Sunday, July 31, 2011

Commentary on Scripture: Romans 15

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength, and not just please ourselves.

Romans 15:1 ~~ Those who are strong are to be self-denying out of consideration for the weak.

Romans 15:2-3 ~~ "Each is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification." Paul draws an immediate comparison to Christ: God, being stronger than us, takes our weakness upon Himself and acts for our edification and not solely for His own glory.

Romans 15:4 ~~ "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction that through perseverance and the encouragement of Scriptures we might have hope." Interesting transition from "even Christ did not please Himself" to this thought, on the value of Scripture.

Romans 15:5-6 ~~ "Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement" [that is, the God who gave the Scriptures] "grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." God is Truth, Truth is one, and He intends for us to be of one mind. The unity and catholicity of the Church is absolutely essential.

Romans 15:7 ~~ "Therefore accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God." See also the section of the Lord's Prayer: "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Romans 15:8-9 ~~ "Christ has become a servant to the circumcision" (that is, the Jews) "on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and [a servant] for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy." Here's another element in the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles: God is faithful to the Jews for the sake of His truth, and to the Gentiles for the sake of His mercy.

Romans 15:9-12 ~~ Paul presents four passages on God's desire and outreach to the Gentiles, from Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalms 18:49 and 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10.

Romans 15:13 ~~ Paul launches a brief impromptu blessing as the epistle winds down. Lots of good and meaningful words here. I'm rather struck by the multiple endings that Romans contains: see also 15:33, 16:20, 16:24, and 16:27.

Romans 15:14 ~~ Paul speaks of three traits he saw in the Roman Church: that they were full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and (thus?) able to admonish one another. I think this is a particularly interesting formulation: in order to admonish (to correct and to teach), we must be filled with both a profound desire for the good and a profound wisdom, or understanding of the good.

Romans 15:15-16 ~~ Paul speaks of "the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." This strikes me as a pretty direct statement treating the ordination of priests as a legitimate sacrament (sacrament being a vessel of special grace from God).

Romans 15:17-19 ~~ Paul has reason to boast: what God had accomplished through Him among the Gentiles, and the obedience he inspired among them by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit.

Romans 15:20-21 ~~ Paul intended to preach specifically where the name and gospel of Christ had not yet been heard.

Romans 15:22-25 ~~ Other obligations intervened, but Paul had long intended to take a trip to Spain and had hoped to stay in Rome during the trip.

Romans 15:25-28 ~~ Paul was sent to Jerusalem with an offering from Macedonia and Achaia. The Gentiles were indebted to the Jews to minister to them in materials things as they shared in spiritual things.

Romans 15:30-32 ~~ Paul asks the Romans to strive with him in prayer for (1) his rescue from "the disobedient," which we presume to be the unsaved Jews, and (2) his acceptance among the saints in the church at Jerusalem.

Romans 15:33 ~~ Paul offers an impromptu blessing to end the letter... again. He promptly continues with the personal greetings to actually conclude the letter.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Commentary on Scripture: Romans 14

Now, accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

Romans 14:1 ~~ This is a fantastic summary both of the chapter and of the principle "in non-essentials, liberty."

Romans 14:2 ~~ "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." We might reference Acts 10:15, in which Peter receives a vision confirming the cleanliness of foods previously considered unclean. In this case, "weakness" refers to doctrinal confusion and a lack of understanding, specifically regarding the doctrine of freedom (cf. Romans 6, Galatians 5).

Romans 14:3 ~~ "The one who eats" (that is, the one with knowledge and with liberty) "is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat"(without knowledge but with a clear conscience) "is not to judge the one who eats." The danger for those who act with liberty is that they might look upon others as more legalistic and therefore less grace-filled than they are; the danger for those who act with conscience is that they might look upon the practices of others as almost pagan and therefore less Christian than they are. The one feels contempt, the other judgment, yet "God has accepted" them both.

Romans 14:4 ~~ "Who are you to judge the servants of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand." We are judged and accepted by God. If we judge others, we make ourselves out to be Lords over one another, and arrogate the dignity of His judgment seat.

Roman 14:5 ~~ "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." Paul certainly has an opinion on many of these subjects, but he is pressing the more important point: when it's not essential, do not judge or view others with contempt. Also note "each person must be fully convinced" -- intention plays a critical role in moral responsibility.

Romans 14:6-8 ~~ In life and death, so long as we remain in God, we belong to God and are saved by Him.

Romans 14:7-9 ~~ We live or die in Christ. Christ lived and died for precisely this reason, that He might be the Lord of the living and the dead (cf. 6:3-11).

Romans 14:10-12 ~~ Why judge or regard with contempt? (Cf. verse 3, above). Each is judged before God (cf. 2:14-16).

Romans 14:13 ~~ "Therefore, let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or stumbling block in a brother's way!" Fantastic verse.

Romans 14:14 ~~ "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (that is, no thing is intrinsically evil -- the physical world is intrinsically good); "but to him who thinks anything is unclean, to him it is unclean." Uncleanliness is defined as something that it would be sinful or defiling to partake in. By the conviction that a thing would be sinful to do, the act of doing it would be a deliberation rebellion against one's own conscience and therefore against God. It is in our convictions and our intentions that cleanliness or uncleanliness is found.

Romans 14:15 ~~ "For if by food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love." Do not act on your own Christian liberty is that would hurt or hamper others, for love trumps liberty.

Romans 14:16 ~~ It's ironic that this verse begins "therefore," even though it seems to qualify or mitigate the impact of previous verses. "Therefore, do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil." This is a big deal for Paul. God made the world and called it good, and to speak of this good Creation as though it were something evil is akin to blasphemy.

Romans 14:16-17 ~~ If others are convinced that partaking of certain foods is wrong, then we should not partake of those foods. But, in the same instant and with the same breath, we ought to defend our liberty to partake and, more importantly, defend the goodness of the food itself. We should not act in a way that hurts others, but it is necessary to defend (with our words) what we cannot enjoy (with our deeds). Above all, act in love, in a knowing and cognizant love so the kingdom of God might enjoy peace.

Romans 14:18 ~~ "For he who in this way [honoring each other with Christian liberty] serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men."

Romans 14:20 ~~ Here is the corollary to Romans 14:14. "Nothing is unclean in itself" (v. 14), "all things indeed are clean" (v. 20), "but to him who thinks anything is unclean, to him it is unclean" (v. 14) and also "they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense" (v. 20). We must be pure not only before our own conscience, but in light of the consciences and judgments of others. No pressure.

Romans 14:22-23 ~~ Here is an effective summary statement. "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." If we eat without faith, or doubt in our Christian liberty, we are condemned. But that does not deny the fact of our Christian liberty: we are slaves to sin no longer, but free to partake of God's goodness.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Commentary on Scripture: Romans 13

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.

Romans 13:1-6 ~~ Now this is a problematic section. Just as submission to each other is treated as a necessity of our faith and mutual love in Ephesians 5:21-31, so these verses treat our subjection to the government as mandatory. However, this apparently unequivocal command is couched in language that gives some leeway for later philosophers and statesmen. Yet it remains incredibly problematic, even given my own political predilections.

Romans 13:1 ~~ Two points. First, note that the exhortation is "to be in subjection" to the governing authorities. This will be expanded in v. 7, but I think it's important to point out that this "subjection" is distinct from total and unwavering obedience. Second, note that the initial exhortation is grounded in the next part of the verse: "for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God" (KJV). The rulers and authorities are defined explicitly in the context of God's justice.

Romans 13:2 ~~ "Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God...." Here again, rulers stand as the agents of God's own authority.

Romans 13:3-4 ~~ "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good." Here again, rulers appear almost in persona Dei, just as priests speak in persona Christi. The governing authorities exist as "a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." But there is the crux of the matter: how should we respond when rulers fail to act in light of Christ? What is they fail to uphold justice? What if they defy it, and become "a cause of fear for good behavior"?

Romans 13:5-6 ~~ "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake." The wrath refers the judgment we would incur by defying God's chosen agents of justice; the conscience refers to the duty and love we bear to God, and therefore the fidelity we owe to His ministers. Indeed it is for conscience' sake that we pay taxes: it is the duty we owe them, to support their labors.

Romans 13:7 ~~ "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." As I pointed out above, it should be noted that obedience is conspicuously absent from this list. "Subjection" in Romans 13:1 is distinct from "submission" in Ephesians 5. At the same time, I have to point out what an excellent general exhortation this verse is. "Render to all what is due them." It's also an effective transition into the next series of exhortations.

Romans 13:8-9 ~~ "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves the other fulfills the law." Good verse, with very interesting phrasing. After "render to all what is due them," Paul seems to encourage his fellow Christians to owe little that must be rendered. Indeed, since the only exception is "to love one another" and love is by nature a grace, Paul seems to be encouraging Christians to owe nothing to one another, that nothing must be rendered as a duty.

Romans 13:10 ~~ "Love works no evil to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law." I honestly don't know what to make of this verse. The previous verses serve as antecedents to the same conclusion, but this verse seems to be framed as a syllogism on its own. Technically, this verse is an enthymeme, with an omitted major premise: "if X works no evil to a neighbor, X is the fulfillment of the law." That's what disconcerts me: I don't know where Paul derived this major premise, and I'm not sure how well it fits with the rest of his (or my own) theology.

Romans 13:11-13 ~~ In addition to God's wrath and our own conscience, eschatology is the third reason for acting rightly: for we know that our salvation approaches daily.

Romans 13:14 ~~ "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ," and make no provision for sin. That sounds easy, right?

Romans 13 is one of a few extended passages in the New Testament that speaks of the relationship between the Church and the state or "governing authorities" (1 Peter 2:13-14 is another). It is problematic for the same reason it is so easily set aside: Paul treats authority almost as a Platonic Form, a perfect and uncorrupted manifestation of the divine Ideal of justice. I imagine we are all cynical enough to laugh at this image, and wonder where Paul got the idea that such untainted perfection was ever the case. But I hope we are historically minded enough to not laugh too long, and I suspect we won't if we remember that Paul was born and raised a Jew. He was a low-class citizen in a lower-class region, and the Romans were not terribly fond of the early Christians. Paul was beaten many times, imprisoned many times, yet he still manages to speak of the authorities as though they acted for the cause of justice. What do we do with that information, I wonder? How do we cope with the knowledge that Paul spoke (and indeed, spoke infallibly, for this is Scripture) in exhorting his fellow Christians to be in subjection to the governing authorities, even though those very authorities were persecuting the people of God?

Monday, July 11, 2011

Job as Myth

In a recent Facebook conversation on how to read the Bible, I argued that Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the literary genre of any given text. These genres span everything from the highly historical records (such as genealogies) that recur throughout the Old Testament, to the highly symbolic "apocalypse" genre that characterizes the book of Revelation.

As part of this argument, I noted that "the book of Job is an extended parable, wrestling with the problem of evil and offering possible resolutions." I asserted that it should be considered mythic in the literary sense, and that its nature was essentially fictional.  I was asked about this assertion, and here was my explanation and defense.

First, the setting is introduced in a cursory (nearly non-existent) manner. All we know of Job is that he was "of the land of Uz" and "one of the richest men in the east." This strikes me as fairly typical of Ancient Near Eastern story-telling technique, in which a place name would be cited to give the myth a faux-realistic edge. "One Thousand and One Nights" (the famous tales of Scheherazade) offers many instances of this technique in action. The dearth of detail in grounding the narrative in a concrete setting can be contrasted with the contextual riches of more historical works like 1 Samuel, which introduces nearly every character with geographic, cultural, and even genealogical information.

Second, the plot is pretty evidently mythic in nature. The prologue sets up Job as a good man blessed with all manner of riches and untroubled by fickle Fortune. The cut-scene to a heavenly courtroom, and the dialogue between Satan and God, introduces a tension or conflict that does not arise organically from the prologue. We get the impression of a deus ex machina, a plot contrivance to interrupt Job's happy life and set up the remainder of the book.

Third, the intent of the book is not history, but theodicy. This is reflected in the style. The vast majority of the book is a theological discussion, punctuated by events that are described solely in order to introduce the next cycle of monologues. Indeed, the narrative pretty consistently violates the dictum "show, don't tell." In sharp contrast with the historical books, the book of Job is primarily invested in neither the events nor the characters, but rather the ideas under discussion.

Fifth, even the characters sound like archetypes. Job's three friends are not introduced as historical figures, nor even given the dignity of being literary characters with some degree of personality. They appear in isolation, only identified by a name (
Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) and a place (respectively, Teman, Shuah, and Naamah). They are not characters so much as plot devices: each 'individual' advances a particular understanding of theodicy, a particular argument for the goodness of God in the face of an evil world. Only Job, being the main character, is given any depth of characterization or any human pathos. The only other character with some semblance of personality would be Elihu the Buzite. Elihu, a young man who appears near the end of the book, serves in a sort of semi-prophetic capacity, resolving the earlier dispute to the best of human wisdom, and prefacing the appearance of God Himself coming in a cloud.

Sixth and finally, the literary style and structure of Job speaks to it being a creative piece, not a work of historiography. It begins and ends with a prose prologue and epilogue, while the main text is in the form of a didactic poem. Thus I conclude it is wisdom literature, not history.

There are no doubt more arguments to be raised, and (no doubt) many possible counterarguments I'm not considering. Do you have any thoughts or responses?

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Commentary on Scripture: Romans 12:9-21

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.

Romas 12:9-21 ~~ The verses that follow and conclude Romans 12 are a series of largely miscellaneous exhortations by Paul to the congregation at Rome regarding Christian behavior and belief.

Romans 12:9a ~~ "Let love be without hypocrisy." We are called to live with a spirit of Christian charity (caritas, the highest form of love) that is genuine and without deceit. Hypocrisy in its original Greek sense referred to play-acting, specifically the masks or personas worn by actors on stage.

Romans 12:9b ~~ "Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good." This is a largely unextraordinary verse, except for the realization that it is prescribing specific emotional reactions to moral questions. We sometimes find it easy to distinguish between "the true," "the good," and "the beautiful." This ought not be. Paul exhorts us to abhor evil, and cling (a word connoting unyielding fidelity, perhaps even a sort of desperation) to the good. In other words, he exhorts us to make a habit of responding to questions of good and evil with the same kind of aesthetic judgment that we normally associate with beauty: that is, pleasure or disgust.

Romans 12:10 ~~ "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor." This exhortation reminds me of nothing quite so much as the passage beginning with Ephesians 5:21 -- "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." The rest of that passage is concerned with the implications of that general (catholic in the sense of universal) command: how we truly are to rank ourselves beneath others, and become eager and diligent servants working for each others' good.

Romans 12:11-13 ~~ In the next three verses, Paul's grammar switches from imperative (giving direct commands in the previous verses) to a participle (denoting an ongoing present action). I honestly couldn't say why there's a change, though (unless it is merely the caprice of the translators) I'm sure there's some meaning to it.

Romans 12:11 ~~ "Not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord." Having established the conduct (to serve one another) as an expression of Christ's command (to love one another; love your neighbor as yourself), Paul moves on to speak of the Great Commandment: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind" (Luke 10:27). In this case, there's particular emphasis on being a servant of God, with all the attendant virtues of diligence and fervor in that service.

Romans 12:12-13 ~~ "Rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality." There's an interesting dichotomy in these two verses that is also present in the chapter as a whole. Paul begins with internals -- directing how one ought to respond to times of hope or tribulation -- but moves on to externals -- how one ought to express Christian charity to fellow believers or to strangers.

Romans 12:14-21 ~~ "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." Paul resumes writing in the imperative tense, and the rest of the letter emphasizes conduct-oriented externals (with the possible exception of verse 16).

Romans 12:15 ~~ "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." We are directed to empathize totally with others, to identify ourselves so entirely in others that we can become their brother or sister regardless of the moods of the moment.

Romans 12:16 ~~ "Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation." Considering the first and last parts are concerned with the conduct of one's mind, the middle part of this verse seems distinctly out of place. Why is "associate with the lowly" sandwiched between intellectually oriented exhortations? The answer may be found in the alternate text, found in some manuscripts: "Do not be haughty in mind, but accommodate yourself to lowly things." This strikes me as a truer and much more intriguing statement, especially as it sheds light on the next part of the verse: "Do not be wise in your own estimation." We are to consider the "lowly things" (does Paul mean material things, or menial things, or perhaps even things we might consider boring?) in part as an antidote to our own haughtiness of mind and our tendency for self-satisfied reflection.

Romans 12:17 ~~ "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Take thought for what is right in the sight of men." What a phenomenal verse. Our emotional reactions to evil are to abhor it (v. 9), but we are not to allow that emotion to direct our behavior in response. We are to "take thought for what is right," and conduct ourselves in accordance with that reasoned moral path. Also, note that we look for "what is right in the sight of men": the moral standards of other humans is to be our guide, though we are probably to rely more on collective conscience than on culture.

Romans 12:18 ~~ "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." Another great verse. It doesn't set unrealistic expectations, in the sense of demanding peace with all men regardless of what "all men" may have to say in response. But the exhortation is to do your darnedest to ensure that peace. We are expected to contribute to moral outcomes and judged by those outcomes, but that judgment is solely to the degree that we were responsible for them.

Romans 12:19 ~~ "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God." Interesting addition of "beloved" in the middle of that statement. It almost comes across in a patronizing or condescending way, as though this were a regular reminder by an apostolic parent to the wayward child-church. Check out the next verse, though, which quotes Proverbs 25:21-22.

Romans 12:20 ~~ "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." (Proverbs 25:22 concludes, "and the Lord will reward you"). I'm pretty sure this verse should disturb us in a number of ways. The editorial notes in my study Bible takes a more charitable approach: "doing good to one's enemies... may bring about his [sic] repentance." But the actual text of the verse operates in a rather less charitable vein. For one, it points to the simple truth that revenge (paying back evil for evil) is not nearly as satisfying on an emotional level as the moral one-upsmanship of repaying evil with good. To know in your heart "in this moment I am a better and bigger man than he" is almost infinitely more satisfying than a thrill of instant gratification that is tainted by a loss of your moral self-respect. Moreover, the verse indicates that a charitable response is in itself a judgment against the evildoer: for if judgment is in accordance with the good done unto us, then we are in reality heaping "burning coals on his head." The very charity of our response, if it doesn't inspire repentance, serves as a divine receipt that our enemy is truly and royally screwed. Lastly, the very verse that Paul quotes from Proverbs indicates that a moral response will not only guarantee our ultimate triumph over our enemies, but will also be a cause for our reward. Our ability to overcome our grievances -- to forgive and serve those who hate and hurt us -- will be a source of our eternal reward.

Romans 12:21 ~~ "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." This is a delightful verse, readily accessible for devout kids to memorize at AWANA camps. Speaking for myself, whenever I see this verse I think of the Newsboys song "Elle G" -- a haunting dirge ("elegy") about a girl who commits suicide in despair for her inability to overcome evil with good. Returning to the verse, however I wonder if there might not be a more direct meaning than we suspect. In light of the previous verse exhorting us to "heap burning coals on his head," the statement "overcome evil with good" starts to seem rather disconcertingly literal.

Take a deep breath. After the last three verses in Romans 12, that's a distinct necessity. In light of our moral intuitions, I think it's only natural (and certainly forgivable) that we find those last few verses either dismaying or outright disturbing. There is a grotesque directness to the appeal, as though the promise of judgment or wrath were a sort of heavenly bribe. God seems to be bribing us to act morally: He flavors the exhortation "never pay back evil for evil" (v. 17) with the promise that "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay" (v. 19). He diverts the flow of our wrath, keeping us from wreaking our own revenge by guaranteeing His own. But God is an unscrupulous fellow, and a master chessman. He doesn't shy away from using any and all means of persuasion to bring us around and into His Presence. This is evident in Isaiah, where the Lord says: "Come now, and let us reason together.... If you consent and obey, you will eat the best of the land but if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword. Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken" (Isaiah 1:18-20). Can we fathom the Divine Humility that would accept us on such terms, that would permit us to enter His Kingdom even if we are solely motivated by self-preservation. We are such base creatures that in many cases we can only be enticed into eternal paradise with such offers, offers to keep our lives in order and our pride intact.
Blessed is the Name of the Lord.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Quantitative Quiddity

In my first post on this theme, I spoke of simple dualism as the dominant moral metaphor of modern times. In my second post, I suggested a metaphor taken from Lewis of "bent"-ness. In my latest post writing Of Morals and Metaphors, I advanced a third metaphor, retaining the same associations with "distortion" but relying on wormhole imagery taken from modern physics and science-fiction.

These are obviously not the only moral metaphors on which we rely. One common image association is to social status: as C.S. Lewis noted in Studies in Words, this is how "nobility" came to mean good and "villainy" became bad. To take another example, we inherit from Latin an image association between evil and the left hand (sinister).

More pointedly, our language also preserves such phrases as "stout-hearted," which analogize between goodness and body mass. The word "great" carries a similar history: before it became a synonym for 'cool' and 'groovy,' it meant 'big,' 'thick,' and 'massive.'

It is lucky I don't put stock in my own originality, or I should be very disappointed. This is precisely the metaphor I propose. To be good is to be substantial or solid. To be bad is to be translucent or ephemeral. Evil is as an abscess in the skin; immorality, a hollow in the heart.

It was this image I first encountered in C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, towards the end of a chapter on moral education.
We were told it all long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element.' The head rules the belly through the chest--the seat, as Alanus tells of us Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment--these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and viseral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal. The operation of The Green Book and its kind [of moral education] is to produce what may be called Men without Chests [emphasis added].

Good God! I love that quote, especially the line "Men without Chests." If I lived in an earlier age, I'd probably wax rhapsodic of felicitous expression and many-splendored meanings. As it stands, I got nothing save perhaps an appreciative mumble.

In The Great Divorce, Lewis presents a whole slew of similar metaphors. As the bus ascends from hell to heaven, it rises from a deep valley over the edge of a cliff, until finally resting on a grassy meadow. We are later informed that the bus was "moving" only in terms of size: hell might fit into the merest grain of sand in the heavenly beaches. Likewise, as the 'tourists' exit the bus to walk over the plain, they soon learn that the world is more real than themselves. They are like wan apparitions, ghosts haunting a landscape, unable to bend nature to their will or even walk on blades of grass without searing pain. Heaven is simply more real -- more substantial -- than hell.

I've begun to utilize a rather idiosyncratic term for this sort of metaphoric imagery. I call it quantitative quiddity. Let's parse!

"Quantitative" should be obvious: it means something measurable, whether by volume or weight or dimension. "Quiddity" is far more peculiar. It's actually a term from medieval scholastic philosophy, derived from the Latin word quid (meaning "what"). Quiddity means, literally, the "what-ness" of a thing, the essence or substance of it. The medieval School-men contrasted it with haeccity, the "this-ness" of a thing, that which makes it unique or individual.

'Quantitative quiddity' is a deliberately oxymoronic phrase. An essence is non-physical and therefore, by definition, immeasurable. But, relying on this association of morality to mass, we might perceive goodness as a sort of solid substance that can be 'measured' by moral intuition and judgment.

I didn't realize it at first, but over time this imagery has become second nature for me. I first noticed it after my then-girlfriend pointed out how often I used the word "solid" as a term of approval or praise. I started using it in the ordinary sense of reliable or dependable, but over time it took a much deeper meaning. Solid meant substantial, and substantially human.

This raises a possible objection: namely, the danger in how this imagery might move us to treat immoral individuals. The temptation under this framework would be to treat evildoers in a condescending manner, as though they were less than human. At the same time, similar dangers surround every moral metaphor: dualism might lead to antagonistic behavior, treating evildoers as enemies, while the "bent" imagery might lead to patronizing behavior, treating them as though they were lumps of inert matter, as machines broken and in need of fixing.

To be sure, this idea has shaped and affected my moral judgments and intuitions. To be immoral is to lack the 'stuff' or substance of our common humanity. Therefore, when I look upon human evil, or even apathy to evil, I see something less than fully human. My instinctual or emotional response is a sort of pity, mixed with contempt. But this response is first and foremost directed towards the act, not the person.

We have all heard the maxim (coined by Augustine, loosely paraphrased by Gandhi) to "love the sinner but hate the sin." By distinguishing so sharply between what is the "true" person (the good) and what is not, I find it is quite possibly to live out that dictum.

Sins in the soul are like pockmarks on a face: we notice them, but it's good manners not to stare or point. There may be holes and tiny gaps where your humanity should be, but so long as they're not too egregious we'll treat you no differently. Indeed I understand this was once a sign of good breeding, or even true nobility of the soul. Like the dear old Don (Quixote), we treat the lowly-born Aldonza as though she were a princess Dulcinea. We cast others in the best light, and implicitly look for the best behavior even where we would expect the basest.

Indeed, this moral metaphor should not point us to contempt so much as profound hope. Contra the Calvinists, man is not totally depraved. Moral conduct is always within our grasp. Goodness is not foreign to us, but is the fulfillment and perfection of our nature.

There really is no convenient point at which to draw this note to a close: there are so many implications of this moral metaphor, the extent of which I'm only now beginning to grasp. But I think one final reflection might satisfy the desire for resolution.

From this metaphor, we see that moral conduct is intrinsically ennobling. Our good deeds create habits, patterns of moral behavior that fill in the gaps in our own humanity. The phrase "fake it until you make it" contains surprising insight. We don't have to be good in order to behave well; we become good by behaving like it. This lifts a tremendous burden from our shoulders.

Perfect holiness, heroic virtue, and salvation itself -- these are the outcomes of a well-lived life, not the prerequisites for it.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

What Is, Is Good

In my last two posts writing Of Morals and Metaphors, I dealt with the two common metaphors we use for morality: a straight line dividing good from evil, and and evil as a bent or corrupted image of the good.

My issue with the second metaphor boils down to Christian theology, specifically the problem of evil. In my experience, most Christians (with the exception of hard-boiled five-point Calvinists) tend to address this issue by citing free will. They are within their rights to do so, but this leaves a deeper question unanswered. By the doctrine of omnipresence, God is both Creator and Sustainer of all reality. How could God sustain evil within His very Presence, His very Self?

St. Augustine converted to Christianity after a brief fling with Manichaeism in his youth. He wrestled with this issue during his conversion, and provided what is (in my opinion) the definitive answer to the paradox: quite simply, evil doesn't exist. God doesn't sustain evil within His Presence because there is no "it" for God to sustain.

Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is purely the negation of the good. The previous metaphors, treating evil as the equal or even the refracted image of the good, fail for precisely this reason. Evil is no equal opposite, nor some kind of "bent" existence. Only the good exists in reality; the evil lies solely in the bend.

What is, is good.

How to envision morality on this basis? We can take a variety of approaches. If we want to keep the same vocabulary from before-- the vocabulary of distortion and "bent-ness," we can always plagiarize from Einstein.

The classic Newtonian model of physics treated gravity as something comparable to magnetism, with physical objects impelled towards one another, drawn by some attraction between them. It was action at a distance, without an explained mechanism but with the brute regularity of a natural law.

Einstein took this model, threw it in a blender, and made a cocktail he liked to call "general relativity." He bestowed to the scientific community an entirely new model of physics, one of 'gravity wells' comparable to whirlpools. Einstein introduced to modern cosmology this concept of 'space-time' that defines the physical universe. Physical objects -- anything with mass -- warp and distort the "fabric" of space-time, like bowling balls in a blanket (or so the metaphor goes). We perceive that distortion as gravity. The larger the mass, the greater the distortion. Too large a mass, and the fabric might even rip. This is the science, in very simplified form, behind black holes and so-called "wormholes."

All that was fairly technical, but I hope you caught the metaphor. Mass distorts and even tears the fabric of space-time. Might we say, just as evil distorts and even negates the reality of goodness?

What is good, is present. What is evil, is like a vacuum. Evil is the wormhole of science-fiction, the ocean vortex in Moby Dick, or that sinkhole in Guatemala.

Yeah, this sinkhole. See also: Hell, service entrance to.

To be continued.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Commentary on Scripture: Romans 12:1-8

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

Romans 12:1 ~~Romans 12 is rapidly becoming one of my favorite chapters in the Bible, and this verse illustrates why. Look at how much content is condensed into this verse! Paul's readers are urged to worship in light of the mercies of God, referenced in Romans 11. Their "spiritual service of worship" consists of presenting their bodies to the Lord, implying that ours is a corporeal (or Incarnate) faith and our worship ought to involve all of us. More than that, we are called to present our bodies as living and holy sacrifices acceptable to God, which pretty directly points us to the fact that our bodies can be pleasing to God, contra the gnostic or Manichean heresies. That's not even to mention the other point, which is that the goal of worship is to make an offering "acceptable to God." This is not a legal or juridical notion of imputed righteousness, in which God constructs a legal fiction for our salvation, but a true or ontological status-change of infused righteousness, in which we become members of the Body of Christ. And that's just one verse!

Romans 12:2 ~~ "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed...." Thus far 12:2 is a perfectly standard Pauline remark against the world as a source of sin, and the necessity of a counter-cultural faith. But he doesn't end there. "...transformed by the renewing of your mind...." What, wait? We assume we are transformed by grace through faith, but it seems that the mechanism of that transformation (the efficient, not the final, cause) is by the effects of those on our minds (presumably including our reason and our will). But the sentence doesn't end there. " that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." By renewing our minds, both rationally and morally, we become so virtuous that we are able to prove (perhaps in the archaic sense of 'test the soundness of,' or the modern sense of a logical demonstration) what the goodness of God consists of. By our holiness, we point others to the holiness of God. We become epistemic shortcuts to others who are seeking to know God's will.

Romans 12:3 ~~ "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you...." Paul is both able and authorized to speak, according to the apostolic and pastoral grace given to him. By this authority he exhorts humility, especially in our self-evaluation. "Think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." The latter part of the sentence is interesting in its own right: faith is a gift of God, and that it may be allotted to individuals in different amounts. But look to the former part of the sentence: because God has allotted faith to each (and presumably, because we do not know what or how much we have received), we are to cultivate our intellects so as to have sound judgment. This sounds like an exhortation for the four cardinal virtues (justice, temperance, courage, and prudence), that we may be able to overcome (by those virtues) any apparent deficiency in the three spiritual virtues (faith, hope, and love) with which we may wrestle.

Romans 12:4-5 ~~ This is one of the more famous analogies in Scripture: "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one Body in Christ, and individually members one of another."

Romans 12:6-8 ~~ Because our individual gifts differ amongst ourselves, in proportion to the grace given, we are to exercise them in this light: each gift utilized in proportion to the relevant grace. Paul then lists a number of individual gifts and graces. Many of these seem somewhat redundant: "service, in his service; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation." But others are more apparently disconnected and therefore more noteworthy: "prophecy according to the proportion of his faith... he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness."

As I said above, Romans 12 is quickly becoming one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. It's remarkable to me how much content there is, even in the first half (first third, even) of the chapter. I'll finish the rest of the chapter in next week's installment: Romans 12:9-21.

Friday, July 1, 2011

What Do I Ask?

As the year began I discovered, much to my own surprise, that even though I was Protestant a full half of my theology was wholly and unreservedly Catholic.

This led me to investigate Catholicism in much greater depth, and within a few months each of my objections had fallen away.

By the middle of Lent I realized I was becoming Catholic, and had spoken to the priest, parochial vicar, and head catechist about joining the Church.

After the Easter Vigil, I began participating in the Inquiry meetings, in preparation for joining the RCIA program: that is, the "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults."

I will officially enter RCIA on July 10th during the "Rite of Welcome" conducted at my parish's morning Mass.

As part of the Rite of Welcome, I will be asked two questions by the presiding priest or deacon. These questions are:
1) "What do you ask of God's Church?" and
2) "How can this faith community help you?"

How shall I answer? I ask for your advice and feedback, my friends and fellow Christians.

The second question strikes me as more personal, speaking to myself as an individual and my parish as a community. But even this I hardly know how to answer. I have some idea of my own needs, but how can I ask to receive unless I know what others can willingly give? I should be ashamed to request a mite only to be receive it from the hands of the widow. What can I ask for?

With regards to the first, I find there is a more pressing question: what should I ask of God's Church?

For I believe that the Church is the one holy and spotless Bride of Christ, mystically united in the Body of Christ, and bearing apostolic witness to the Life of Christ, the words and deeds of God. Next to that, I got nothing.

I would hardly present St. Peter with a list of demands as I passed through the Pearly Gates. It would hardly do to enter into the visible Church with a similar gesture. What can I request, knowing I receive all things (even my life) through the very grace of God?