam at a time when they knew that he was using chemical weapons? How does your Christian ethic inform your sense of justice in this regard?
I threw it out there to see your Christian ethic. Please address it.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 6, 2008 6:57 PM
What should happen to the US politicians who helped Sadam at a time when they knew that he was using chemical weapons?
Just a clarification here , but are not chemical weapons considered weapons of mass destruction ?
Posted by: Mick | January 6, 2008 7:18 PM
The verse in question says "for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It does not say what rulers should do or how they should behave, It says they are the ministers of God which he uses to execute wrath on him that does evil. He further says that "rulers are not a terror to good works".
This is flat out wrong. Rulers are often a terror to good works, and often the source of every known evil. Jesus was killed by the rulers of his time.
I do not regard the writings of Paul to be the inerrant word of God or a transcript of divine truth. Paul is following a certain tradition of prophetic interpretation of political changes and invading armies. In this tradition God uses Babylonians or Parthians or whatever to punish Israel for their sins. This is the same baloney that Falwell came up with in response to a criminal massacre of thousands of people. I am saying it is nonsense. God is not a being who appoints Joe Stalin here, Nero there, Dick Cheney now, because he needs a hit man for a sinner over there. One of the warnings God gave the Israelites when they wanted a King was that the Kings would use their children for war and that their abuses of power would be impossible to control.
Jesus refuted this line of thinking, referring to some people who died in an accident and saying that they were not the targets of divine justice but time and chance. He said rather that God makes the rain fall, and the sun shine on the just and unjust.
Paul got stuff wrong, and he seemed to know nothing of what Jesus taught, preferring his own revelatiion and theological take. He proclaimed the imminent return of Christ . His insecurity and status seeking were evident. I once believed his ideas and read his letters many times. He said some beautiful things. His picture of how a community should work like a living organism is lovely and his proclamation that faith hope and love abide, but the greatest is love , is some mighty fine preachin. But I find the words and example of Jesus to be much richer , more profound and radically transformative.
The war in Iraq was an obscene revenge fantasy which took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and poured tens of billions of tax dollars into the hands of mercenaries and war profiteers. It was not built on misinformation, or faulty intelligence . It was built on a deliberate campaign of deception. The criminals who started this war live in power and luxury, but the people of Iraq and America are reaping what was sowed. It is a harvest of sorrow whose bitterness is not fully known.
Posted by: jonabark | January 6, 2008 8:50 PM
"I asked you: What should happen to the US politicians who helped Sadam at a time when they knew that he was using chemical weapons? How does your Christian ethic inform your sense of justice in this regard?"
Scripturally, I have no problem with it. If Iran has won the war, they might be in control of the weapons. From a foresight perspective, there is a different argument, but there isn't a way to know how our allies (or our enemy's enemy) is going to behave after they receive our support.
So, if we knew that Iraq had a nuclear bomb, would it have been acceptable to invade, or would that have been in violation of scripture? If the former, then it would seem a non-sequitor.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 10:59 PM
"Paul got stuff wrong, and he seemed to know nothing of what Jesus taught,"
That's a bold claim. Then how we can we ascribe deity to Jesus. Certainly the gospel writers could have been making him up, since apparently that's what people were into.
"His insecurity and status seeking were evident."
Not to me. We are at an impasse here, in that you discard whole rafts of scripture. We are essentially dialoguing from different religions.
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth."
I agree. And when Jesus uses the word Eunuch, absent any reason to believe he wasn't talking about men without functioning genitalia, that's what we should assume he means. That's how we apply the wisdom that you just cited.
"Before people understood what homosexuality was, they applied the term "eunuch" to men who weren't interested in women for whatever reason."
This isn't true. Keep in mind that, 2,000 years ago, a number of defects that are now easily treated resulted in malfunctioning genitalia. Keep in mind as well that a number of people were castrated for a variety of reasons.
Society was aware of them, and had a term for such people. The most obvious interpretation of Christ's words is that he was addressing them (so as to avoid a trap?). The idea that Jesus is saying "take this learning, unless your gay, in which case do whatever the hell you want", is consistent with nothing other than your agenda.
Now what were we discussing? The link between Jesus and war? Here's the information I know.
1) Jesus did not say governments may not go to war. Anywhere. At all.
2) Jesus commended a centurion for his faith, which would be a ridiculous thing for someone unilaterally opposed to war to do.
3) Jesus and his disciples lived possessing only the bare essentials. And yet, Peter had a sword. Why?
4) Jesus blinded Paul on Damascus road.
5) Paul was, thus chosen to be a great leader in the new church.
6) God is omniscient.
7) God, therefore, knew what Paul was going to write about the government and the sword.
8) Jesus blinded him anyway.
From their, I deduce that governments may go to war. I have explained above generally why I think we were justified in engaging in this particular war.
Your question has now been answered.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 11:33 PM
"I do not regard the writings of Paul to be the inerrant word of God or a transcript of divine truth."
"Paul got stuff wrong, and he seemed to know nothing of what Jesus taught,"
"His insecurity and status seeking were evident."
Please tell me this is not where progressive Christianity leads us: picking and choosing which Scriptures we keep and which we throw out solely based on which ones support our worldview.
I would hope that jonabark's positions are not typical of those found here at God's Politics.
Posted by: doc75 | January 7, 2008 8:48 AM
"Isn't it true that these poles should not be in a mortal conflict against each other but rather a creative tension to accomplish Christ's goals?"
Doc75, I don't agree with everything you say, but i surely agree with this. Let's hear it for creative tension! We in modern society are generally afraid of it.
"So - you are saying that the make-up of the Southern Baptist of over a century and a half ago and their defence of Slavery, which was wrong, is the same denomination today?"
They showed that in the 1960's, didn't they, when the denomination didn't exactly support the civil rights movement, which would have provided some absolution for their misguided defense of slavery one hundred years earlier.
"Well - that being the situation I believe you might also say the same about the KKK and their favorite Son - Robert Byrd?"
Ah, yes, the well-worn Byrd example that is always pulled out when folks are on the defensive about the GOP's continued use of racism to get votes. Funny how you have to go back more than 60 years to get that, when Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Willie Horton and Harold Ford examples can be found in just the past twenty years.
"What about the Southern Dem's and their leadership of Wallis (George not Jim) and their treatment of Black's in the 60's. There the same today aren't they?"
LBJ was right: the Dems lost the south when he signed the civil rights bills. The Democratic Party changed; the south in many ways has not.
Posted by: I and I | January 7, 2008 10:14 AM
I think Jesus told nations not to go to war when He said "Forgive your enemies" and "Resist not an evil person" and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Since Jesus' images of judgment show Him judging nations, I assume that His teachings apply to nations as well as individuals.
Jesus also commended evil fathers and corrupt managers--the fact that Jesus didn't chide a soldier says nothing about His attitude toward war.
Those closest in time to Jesus believed that being a soldier was a sin, so I know that the Early Church agreed with me. The idea of a Just War only came in with Constantine. (BTW, I don't think it's a sin for nations to participate in a Just War--but I do think is a concession to our sinfulness and we should exhaust all diplomatic means before considering war.)
You can disagee with me, but you have no basis to call me unscriptural.
Biblical interpretation means treating metaphor as metaphor--eunuch is a metaphor that the ancient Near East culture used to include all men who were not interested in women for whatever reason. Again, you can disagree with me, but you can't say I'm unscriptural. Your interpretation of "enemy," "deaconess," "sword," etc. suggests you also know how metaphors work.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 7, 2008 11:46 AM
It would be nice to read a discussion regarding our future President that left religion completely out of the discussion. All it does is use up time that could be used to discuss the issues that will be needed to address when running (leading) our country.
Posted by: joyville2 | January 7, 2008 12:42 PM
It would be nice to read a discussion regarding our future President that left religion completely out of the discussion.
In this country, the most religious on the face of the earth, that would be impossible and impractical.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 1:01 PM
But Ashphanez Eunuch is not only a metaphor, it was an actual proscription. Read about Candace and see from Ethiopian eyes what the definition of a eunuch is.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 7, 2008 3:18 PM
"Please tell me this is not where progressive Christianity leads us: picking and choosing which Scriptures we keep and which we throw out solely based on which ones support our worldview."
I wish I could say this was the case, but the emergent church, as well as the more progressive denominations, have a very low view of the writings of Paul.
I wish more politically progressive Christians would sound a clarion call against this degradation of scripture (which, to his credit, Rick Nowlin has done in some instances here). It would seem that they have every reason in the world to do so.
"Those closest in time to Jesus believed that being a soldier was a sin, so I know that the Early Church agreed with me. "
The early church did not exist in America (or anything remotely like it), so it is not at all necessary to conclude that they agreed with you. If our government were out to kill Christians for being Christian, you could make a strong case that it would be a sin to join the army.
What is the difference between a sin and a confession to our sinfulness?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 3:35 PM
I suppose since Diana started out talking about the poles of Protestantism, it's only appropriate that the discussion eventually led to talk of castration.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 7, 2008 3:45 PM
doc75 wrote,
"Isn't it true that these poles should not be in a mortal conflict against each other but rather a creative tension to accomplish Christ's goals?"
Amen to that. And did you notice that Obama and Huckabee are the only candidates who seriously recognize the need for us to united as a nation? I think this is as much a factor in their success as the "change" mantra that the media picked up on Friday. And I think it's a very Christian idea.
[Disclaimer: I am a UCC member]
Posted by: Hali | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM
canucklehead: "I suppose since Diana started out talking about the poles of Protestantism, it's only appropriate that the discussion eventually led to talk of castration."
ROFL.
More seriously . . . "Please tell me this is not where progressive Christianity leads us: picking and choosing which Scriptures we keep and which we throw out solely based on which ones support our worldview." My politics are very far to the Left, but I regard Paul as an apostle of Jesus and read his letters as inspired by God. Meaning that it's possible to read the Scriptures in a pretty traditional way and still have progressive politics (N.T. Wright exemplifies this--read his comments on Jubilee 2000 for example).
Posted by: carl copas | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM
kevin s. wrote,
"So the Bible is simply a collection of the observations of man. It is written to codify what the writers believe? Why, then, put any stock in it?"
The Bible is a combination of the Hebrew Tanakh (what Christians often call the "Old Testament") and the collected writings of a number of early Christians who did their best to record what was remembered about Jesus and his teachings and to make sense of how to apply them to everyday life. The Acts and the Epistles serve a purpose that is different from, though complementary to, the Gospels. (Let's not even get started on Revelation until we have a thread that is entirely dedicated to it) ;)
But we are missing something that the Jews have: a Talmud. Maybe these blogs are the start of a Christian Talmud (there is also a Jewish "Virtual Talmud" blog on Beliefnet). But that requires a willingness to put discussion before, or at least on par, with dogma.
Posted by: Hali | January 7, 2008 4:32 PM
After reading the comments on this forum it is easy to understand why Ghandi said, "I would be a Christian if it were not for Christians."
Posted by: praediger | January 7, 2008 4:52 PM
I don't normally contribute to threads which are about internal US politics (not directly my business and I don't have the inside knowledge, though Obama and Huckabee both look interesting characters from this side of the pond, and DBB's blog and follow-up post were very helpful in putting them into some sort of ecclesial context for those of us who have to rely on the extremely secularised and largely uncomprehending UK media). However there have been some worrying trends in some of the earlier posts to which I, as a liberal Christian with a very high regard for the Apostle Paul, feel drawn to respond.
First: it is bad theology to neglect context. Paul was writing under the Julio-Claudian emperors who, on the whole, governed relatively benignly as a military dictatorship - unless you happened to be a politically ambitious member of the old governing classes. For a man born in the Eastern provinces, like Paul, Romans 13 sums up what most of the Julio-Claudians were about. They maintained order in a way that the Mediterranean world hadn't previously experienced - certainly not for the century or so leading up to Mark Antony's defeat at Actium. On the other hand we can see what happens when the emperors stopped joking about becoming gods and start believing (and, more importantly, insisting that their subjects believe) that they were gods if we turn to John the Seer. The book of Revelation pulls no punches in its hostility to a government which sets itself in the place of God.
Second: Picking and choosing from Scripture is not a vice confined to "progressive Christians". Kevin S's flip dismissal of Jesus's words in Matthew 7:12 looks very much like a case in point - though I've no doubt Kevin will argue that it isn't. What is important is to read Scripture both in the light of (the rest of) Scripture and with some understanding of the societies and cultures in which they originated, rather than in the light of one's own prejudices and cultural/societal blinkers - which isn't easy, or, indeed, comfortable.
Finally: all the arguments above about Jesus's being an anarchist or a supporter of state power seem to me to concentrate on peripherals (like "Why did Peter have a sword") rather than on the central content of Jesus's sayings about the relationship between God and Caesar (and I don't just mean Matthew 22:15 ff//Mark 12:13-17//Luke 20:20-26), which very effectively desacralises the state and, indeed, subverts (as does his mother's song in Luke 1:46ff) most established notions of order and hierarchy. And behind that there's the whole prophetic tradition which is expressed in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | January 7, 2008 4:58 PM
G'Day All
Interesting post above. I also am an interested observer and wish to strongly support the note above by Tony Dickinson.
Whether we like it or not, while much of the processes of the USA political system seems to be a little arcane; it does affect the rest of the world. I am now about to pay more for my mortgage to assist in covering the losses in USA's financial and banking systems caused by the incompetent miss management of of the prime mortgage financing system. Taxation with out representation(?).
The issues of contextualizing issues are very important when we come to applying principals laid out in another culture another time; require good understanding of both then and now. Diana’s article outlines many issues which do not get through the global media filters, yet also raises the need for a continual awareness of for whom and from where do people speak. Then there can be good analysis of the import of these issues.
Time for some in-depth ethical discussions on more than just a few hot button issues, with a more global view
Incidentally, is it time for the USA to copy the Australian system? You must enrol to vote, and you much get your name crossed off the electoral roll on election day at a polling both. If you care to, you can then also vote, abstain from voting or vote informal. That is your civic duty on pain a $50.00 fine, or a good please explain. We also have an indepentent electoral system based on a paper system which seems to keep vote rorting to a low level despite the best efforts of some parties and groups. None of this 20% or so turnout, get 95% or more.
Posted by: John Holmes | January 7, 2008 8:23 PM
"First: it is bad theology to neglect context. "
I agree. But either we believe Paul's words are from God or we do not. I'll set aside the question of whether Paul operated under a benevolent government. Paul laid out a vision for government, and this is scripture inspired by God, which may be used to form the basis for Christian thought as it relates to foreign policy.
"Kevin S's flip dismissal of Jesus's words in Matthew 7:12"
I don't dismiss them at all. There is a difference between dismissing something as true, and stating that it is not THE purpose of the gospel, which it is not.
"rather than in the light of one's own prejudices and cultural/societal blinkers - which isn't easy, or, indeed, comfortable."
Which, of course, you never do, in spite of the fact that scripture seems to reinforce your worldview quite a bit, doesn't it? Maybe dispense with the pejoratives, and focus on the questions at hand, eh? You're human too, believe it or not.
"Finally: all the arguments above about Jesus's being an anarchist or a supporter of state power seem to me to concentrate on peripherals (like "Why did Peter have a sword")"
Why is this peripheral? Because you decide it is? This passage is the one most frequently used by pacifists to defend the notion that Jesus was a pacifist. The questions seems relevant to me, and you clearly do not have an anwswer to my question. Why did Peter have the sword?
I agree that the government isn't God, and that has hardly been my position on this blog. That point is a non-sequitor.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 9:06 PM
I didn't realize there was a theological test to participate. Instead of dismissing my plainspoken beliefs perhaps you can actually address the substance of my argument. So here goes again.
The verse in question says "for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It does not say what rulers should do or how they should behave, It says they are the ministers of God which he uses to execute wrath on him that does evil. He further says that "rulers are not a terror to good works".
This is flat out wrong. Rulers are often a terror to good works, and often the source of every known evil. Jesus was killed by the rulers of his time.
Paul is following a certain tradition of prophetic interpretation of political changes and invading armies. In this tradition God uses Babylonians or Parthians or whatever to punish Israel for their sins. This is the same baloney that Falwell came up with in response to a criminal massacre of thousands of people. I am saying it is nonsense. God is not a being who appoints Joe Stalin here, Nero there, Dick Cheney now, Osam Bin Lanen then because he needs a hit man for a sinner over there. One of the warnings God gave the Israelites when they wanted a King was that the Kings would use their children for war and that their abuses of power would be impossible to control.
Jesus refuted this prophtic line of thinking, referring to some people who died in an accident and saying that they were not the targets of divine justice but time and chance. He said rather that God makes the rain fall, and the sun shine on the just and unjust.
The argument that the Roman governors of the time of Paul were benign does not hold water, particularly if you, as many of you seem to, accept the theological premise that Paul was writing down God's word for all people of all time. He does not speak narrowly about the current government but makes general statements about the role of government. They are dumb statements which cannot be made credible by any stretch of the imagination,and I see nothing in the teachings or example of Jesus that asks his followers to accept every word that someone writes in his name. Further the Bible has several stories of rulers who are a terror to good men and to good works. Finally the Roman rulers of Paul's time were ruthless in the economic and military rape of those they conquered and occupied. The Pax Romana was built on slavery, exploitation and the servile cooperation of collaborators in occupied regions. Claudius came to power as the result of the murder of the rather nasty Caligula, he liked gladiatorial combats( in which the gladiators were only allowed to kill evildoers),his first act as emperor was to pardon assassins who had killed Caligula's family and several other "nobles". He invaded Britain to exploit mineral wealth, land and take slaves. All of course as the minister of God in the service of punishing evildoers. Claudius was relatively friendly to the Jews and did other good things, but then Saddam never bothered the Iraqi Christians or Mandeans and was thousands of times better as far as raising the standard of living and educational level of Iraqis than the British ever were.
I refuse to lop off my head for a book which Jesus himself did not find final or authoritative.
Some Evangelicals say you can't pick and choose from what they claim to be "the word of God". The bible never once calls itself the word of God. And after hundreds of visits to evangelical churches I can say that 90% of the sermons are from about 20 % of Paul. There is a great deal of picking and choosing in every Christian denomination.
I come here to dialogue with people I share a common language with, not out of any presumptions about their theology or politics though generally blogs created by people of a shared body of ideas are frequented most by people of similar thinking who want to hear those ideas and talk about them.
Posted by: jonabark | January 8, 2008 1:32 AM
"Why did Peter have the sword?"
Because Jesus told him too and possibly depending on ancient Israelite law and custom to obey a law. I have another question. Did Jesus want him to use it?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 8, 2008 2:29 PM
jonabark wrote,
"I refuse to lop off my head for a book which Jesus himself did not find final or authoritative."
I know Jesus wasn't a scriptural literalist, but could you explain this a little more?
Posted by: Hali | January 9, 2008 8:29 PM
payshun wrote,
"Did Jesus want him to use it?"
I think this is one of Jesus's clearest teachings, and certainly not context-specific - i.e., Jesus wasn't just saying "don't use it now, but it's ok for other people to do it later."
Posted by: Hali | January 9, 2008 8:32 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?