This week, the CIA released the Inspector General Report from 2004, dealing with the enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees. It's got the Internet tubes ablaze, I tell ya! There are very serious and strident views on both sides. Commentators the world over are asking questions, the biggest of which is:
Is torture justified if it results in the saving of lives?
This question is apparently hard. I think it's a rather slam-dunk "no"- torture is a violation of human rights, and two wrongs don't make a right. Getting a straight Biblical answer is a little difficult as the Bible doesn't explicitly deal with when it's ok to torture people. But it does say that "[the condemnation of those who say] 'Let us do evil that good may result' is deserved." Also, Christians are told to love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek, and to treat their neighbor as themselves.
A pastor from my synod gave an answer here, and while they rightly point out that there is not (nor should there be) an Official Doctrinal Position, they also point out that if dropping the Atomic bomb was justified, torture is justified. So. There's that.
But even if we are uncertain about this question, I think there are a few relevant points that it assumes away. We can argue about what to do if we know that a terrorist has information about a bomb in New York. But what if we don't know what they know? What if we don't know that this person is a terrorist? Are there other techniques we can employ to get this information that don't involve torture? All of this is swept under the rug.
But I watched FOX News Sunday this morning, and people were very pro-torture. Juan Williams was doing very well making the case against torture: it's illegal, there are other ways to get information, the information we do get with it is unreliable because people just want the torture to stop, and it hurts America's image abroad hurting national security.
Chris Wallace would have none of it. Right before ending the show, he very snidely said, "And I suppose the fact that we haven't been attacked since September 11th is just a coincidence." I yelled loudly at my television.
Bill Kristol then points out that Abu Zubaida was interrogated using pussy techniques for a month before the men got to work, used their enhanced interrogation techniques, and got him to spill the beans. But according to this Washington Post article, Zubaida's post-torture information was not all that critical. High (always anonymous) CIA sources speak on both sides. One says the information was really important and useful, another says it wasn't.
How do we know who's telling the truth? Dick Cheney isn't an anonymous source, and he says that torture provided good intelligence that saved lives. But I don't really believe him because he has a vested interest in making the program important and effective. Also, his credibility is damaged from all of the things he said about Iraq.
Maybe there should be an investigation into this so we get some better answers. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he's starting an inquiry. Unfortunately, it will not investigate the efficacy of torture or other techniques. It will not investigate who authorized torture to be used. But it will investigate if CIA operatives overstepped their authorization in some cases. So if you were authorized to torture someone, you're fine. If you exceeded that authorization and tortured them harder than you should have, you're in trouble.
But even this weak attempt at fact-finding and accountability is being met with hostility. Another talking head on Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson, said that it would be better for the White House if Holder's investigation were allowed to proceed, but hoped that it would not find enough evidence to do anything. Suuuuper. Another member of the panel, Bill Sammon, thought that the investigation was damaging to the national security of the United States, and that Holder is Obama's little puppet. Maybe he's too used to the Attorney General doing whatever the President says from when George W. Bush was President.
So, in conclusion, the view that torturing people should not be done and that investigations into torture are warranted and should cover administration officials who authorized torture as well as the operatives who carried it out, makes me a crazy liberal.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I make fun of my name a lot
But sometimes, it's helpful to be reminded of the person you're named for. This is why I frown on names like Brady and Apple.
David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."
As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.
So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Quantum Mechanics and Miracles
You know what really grinds my gears? When people misuse quantum mechanics and mistakenly apply it to explain macroscopic phenomena and miracles.
The story goes a little something like this: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be known at the same time with infinite levels of precision. There is a little fuzziness- electrons are better described as waves than as balls. We can draw a cloud where we are sure the electron spends 95 or 99 or 99.9 percent of its time, but you can never draw a cloud big enough to capture 100 percent of the electron. Therefore, there is a chance no matter how remote that every electron and particle in your body will jump three feet to the right. Or you could punch a wall and your hand would go straight through it as the gypsum board particles hit the cosmic lottery and jump out of the way.
This is where miracles come in.
Some people posit that miracles operate under the guidance of quantum mechanics- God plays slots with the Universe and uses his omnipotence to make sure he gets three cherries whenever he wants. I do not think this is a very good understanding of God or quantum mechanics. God does not play dice with the Universe!
For evidence of this, I suppose I could just cite a few miracles from the Bible. Pay attention to how and why Jesus performs the miracles, and what they say about him.
How does Jesus accomplish this miracle? He 'rebukes the winds and the waves' and they 'obey him'. He could just as easily have told his disciples to turn around and close their eyes, said nothing, and when they turned back have everything be calm.
The image that we are given instead is the relationship between a Creator and his Creation: because Jesus is the Son of God and was the Word at the time the Universe was made, he can therefore have mastery over his creation and suspend any rule that he created in the first place. This is kind of like how an author who writes himself into a book has mastery over what happens to his character in that book.
Here's a second example from earlier in the same chapter of Matthew:
Again, Jesus is able to perform this miracle because he has divine authority, like how the centurion has authority over his troops.
Why is this an issue at all?
I think it is important to think about whether Jesus performed these miracles by playing by the rules of physics and rigging the deck or if he got rid of the rules completely.
First of all, the idea that even Jesus and God have to play by the rules of physics sounds somewhat like Deism to me. Deism says that God is a Divine Watchmaker who planned the course of world history by setting the speed of light, Planck's Constant, and Boltzmann's Constant at the beginning of time and hasn't intervened since. Since it is precisely this intervention that is told in the Old and New Testaments, I don't like Deism.
Second, it puts the Creator at the mercy of his own Creation, which is a Very Bad Thing. Some people (WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS) do not believe in God because they think that events described in the Bible are physically impossible. Even though the events ARE, in fact, physically impossible, that does not mean that God cannot do them if God transcends physics.
Lastly, having this understanding of miracles develops our faith in the same way that exercise develops muscles. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says cannot be done takes a lot of faith. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says are astronomically unlikely takes less faith. And the entire point is that we are supposed to have faith in that greatest of miracles: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Will there be Quantum Mechanics in Heaven?
The story goes a little something like this: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be known at the same time with infinite levels of precision. There is a little fuzziness- electrons are better described as waves than as balls. We can draw a cloud where we are sure the electron spends 95 or 99 or 99.9 percent of its time, but you can never draw a cloud big enough to capture 100 percent of the electron. Therefore, there is a chance no matter how remote that every electron and particle in your body will jump three feet to the right. Or you could punch a wall and your hand would go straight through it as the gypsum board particles hit the cosmic lottery and jump out of the way.
This is where miracles come in.
Some people posit that miracles operate under the guidance of quantum mechanics- God plays slots with the Universe and uses his omnipotence to make sure he gets three cherries whenever he wants. I do not think this is a very good understanding of God or quantum mechanics. God does not play dice with the Universe!
For evidence of this, I suppose I could just cite a few miracles from the Bible. Pay attention to how and why Jesus performs the miracles, and what they say about him.
Then [Jesus] got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!"
He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.
The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"
How does Jesus accomplish this miracle? He 'rebukes the winds and the waves' and they 'obey him'. He could just as easily have told his disciples to turn around and close their eyes, said nothing, and when they turned back have everything be calm.
The image that we are given instead is the relationship between a Creator and his Creation: because Jesus is the Son of God and was the Word at the time the Universe was made, he can therefore have mastery over his creation and suspend any rule that he created in the first place. This is kind of like how an author who writes himself into a book has mastery over what happens to his character in that book.
Here's a second example from earlier in the same chapter of Matthew:
When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."
The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.
Again, Jesus is able to perform this miracle because he has divine authority, like how the centurion has authority over his troops.
Why is this an issue at all?
I think it is important to think about whether Jesus performed these miracles by playing by the rules of physics and rigging the deck or if he got rid of the rules completely.
First of all, the idea that even Jesus and God have to play by the rules of physics sounds somewhat like Deism to me. Deism says that God is a Divine Watchmaker who planned the course of world history by setting the speed of light, Planck's Constant, and Boltzmann's Constant at the beginning of time and hasn't intervened since. Since it is precisely this intervention that is told in the Old and New Testaments, I don't like Deism.
Second, it puts the Creator at the mercy of his own Creation, which is a Very Bad Thing. Some people (WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS) do not believe in God because they think that events described in the Bible are physically impossible. Even though the events ARE, in fact, physically impossible, that does not mean that God cannot do them if God transcends physics.
Lastly, having this understanding of miracles develops our faith in the same way that exercise develops muscles. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says cannot be done takes a lot of faith. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says are astronomically unlikely takes less faith. And the entire point is that we are supposed to have faith in that greatest of miracles: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Will there be Quantum Mechanics in Heaven?
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!"
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Romans 3
So I got a book from the church library on Romans, and I think it will help my study. It's written to help a group Bible study leader, so its translation to blog form will be a little tricky, as there is a lot less interaction and group discussion. Just reading about scripture and writing somewhat coherent thoughts about it helps me understand it better, but comments from Andy or Chrissy or Ed or Sarah or anyone help too.
The Jews Paul is writing to may have been upset with the earlier part of his letter. If they do not follow the Law, they are just as bad as the gentiles who do not follow the Law, and they are worse than gentiles that do follow it. So what good does it do to be a Jew? Paul has a couple responses, more of which will come up in chapter 9, but in his first response here he says that the Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God."
1. In what ways is it an advantage to know God's revelation of Himself, His promises, His deeds, and His guidance for living?
I can think of three responses to this question:
A. God's revelation is unchanging and true. The words of the Bible don't change from country to country or from time to time depending on people's whims, the spirit of the age, or recent advances in scholarship. This means that we don't have to rely on ourselves for religious guidance- God has done it for us. This is a firmer foundation than not having God's revelation.
B. A knowledge of God's past promises and His deeds gives us comfort that He will keep His promises about our salvation, too. He delivered Daniel from the lion's den, Jonah from the belly of the whale, and the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace, so why not every man?
C. As creatures created by God, he knows us better than we may know ourselves about what will make us happy and healthy. Say, for example, that you did not have the Law and that your conscience had been hardened and dulled so that you did not believe that adultery was a sin. You would still suffer the bad symptoms (both spiritual and worldly) without being sure of the cause.
2. What responsibilities go along with being entrusted with God's words?
We must first work to understand them and take care of them. They should also be preached to everyone. Lastly, they should not be misused, misquoted, or misapplied, or else a non-believer would have reason to doubt God.
Also, knowledge of the Law implies that you accept to be judged on your adherence to that Law.
3. What implications does this have for Christians, who have even more of God's words than the Jews had?
We're supposed to be even more diligent and careful with what we've been entrusted. We have been given "treasures in jars of clay", as Paul wrote to the Corinthians.
Paul also wants to address a second objection. If God looks more righteous in comparison to sinful human beings, wouldn't sinning in a way bring glory to God? For the moment, Paul just brushes this aside as absurd and will deal more with the issue later.
Moving on.
This is the big conclusion that Paul has been building towards so far: everyone is guilty of breaking the Law, so they cannot be justified before God by using it. The indented verses above are quotes from various sections of the Old Testament and are included to prove to Jews that they are also condemned and that this message is nothing new.
I think that this message is not communicated strongly today. Even Christians believe that they are by nature sinful. In the infamous movie featuring the Sinners in the Pit, non-believing friends of mine came away believing that Christians had never been in the Pit.
For the students of philosophy and history, I blame this on Humanism. The belief that people, when you get right down to it, are innately good, decent, and honest, is neither psychologically true nor Biblical. However, it is a comforting and compelling belief. It is also popular. The antidote is probably examination of oneself and society at large according to the Ten Commandments, but this is something of a Catch-22: if people will not accept the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, then it is hard to convince them that they have sinned against them. Put another way, it is hard to tell a kleptomaniac that he is a criminal if theft is not a crime.
4. Jews have at least one advantage over Gentiles: they have been entrusted with God's words. However, in the final analysis, why are Jews and Gentiles essentially equal?
Jews and Gentiles are essentially equal because they both have sinned and are in need of God's grace.
5. What are some purposes of God's Law (3:19-20)?
Not only does the Law tell us how we should live in accordance with God's Will, but it also points out our sin and need for a savior when we fail to follow it. Students who still have their catechisms might remember the Law serving as Curb, Mirror, and Guide. That is, it curbs destructive behaviors and attitudes, lets us see our sins, and gives us positive advice in how we should live.
To quote the Book of Concord:
6. Sketch an outline of 1:18-3:20 by giving titles to the main section and the subsections. Try to follow Paul's logic.
My Bible has sections of its own that I find useful. I guess the NIV did this?
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: God's Wrath Against Mankind- Gentiles willfully disobeyed God and this made God mad.
2:1-16: God's Righteous Judgment- He was right to be mad and will judge the righteous and unrighteous.
2:17-29: The Jews and the Law- The Jews have the Law and claim to be righteous because of it, but this isn't true because they don't practice what they preach.
3:1-8: God's Faithfulness- God keeps his promises even if people who have the Law don't practice what they preach.
3:9-20: No One Is Righteous- Gentiles and Jews have all broken God's Law.
My Bible also has this outline:
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: Gentiles
2:1-3:8: Jews
3:9-20: All People
Last section (Righteousness Through Faith):
There are a few competing ideas that need to be resolved: if God is all-loving and gracious, he will keep his promise made at The Fall and somehow save people from their sins. Also, he is a just God who cannot stand to be in the presence of sin and will reward sin with the punishment it deserves. How does God get past this paradox or dilemma?
Paul says that he gets past it by having Jesus pay the punishment for our sins on the cross, and by faith imputing his righteousness to us. He is gracious and loving- people who put their faith in Jesus are saved. He is just- those sins have been paid for.
Paul uses a few terms that have been stripped of their meaning to me due to overuse, so I'd like to look at them carefully again. First, is 'justification'. Again, using the vocabulary of the courtroom, to justify someone is to declare them (in the positive sense) 'righteous' and (in the negative sense) 'not guilty'. We are justified before the Judge (God) through Christ's redemption, which is given to us as a free gift that we call grace.
Redemption also needs to be defined, here. We sometimes think of redemption as doing a good action to offset a bad one ("Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!"). But here the word is used in a different sense: it is a release by payment of a ransom. You could redeem a criminal or a slave by paying a price.
God could have been loving and gracious by simply suspending the rules, but that would not have been just. This is what Paul means when he says that 'we uphold the law'- God is not suspending the rules.
7. In your own words, explain how Jesus has enabled us to become righteous if we put our faith in Him.
Even though we have sinned against God, we are declared not guilty of those sins, because Christ led a righteous life and died an innocent death. "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
But why doesn't God just give big kudos to Jesus and not impute it to us? I can't force Jesus to help me. Instead, he gives those kudos that God gave him to me. He did that not to earn my loyalty or love or devotion, but because he's a really nice guy who loves me unconditionally.
8. Why is the phrase 'freely by his grace' important?
It is important because it shows that we don't buy our justification through our actions. Our salvation is dependent upon the love and grace of God, rather than ourselves. This is more reassuring and comforting than depending even in part on our own righteous deeds: our deeds may sometimes fail, but God never will.
9. Why does God's way of righteousness make it impossible for anyone to boast about himself?
If God's way of righteousness is given freely, then no one can boast and say they deserve it more than another person in the same way that I can't claim I deserve more Christmas presents: they are gifts. Jews and gentiles are justified in the same way apart from the law given to Jews only, so Jews can't boast before gentiles.
Imagine that I told two people named Andy and Jordan that I would buy them ice cream depending on how well they played Monopoly. However, I gave Jordan $6000 and Andy only $500. I stop the game later and buy them both ice cream because they played the game 'well'- they were courteous to one another, they did not cheat, they rolled the dice and moved the game pieces correctly, etc., etc. It would do Jordan no good to claim that he deserved more ice cream for ending up with more money- I wasn't grading on that criteria, anyway.
Maybe that's a bad analogy in some ways, but it gets the point across.
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."
But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
The Jews Paul is writing to may have been upset with the earlier part of his letter. If they do not follow the Law, they are just as bad as the gentiles who do not follow the Law, and they are worse than gentiles that do follow it. So what good does it do to be a Jew? Paul has a couple responses, more of which will come up in chapter 9, but in his first response here he says that the Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God."
1. In what ways is it an advantage to know God's revelation of Himself, His promises, His deeds, and His guidance for living?
I can think of three responses to this question:
A. God's revelation is unchanging and true. The words of the Bible don't change from country to country or from time to time depending on people's whims, the spirit of the age, or recent advances in scholarship. This means that we don't have to rely on ourselves for religious guidance- God has done it for us. This is a firmer foundation than not having God's revelation.
B. A knowledge of God's past promises and His deeds gives us comfort that He will keep His promises about our salvation, too. He delivered Daniel from the lion's den, Jonah from the belly of the whale, and the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace, so why not every man?
C. As creatures created by God, he knows us better than we may know ourselves about what will make us happy and healthy. Say, for example, that you did not have the Law and that your conscience had been hardened and dulled so that you did not believe that adultery was a sin. You would still suffer the bad symptoms (both spiritual and worldly) without being sure of the cause.
2. What responsibilities go along with being entrusted with God's words?
We must first work to understand them and take care of them. They should also be preached to everyone. Lastly, they should not be misused, misquoted, or misapplied, or else a non-believer would have reason to doubt God.
Also, knowledge of the Law implies that you accept to be judged on your adherence to that Law.
3. What implications does this have for Christians, who have even more of God's words than the Jews had?
We're supposed to be even more diligent and careful with what we've been entrusted. We have been given "treasures in jars of clay", as Paul wrote to the Corinthians.
Paul also wants to address a second objection. If God looks more righteous in comparison to sinful human beings, wouldn't sinning in a way bring glory to God? For the moment, Paul just brushes this aside as absurd and will deal more with the issue later.
Moving on.
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
This is the big conclusion that Paul has been building towards so far: everyone is guilty of breaking the Law, so they cannot be justified before God by using it. The indented verses above are quotes from various sections of the Old Testament and are included to prove to Jews that they are also condemned and that this message is nothing new.
I think that this message is not communicated strongly today. Even Christians believe that they are by nature sinful. In the infamous movie featuring the Sinners in the Pit, non-believing friends of mine came away believing that Christians had never been in the Pit.
For the students of philosophy and history, I blame this on Humanism. The belief that people, when you get right down to it, are innately good, decent, and honest, is neither psychologically true nor Biblical. However, it is a comforting and compelling belief. It is also popular. The antidote is probably examination of oneself and society at large according to the Ten Commandments, but this is something of a Catch-22: if people will not accept the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, then it is hard to convince them that they have sinned against them. Put another way, it is hard to tell a kleptomaniac that he is a criminal if theft is not a crime.
4. Jews have at least one advantage over Gentiles: they have been entrusted with God's words. However, in the final analysis, why are Jews and Gentiles essentially equal?
Jews and Gentiles are essentially equal because they both have sinned and are in need of God's grace.
5. What are some purposes of God's Law (3:19-20)?
Not only does the Law tell us how we should live in accordance with God's Will, but it also points out our sin and need for a savior when we fail to follow it. Students who still have their catechisms might remember the Law serving as Curb, Mirror, and Guide. That is, it curbs destructive behaviors and attitudes, lets us see our sins, and gives us positive advice in how we should live.
To quote the Book of Concord:
1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law[.]
6. Sketch an outline of 1:18-3:20 by giving titles to the main section and the subsections. Try to follow Paul's logic.
My Bible has sections of its own that I find useful. I guess the NIV did this?
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: God's Wrath Against Mankind- Gentiles willfully disobeyed God and this made God mad.
2:1-16: God's Righteous Judgment- He was right to be mad and will judge the righteous and unrighteous.
2:17-29: The Jews and the Law- The Jews have the Law and claim to be righteous because of it, but this isn't true because they don't practice what they preach.
3:1-8: God's Faithfulness- God keeps his promises even if people who have the Law don't practice what they preach.
3:9-20: No One Is Righteous- Gentiles and Jews have all broken God's Law.
My Bible also has this outline:
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: Gentiles
2:1-3:8: Jews
3:9-20: All People
Last section (Righteousness Through Faith):
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
There are a few competing ideas that need to be resolved: if God is all-loving and gracious, he will keep his promise made at The Fall and somehow save people from their sins. Also, he is a just God who cannot stand to be in the presence of sin and will reward sin with the punishment it deserves. How does God get past this paradox or dilemma?
Paul says that he gets past it by having Jesus pay the punishment for our sins on the cross, and by faith imputing his righteousness to us. He is gracious and loving- people who put their faith in Jesus are saved. He is just- those sins have been paid for.
Paul uses a few terms that have been stripped of their meaning to me due to overuse, so I'd like to look at them carefully again. First, is 'justification'. Again, using the vocabulary of the courtroom, to justify someone is to declare them (in the positive sense) 'righteous' and (in the negative sense) 'not guilty'. We are justified before the Judge (God) through Christ's redemption, which is given to us as a free gift that we call grace.
Redemption also needs to be defined, here. We sometimes think of redemption as doing a good action to offset a bad one ("Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!"). But here the word is used in a different sense: it is a release by payment of a ransom. You could redeem a criminal or a slave by paying a price.
God could have been loving and gracious by simply suspending the rules, but that would not have been just. This is what Paul means when he says that 'we uphold the law'- God is not suspending the rules.
7. In your own words, explain how Jesus has enabled us to become righteous if we put our faith in Him.
Even though we have sinned against God, we are declared not guilty of those sins, because Christ led a righteous life and died an innocent death. "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
But why doesn't God just give big kudos to Jesus and not impute it to us? I can't force Jesus to help me. Instead, he gives those kudos that God gave him to me. He did that not to earn my loyalty or love or devotion, but because he's a really nice guy who loves me unconditionally.
8. Why is the phrase 'freely by his grace' important?
It is important because it shows that we don't buy our justification through our actions. Our salvation is dependent upon the love and grace of God, rather than ourselves. This is more reassuring and comforting than depending even in part on our own righteous deeds: our deeds may sometimes fail, but God never will.
9. Why does God's way of righteousness make it impossible for anyone to boast about himself?
If God's way of righteousness is given freely, then no one can boast and say they deserve it more than another person in the same way that I can't claim I deserve more Christmas presents: they are gifts. Jews and gentiles are justified in the same way apart from the law given to Jews only, so Jews can't boast before gentiles.
Imagine that I told two people named Andy and Jordan that I would buy them ice cream depending on how well they played Monopoly. However, I gave Jordan $6000 and Andy only $500. I stop the game later and buy them both ice cream because they played the game 'well'- they were courteous to one another, they did not cheat, they rolled the dice and moved the game pieces correctly, etc., etc. It would do Jordan no good to claim that he deserved more ice cream for ending up with more money- I wasn't grading on that criteria, anyway.
Maybe that's a bad analogy in some ways, but it gets the point across.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Hump Day
Recently, the Badger Herald e-mailed me (and 30,000 of my closest friends) that the Herald Sex Columnist job was available for next year.
The idea of a Confessional Lutheran Sex Columnist was just inherently funny to me, so I wrote a submission, reproduced with critical feedback below. It managed to be geeky, prudish, slightly passive-aggressive, and clumsily written. Just like the story of my life! (Ba-dum ching!)
This is the response of Alexander Garens, web associate of the Badger Herald, out-going sex columnist, and recent graduate in legal studies, Spanish, and Japanese:
So...embrace your lizard-brain? Anyway, this was a lot of fun, and I encourage everyone to write in with even more advice.
The idea of a Confessional Lutheran Sex Columnist was just inherently funny to me, so I wrote a submission, reproduced with critical feedback below. It managed to be geeky, prudish, slightly passive-aggressive, and clumsily written. Just like the story of my life! (Ba-dum ching!)
Dear Badger Herald,
I was originally going to title this e-mail, "Sex Opening", or "Sex Position", but both of those sounded too taboo. Here is my submission:
I love my ex. We can't ever seem to really break up. The sex is so great! We fight, but then makeup.... I can't seem to leave him. What should I do?
—Distressed and Horny
Dear DAH,
When you think of your ex-boyfriend, what do you think about? Do you think of the stupid things, the mood rings, the bracelets and the beads? Do you think of how he is an emotional freezer, a soulless robotic automaton devoid of genuine human love? Or do you think of the sex?
You are staying together, not because he challenges you, or because you intimately understand each other, or any of those vague, touchy-feely bullshit reasons. You are staying together because the sex is great. And that makes you a lizard-brained sheep. Or a sheep-brained lizard. Your entire relationship with another human being is being sustained by the sex, which is biochemically no different from eating large quantities of chocolate.
Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine that there was an advance in medicine. You could have an electrode implanted in your head connected to a button that would release endorphins in the pleasure centers of your brain. You wouldn't have to work hard to achieve your goals, or find deep satisfaction in the sublime grace of music, or anything mundane like that. Would such an operation be worth it? Would the pleasure you received be real? Would it be good for you?
I would answer that the operation would not be worth it. Love is more than a feeling, and pleasure more than the release of Dopamine. Love should inspire you to help, protect, and be willing to sacrifice yourself for your partner, not just smile dumbly. Unearned pleasure is ultimately unsatisfying; has The Matrix taught us nothing?
In the same way, sex is more than a physical act and brain chemicals. It brings couples together emotionally. It leads to the creation of another human life. It is a way for two people to become one flesh. If you are only on board for the physical pleasure side of things, stop: you're doing it wrong.
Sex is a great and wonderful gift. But its place is within the stabilizing sphere of marriage, where its emotional, spiritual, and biological aspects can best be appreciated.
This is the response of Alexander Garens, web associate of the Badger Herald, out-going sex columnist, and recent graduate in legal studies, Spanish, and Japanese:
I was slightly on board until the "no sex til marriage" mantra. I agree intercourse should generally be accompanied by sincere feelings, but reserved absolutely and exclusively for marriages? Don't be silly. You yourself referenced our lizard-brains-- that's exactly what our sex drive dilutes down to. This person should not stay with their ex when the only connection is the great sex, he/she should go find someone he/she feels passionately for AND can have great, intimate fun with, not wait til there's a wedding band on their finger.
So...embrace your lizard-brain? Anyway, this was a lot of fun, and I encourage everyone to write in with even more advice.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Romans 2
On to Romans 2. Paul's purpose of 'convicting the world' continues from chapter 1.
As I'm reading this epistle, I'm reminded of how applicable it is to present-day spiritual problems. People often make the argument that because they were written 2000 years ago, these letters by Paul do not carry much weight: Paul could not have foreseen the invention of the steam engine, let alone the marvelous advancements made in Philosophy by Arthur Schopenhauer (squeeeee!).
However, there are two critiques made in this part of the letter that resonate very well today. The first is the over-arching theme of condemnation. Speaking through Paul, God reminds us that we are under his righteous judgment. I think a present failing of many people (myself included) is that we do not think of actions as being righteous or unrighteous. They may be wise or foolish. They may harm others or oneself. They may add to the total utility of society. The only time an action is wrong is when it infringes on the rights of another.
A second critique comes as a result of the first: recognizing the sinfulness of the world involves recognizing the sinfulness of oneself. You cannot condemn or judge other people without condemning yourself. Curiously, this passage was quoted to me as evidence in favor of condoning sin. However, I think the problem that Paul is addressing is an inconsistent or hypocritical application of God's Law, rather than just the application itself.
There is a similar account in Matthew 7, in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Again, it is the hypocritical application that is being attacked here.
Why is this relevant? A poll I read showed that a lot of young people felt that the church was hypocritical in its moral teachings, and that this hurt Christian credibility. How can you take Ted Haggard seriously when he engages in homosexual affairs? How can you believe what Jim Bakker says after all of the accounting scandals?
Aside from those two contemporary issues (a hard-hearted society and a hypocritical church), this section goes on to talk about the law written on men's hearts, as well as good works.
How about the law written on men's hearts? Does such a thing exist? Is there such a thing as a conscience? That it exists is a fairly unarguable fact: you know as well as I do that you feel bad when you do something bad. As Abraham Lincoln is quoted to have said, "When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."
How, then, do we account for differences in moralities and consciences between groups throughout history? And isn't it a social construct anyway? If it is so malleable, how can God justly judge us? One answer presented here is that it's not God's fault if men dull their own consciences or those of the people around them. Besides which, God's giving of the Law serves as a perfect, codified version with which we are to check our consciences.
As far as righteous works are concerned, I'll quote Luther in a second, but it dovetails into the next few verses.
This gives me opportunity to talk about another layer in the topic of righteousness and condemnation: inner and outer action. People can see outer actions, be they righteous or wicked, but is impossible for us to see inner actions. People could even be performing an outwardly righteous action (say, giving to the poor) for an inwardly unrighteous reason (say, for the fame and social status). The hypocrisy here is condemning outer actions and not condemning inner ones.
Here's Luther on the subject:
This section also talks about circumcision being "more than merely outward and physical." Circumcision marked the Covenant between God and Abraham. There is therefore a relation with the New Covenant that Jesus gives in the Lord's Supper. These sacraments are not just symbols or outer remembrances or ceremonies. There are important things going on. This is why Paul and many Christians get a little upset with open, anything-goes communion.
God's Righteous Judgment
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
As I'm reading this epistle, I'm reminded of how applicable it is to present-day spiritual problems. People often make the argument that because they were written 2000 years ago, these letters by Paul do not carry much weight: Paul could not have foreseen the invention of the steam engine, let alone the marvelous advancements made in Philosophy by Arthur Schopenhauer (squeeeee!).
However, there are two critiques made in this part of the letter that resonate very well today. The first is the over-arching theme of condemnation. Speaking through Paul, God reminds us that we are under his righteous judgment. I think a present failing of many people (myself included) is that we do not think of actions as being righteous or unrighteous. They may be wise or foolish. They may harm others or oneself. They may add to the total utility of society. The only time an action is wrong is when it infringes on the rights of another.
A second critique comes as a result of the first: recognizing the sinfulness of the world involves recognizing the sinfulness of oneself. You cannot condemn or judge other people without condemning yourself. Curiously, this passage was quoted to me as evidence in favor of condoning sin. However, I think the problem that Paul is addressing is an inconsistent or hypocritical application of God's Law, rather than just the application itself.
There is a similar account in Matthew 7, in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Again, it is the hypocritical application that is being attacked here.
Why is this relevant? A poll I read showed that a lot of young people felt that the church was hypocritical in its moral teachings, and that this hurt Christian credibility. How can you take Ted Haggard seriously when he engages in homosexual affairs? How can you believe what Jim Bakker says after all of the accounting scandals?
Aside from those two contemporary issues (a hard-hearted society and a hypocritical church), this section goes on to talk about the law written on men's hearts, as well as good works.
How about the law written on men's hearts? Does such a thing exist? Is there such a thing as a conscience? That it exists is a fairly unarguable fact: you know as well as I do that you feel bad when you do something bad. As Abraham Lincoln is quoted to have said, "When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."
How, then, do we account for differences in moralities and consciences between groups throughout history? And isn't it a social construct anyway? If it is so malleable, how can God justly judge us? One answer presented here is that it's not God's fault if men dull their own consciences or those of the people around them. Besides which, God's giving of the Law serves as a perfect, codified version with which we are to check our consciences.
As far as righteous works are concerned, I'll quote Luther in a second, but it dovetails into the next few verses.
The Jews and the Law
Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
This gives me opportunity to talk about another layer in the topic of righteousness and condemnation: inner and outer action. People can see outer actions, be they righteous or wicked, but is impossible for us to see inner actions. People could even be performing an outwardly righteous action (say, giving to the poor) for an inwardly unrighteous reason (say, for the fame and social status). The hypocrisy here is condemning outer actions and not condemning inner ones.
Here's Luther on the subject:
You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That's the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God's law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God's law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.
Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, "You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another." It is as if he were saying, "Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another's eye but do not notice the beam in your own."
Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn't last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don't even know what you are teaching. You've never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can't possibly do.
This section also talks about circumcision being "more than merely outward and physical." Circumcision marked the Covenant between God and Abraham. There is therefore a relation with the New Covenant that Jesus gives in the Lord's Supper. These sacraments are not just symbols or outer remembrances or ceremonies. There are important things going on. This is why Paul and many Christians get a little upset with open, anything-goes communion.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)