Scranton vs. Anaheim

Contrary to popular opinion, the release of Paris Hilton (which Fox News dubbed "The Liberation of Paris" for yuks) is not the most pressing cultural topic of the day, nor is the homicide-suicide of wrestling superstar Chris Benoit worth studying. There are some recent developments in Hollywood that require our attention.

Recently I discovered that John Krasinski is interested in playing Fletch in the upcoming movie, Fletch Won. Barring Chevy Chase's return, I'd say that's a good call. If you've been living under a rock, Krasinski plays Jim Halpert on the NBC sitcom The Office. I couldn't imagine anyone better myself.

So today I made my way over to the IMDb entry for Fletch Won and what do I find except some actor rumored to portray Fletch whose name isn't Jim Halpert.

Except this isn't just any would-be actor. It's Joshua Jackson.

Maybe you know him as Charlie Conway. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

I thought that Halpert would get in with no competition. I thought wrong. Jim and Charlie, while they play completely different games, will be tough competitors. Jim may be able to pull pranks on Dwight and undermine Dunder-Mifflin's administrative ethos, but is that going to get him past Charlie's ability to work with Coach Bombay and his teammates? Can Jim's blank stare pierce Charlie's belief in the mantra, "Ducks fly together"?

In short, will Charlie's triple dekes get him past Jim's vaunted comedic ability? Or will Halpert rewrite history-as-we-know-it and block Charlie's climactic penalty success?

The Office vs. The Mighty Ducks. Three seasons, three movies. An epic actor versus another epic actor. Count on Cerberus to continue the coverage.

"NPR, meet Toby Keith; Toby Keith, NPR."

Yesterday I heard a rather amusing piece of broadcasting. NPR's show Fresh Air contained a review of Toby Keith's new album. I suppose the people at NPR were trying to prove that they are accepting of all kinds of music and ideas, but the result was rather comical. As a frequent NPR listener who disagrees with its prevailing political philosophy and as a southerner who doesn't listen to country music, I feel ideally positioned to observe this collision of two worlds with which I am familiar but of which I am not really a part. If you are in a similar position, you might also find it entertaining.

Understanding the New Perspective on Paul: Questions, Answers and Stories

The chief difference between the "new perspective" on Paul (NPP) and the more traditional Reformed and Lutheran views is a difference of stories. I am no scholar, but I suspect that much of the conflict between the conservative and revisionist sides of the debate (if I may use those labels) results from trying to integrate differing storylines into the wrong stories.

One of longest-running Western storylines is the narrative of personal morality: how do we achieve moral perfection? If we cannot do this, what is our status before whatever god there might be? This question was far more than theoretical; many of the greatest writers on the subject, from Augustine to Luther, wrote from consciences struggling with knowledge of their own imperfection.

One of the greatest answers to this question in Western thought was the answer of the Protestant Reformation. How do I achieve the sort of personal righteousness required to be accepted before God? In short, said the Reformers, you don't and Christ does. "Our righteousness and wisdom are in vain," says Martin Luther. (Commentary on Romans, p. 28). The Reformation sought to abandon the project of building up oneself before God, accepting the alien righteousness of Christ, for "there neither is nor ever was any mere natural man absolutely righteous in himself: that is to say, void of all unrighteousness, of all sin." (Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, p. 2)

The Reformers did not, however, give up the existing storyline of acceptance before God; instead they redefined its answer. What we need is not personal righteousness, but rather "a righteousness which does not originate on earth, but comes down from heaven." (Luther, Romans, p. 29) The personal morality required for acceptance before God was given up for an extrapersonal morality, but the key element in the story -- the need for righteousness in order to be accepted by God -- was accepted, even built up. The Reformation thereby affirmed the existing narrative of man's relationship to God, though they radically redrew the answers to its central questions.

Herein, I suggest, lies the chief factor in the confusion and controversy surrounding the "new perspective" on Paul. The question asked and answered by Lutheran and Reformed thought is, as we have seen, How do we achieve personal righteousness in order to be accepted by God? Their answer is, of course, the righteousness of Christ alone, through faith alone, etc. The answer that Lutheran and Reformed thinkers find in the NPP is something along the lines of, the entirety of a life lived, including faith, works, and the rest of it.

But here is the confusion: the NPP is not asking and answering the same question as the Protestant Reformation. Lutheran and Reformed thinkers generally perceive correctly the answer given by the NPP, but assume that the answer goes with their own question. But instead of telling a story of sinful humans trying to be righteous before God, proponents of the NPP find in Paul a story of sinful humans chosen by God to be His chief agents in restoring His creation. The chief question to be asked, then, is not about achieving righteousness before God, but about how we can tell which people have been chosen as these agents. The (somewhat oversimplified) answer is faith and works.

This answer, if paired with the Reformers' question, does lead us down the path to Rome at best, and to Pelagianism at worst. It would be far more productive, not only from an exegetical standpoint, but also from an ecumenical view, if discussion could proceed on the level of storyline and questions. Only in this context can the answers of the Reformation and of recent scholarship be helpfully compared and discussed.

Democracy, If We Like the People Who Are Elected

I have been writing a lot about politics lately, but I do intend to address other topics, just not right now. My apparent obsession is probably the result of my recent obsession with public radio. Thanks to the internet, I can listen to a continuous mix of NPR, PRI, APM, and the BBC. New Hampshire Public Radio is one of my favorite feeds. The recent events in Gaza and the resulting political shakeup have gotten a lot of coverage.

In case you are unfamiliar with these events, I will attempt to provide a brief summary based on various Wikipedia articles: The Palestinian National Authority governs two area, Gaza and the West Bank, which are separated by Israel. The two largest political organizations in the Palestinian National Authority are Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is the more secular, moderate organization; Hamas is Islamist and radical. Both have armed branches; Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and the EU. President of the PNA, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), is a member of Fatah. In the last elections, in January 2006, Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council with the highest percentage of the popular vote (44.45%). In response, Israel and the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN) instituted economic sanctions against the PNA, including Israel withholding tax revenue. During 12-14 June 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza. In response, President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government. The United States and Israel have shown support for Abbas and have resumed aid to the PNA.

Days later, on 19 June, Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert met with President Bush. Their joint press event focused on the situation in Palestine. Bush made several comments concerning democracy. This is part of one of his responses:

It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy, or a potential Palestinian democracy. And what that should say clearly to people all around the world is that we are involved with an ideological conflict that is a monumental conflict. And those of us that believe in liberty and human rights and human decency need to be bound together in common cause to fight off these extremists, and to defeat them.

You can only defeat them so much militarily. We have to also defeat them with a better idea. It's a better idea that's being practiced by our friend, Israel. It's called democracy. And that's the fundamental challenge facing this century: Will we have the courage and the resolve necessary to help democracy defeat this ideology. And I will tell the Prime Minister, once again, I'm deeply committed to this cause, whether it be in Iraq, or Lebanon, or the Palestinian Territory, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and around the world.

In response to another question, Bush said the following:

First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. Secondly, we recognize that it was Hamas that attacked the unity government. They made a choice of violence. It was their decision that has caused there to be this current situation in the Middle East, about which we'll be spending some time discussing.

Matt, what you're seeing now in this part of the 21st century is going to be played out over time. This is an ideological struggle. We're looking at the difference between a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace, that want a better way for their people, that believe in democracy -- they need help to build the institutions necessary for democracy to flourish, and they need help to build security forces so that they can end up enforcing what most of the people want, which is to live in peace -- and that's versus a group of radicals and extremists who are willing to use violence, unspeakable violence sometimes, to achieve a political objective.

In the first response, Bush talks of the need "to fight off the extremists," but extremists are represented in a democracy, too. He seems to working from the idea that in the Middle East there are a few small groups of people who want to establish Islamist states, but the vast majority of people want to be free and want others to be free. Earlier, he refers to "the moderate people, the ordinary Palestinians." The trouble is that the data does not support this view. Almost half of Palestinians voted for a party that wants to destroy Israel and institute Islamic law. To a significant extent, Palestine is a land of extremists.

In the first paragraph of the second response, Bush says something very telling. He says, "First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. " This is all literally true, but the implication that the President is more legitimate than the Hamas-led government is false. He could just as accurately have said, "First of all, we recognize the Parliament of all the Palestinian people, and that's the Hamas-led Parliament. They were elected; They're the Parliament." This suggests that Bush only recognizes governments and parts of governments that he likes. This is a very troubling policy for a man who claims to be spreading democracy to hold. More troubling domestically is the suggestion that Bush considers heads of state to be more important and better representations of the people than legislative bodies. This may explain Bush's extensive use of signing statements, but that is another topic all together.

In the next paragraph, Bush refers to "a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace" as the good guys. Democracy doesn't only represent those who believe in peace. If democracy only represented those who believe in never using violence, then Bush wouldn't be in office. In fact, almost everyone around the world believes in both peace and violence. The disagreement is over when and how to use violence and what kinds of peace are acceptable. Hamas wants peace too; they just want to destroy Israel first.

A couple of times Bush mentions democracy as opposed to another ideology. He never clearly states what this is, but from the context it appears that he is talking about extremism. Extremism is not itself an ideology, however. Islamism (activist or political Islam) is an ideology. I assume that Bush knows that Islamism is the ideology he is opposing but couldn't say anything like "We will eliminate Islamic fundamentalism." The problem is that democracy is not the opposite of extremism or Islamism nor does it oppose them. Democracy by itself allows both to flourish and provides representation to both.

I am not saying I support Hamas. I do not. I am not even saying there is no hope for a peaceable Palestinian state. I just think that we need to be honest about what we want other governments to look like. Bush's goal is not democracy in the Middle East. He wants a Middle East that won't attack Israel or the United States and won't build nukes, which is a fine goal, but it is not democracy. The best way to get a Middle East that won't attack us is probably to leave them alone, as Ron Paul suggests. The existence of Israel and our alliance with them may be a problem for this, however, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to many Islamists. I am not sure it would even be possible to sufficiently cut ties with Israel to convince Islamists that we are not supporting Israel. Ron Paul has spoken of avoiding entangling alliances, but I don't know what he would do with our existing alliances.

On a lighter note, I have a couple of suggestions for what we could call what Bush is actually trying to spread, since it is not actually democracy:

• Philiarchy: Government by those we like
• Inferiocracy: Government by those who recognize that they have to do what better nations like the United States say to do

Please comment if you can think of any more appropriate terms or if you think I have been unfair to Bush in any way. I want to avoid attacking straw men or taking cheap shots at anyone.

Nickelodeon.

I am a representative of a generation raised on Gak and Floam.

Douglas Wilson can spend his time writing a book on it, but I think I just made a better argument for classical education than he did.

A Meta-Narrative Resurrection

As modern as it is to try to define postmodernism, like all other isms it does not lend itself to a singular defintion. The concept has several different ideas and applications, but one of the major premises is that the meta-narrative is dead. The idea that a single overarching principle governs the complete story of humanity is not absurd, as an existentialist might suggest, but completely devoid of any meaning, value, or truth. Perhaps postmodernists are actually at their most modern in ringing the death-toll of the meta-narrative, and indeed some suggest that the "death of the meta-narrative" is a meta-narrative in itself.

Whatever inconsistency that might suggest, postmodernists are consistent with their other beliefs for blasting meta-narratives. If it is impossible to know any kind of objective reality from our all too subjective experience, then meta-narratives are bunk, controlling, and devious. They are devices for subduing the masses. Marx's critique of religion applies to Marxism itself. So we are left to twiddle our subjective thumbs and entertain ourselves, write sad songs, happy songs, or do nothing until we die.

So what I find incredibly ironic about the early 21st century is that meta-narrative surrounds us, perhaps even more than before postmodernism ascended the belltower. The Matrix, for all of its cyperpunk and postmodern intimations, nevertheless developed into a narrative almost demanding religion in a world of ones and zeroes. As much as I am loathe to read something like The Gospel Reloaded, or anything that sweats to illuminate the Christian themes in the trilogy, one thing that is for certain that a meta-narrative is present as we watch Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity make their way to the human city of Zion to defend humanity once and for all.

Then came Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. The film trilogy serves as the fantasy yin to The Matrix's yang and tells the tale of a fellowship of humans, hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, and a wizard as they take the Ring of Power to Mount Doom, in the heart of Sauron's Mordor. The fellowship braves hordes of orcs, a giant spider, and the dreaded ringwraiths to eliminate the ring and rid Middle-Earth of evil for good.

Following that came the adaptation of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in which director Andrew Adamson plunged into a meta-narrative that just short of explicitly aligns itself with the Biblical story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy pass through a wardrobe to discover the enchanting world of Narnia, where an evil queen rules but for the moment, because the great lion Aslan is on the move. And the film was a success. The first sequel, Prince Caspian is being filmed and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is in preproduction as well.

Where else? In literature, Brian Herbert has paired with science fiction bestseller Kevin J. Anderson to continue the stories of House Atreides, House Harkonnen, and the Butlerian Jihad of Frank Herbert's classic Dune world. For the past ten years J.K. Rowling has been entertaining children and adults alike with her Harry Potter series. In music, Sufjan Stevens ignored the postmodern bells and released an album full of reverences to an overarching narrative, and Illinois took home "Best of 2005" awards from Metacritic, Pitchfork, Amazon, Entertainment Weekly, and The L.A. Times.

Whether meta-narratives are important or even desired in an increasingly postmodern society, they are here and here to stay. But the postmodern critique still stands, whether these narratives exist or not. The success of meta-narrative as of late perhaps give even more ammunition to the postmodernist who points out the grimness of reality. Our early 21st century enchantments are nothing more than illusions. We will never go through a magical wardrobe and we will never come out of our personal Matrix, and so we shouldn't waste our time daydreaming of Middle-Earth where something so gross as the final defeat of evil is purported to occur.

That is where postmodernism is crushed by the glory of the meta-narrative. We do not have to pass through a wardrobe to meet Aslan; Aslan comes through the wardrobe to meet us. We don't have to fight our way to Zion; the new Zion comes down to us. The existence of the Bible itself is a demonstration of God's willingness to make himself known to a fallen people that could not reach him. And unlike other narratives, we are not left feeling empty in our own world. After reading of the God who sent his Son to atone for a rebellion's sins and of King whose coronation ceremony was a crucifixion, when we ask "wouldn't it be so wonderful if such a thing could be true?" we can smile, for it certainly is.

The Danger of National Conceit

The mythology of the United States, those ideas that form the nation's self-image, includes the idea that the United States is the greatest society that has ever existed or will ever exist, although it will probably go on in greatness forever. This is accepted as an obvious fact by politicians from both major parties and by the general public. Questioning this is considered heresy. If any newly-elected senator said, "I would like to thank the voters of this state giving me the opportunity to proudly serve a pretty good country," his supporters would be appalled and wonder if he thought they had just elected him to the Canadian parliament.

Supporting this idea that the United States is the greatest nation of all time are other similar assumptions. Most Americans take for granted that democracy is the greatest political ideal and that the American brand of democracy is the best possible system of government. It is certainly better than all those crazy systems with prime ministers and unscheduled elections that no one really understands. Americans also take for granted that the ideals on which the nation was supposedly founded are the greatest of all ideals and that America is the greatest possible expression of those ideals.

I do not know how long this idea has dominated the way the United States views itself, but it is almost certain that this has not always been the case. The founders and their contemporaries were likely optimistic about their attempt to form a nation, but they would have been fools to think that it was the greatest one on earth. If not for an apathetic British populous and advantageously exploiting centuries of animosity between the French and English, the United Sates would not have won independence. For the majority of the time since the United States gained independence, the United Kingdom was more powerful. Elements of the myth of greatness likely arose with the idea of Manifest Destiny. It would be interesting to look at historical documents (letters, speeches, etc.) to see when and how this idea developed and gained popularity. I will leave any additional historical speculation or research to Daniel. As for contemporary influences, I believe that the emphasis on self-confidence and positive reinforcement in today's society has helped to reinforce this concept. People are taught to believe that they and everything they are a part of are the best some category and that category is the one that really matters.

This actually points to part of the reason that rational people accept this idea so completely. We judge ourselves by our own standards, and we assume that people in other countries are using the same standards. This is why we are confused when other countries don't like us, and we think that it must be because they are envious. The idea that America is the best is so deeply rooted that when we start slipping in one of our criterion of greatness we adjust the criterion.

I don't know exactly how other countries view themselves or us, but I assume that most are not so conceited as to think of themselves as the greatest nation of all time. Last summer I visited Scotland, and as soon as I got off the airplane I was amused to see posters welcoming me "to the best small country in the world." These were just tourism posters, of course; more serious Scottish self-evaluation is far less exalted. Some countries probably see themselves as the best at certain things or in certain categories, but few if any see themselves the way we do.

By this point, I have likely infuriated some people (if anyone is actually reading this), and such people may have quit reading, but in case any have made it this far, a few qualifications are in order. I am not saying that I do not think America is really great. America is great. It is the most powerful nation in the world. It has the highest GDP (nominal, PPP) of any nation in the world (although the total for the EU is higher by most measures). It has a good system of government. I really like it here. I like capitalism and the republican form of govern. The United States may be the greatest nation (whatever that means) in the world at the moment, but it is far too soon to make any historical judgments. The U.S. is still in its rookie season or sophomore season compared to the careers of the great empires of history. It is also foolish to claim that certain American ideals are superior to competing ideals in every way. God did not give ancient Israel a republic with three branches of government. Chances are that for some future society a different system will work much better than ours could.

Regardless of how great America may actually be, it is very dangerous to accept America's greatness as an absolute fact. For one, thinking that we are better than everyone else is a good way to make them all hate us. More importantly, accepting any uncertain principle as an absolute leads to a temptation to wrap it up with true absolutes. This is largely the cause of the misdirected passions of the religious right. If Christians accept certain political principles as absolutes, then it is logical to promote them with the same unwavering determination with which the gospel should be promoted. I am not saying that Christians should not be involved in or passionate about the political process. Christians should not, however, put any political ideal ahead of the gospel or anywhere near it. The gospel and all of Scripture should inform political decisions, but politics must never be made into a gospel. This is true for both domestic and international politics. God is neither a Republican nor an American. Just as Christians should not support any political party with absolute zeal, they should not support the spread of American political ideals overseas with absolute zeal. Instead, they should carefully and constantly examine the entirety of both in the light of the Scriptures.

If we are to stop thinking of America as the absolutely greatest nation of all time, we must develop a new image of our nation. I believe it is safe to apply the instructions given in Romans 12:3 to our nation as well as to ourselves: "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (ESV). I believe Philippians 2:3 is also applicable here: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (ESV). Sober judgment and humility will serve us well as we think about ourselves and our nation.

The Bizarre Idea of Nationhood

Yesterday I was thinking about something closely related to what Daniel talked about in "...liberty and justice for all." Most notions about foreign policy depend on the concept of the sovereignty of independent nations. To an extent, the United States has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable under such a view. First, we did so through fairly covert means such as installing friendly dictators during the Cold War. More recently, the actions have become more overt (Afghanistan and Iraq), but they are now pursued under the cover of rhetoric about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Whether or not this rhetoric is true and these wars are just is not my concern here. The point is that in spite of what our actions might indicate, we still claim that we believe in national sovereignty. This was the primary justification for the first war with Iraq. Iraq invaded another sovereign nation, Kuwait, and the U.S.-led coalition rushed to Kuwait's aid. This idea of sovereignty is also behind much of what our beloved Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

The idea is generally that every nation, regardless of its form of government or military strength, has the right to rule itself and control everything that happens inside its own borders. We attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwaiti territory. If instead Kuwaiti military forces moved into Iraqi territory, and Iraq then obliterated them, we probably would have left Iraq alone. Clearly, territorial boundaries are terribly important to the idea of a nation and national sovereignty. It seems that the United Nations wants nations to get along and stay out of each other's territory. Starting a war to gain more land is considered unacceptable behavior.

The problem with all of this is that throughout history, national boundaries have been in constant flux. One empire after another conquered and ruled the Middle East. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European borders have shifted many times, and parts of Europe such as Italy and Germany had no central government for much of their history. (I am sure that Daniel can provide details and corrections as necessary concerning the history of national territories.) The current national boundaries that the UN tries to preserve are relatively new and completely artificial.

Just because one nation now controls a particular piece of land, there is no objective reason to believe that it has an absolute right to that land. The ethic group(s) that live there and the government ruling there probably gained their current position by force. If military might determines who gets to live in and rule a particular place, then any nation that can conquer a territory should be allowed to. The conquering nation has as much right to be there as the conquered. Often when people set out to draw up new national boundaries (after major wars, for example), they do so based on where ethnic groups live, but no people group is truly indigenous. Any definition of a people group and any determination of what groups deserve their own nations are also artificial.

It seems that the UN has decided that peace is better than war so the best thing to do in most cases is to maintain the status quo. This may be the best policy, since one of the most radical attempts to change ownership of territory in modern times, Zionism, has led to Israel being in almost constant conflict since it was established. (I am not making any value judgement concerning Israel's statehood. I am only pointing out the result of drastic changes in territorial lines.) If war is sometimes just, then there could be situations in which a war to gain territory could also be justified, if the existing allotment of territory is sufficiently unjust. Therefore, there are times in which the status quo should be changed.

All this is really to say that the idea of a government having sovereignty over a particular piece of land is a rather strange idea. The relationship between a government and a nation is also a strange thing. The same nation can have a series of radically different governments, but it is still viewed as the same nation. However, a government is the thing that binds a group of people and an area of land together to make a nation. Without a government, there is no one to determine who is a citizen or legal resident and where the borders lie.

It seems that the only ways to rationally explain nationhood is that either it is a totally artificial construct held together by force or it was instituted by God. The first possibility is one in which might makes right and there can be no moral judgements about the actions of any state. This may be an accurate model of history, but it is not one that many people would like. The United States could police the world as we saw fit, but we would be in the same moral position as Nazi Germany as they sought to conquer the world. It would also mean that states are no different from any other organization. Al Qaeda, Microsoft, the United States, the UN, the NRA, Enron, and the Boy Scouts of America would only differ in degree and style of influence. Two warring nations would be the same as two feuding families murdering each other.

If nations and governments do fit into unique categories, those categories have to be created by God. If God did not establish nations and governments, then there can be no moral obligation for a citizen to obey the government, even if that government is a democracy because even a democracy is artificial and coerces the minority by force. Of course, God does legitimize governments. He commands us to obey (and pray for) those in authority and to pay our taxes. He says he has established all authority. The Bible does not say much about territorial issues or what makes a nation, however. The general idea is how to live in whatever situation one finds oneself, and there is not much about how to behave in a situation where one has a voice in government, or what the role of government ought to be. I have tried to develop a Biblical political philosophy, but I have not completed it. If I ever finish it, it will be included in To Attempt. Of course the Bible does directly discuss certain issues of government in the Old Testament as they relate to the theocratic monarchy, but it is unwise to use such examples as guides for any government that does not have God directly speaking to guide it. This is not a definite implication of Romans 13:1; but it seems if God has established authorities, and those under them are to obey them, then other authorities should not interfere with their ability to govern by attacking them or invading their territory. Perhaps the Bible does endorse a general policy of noninterventionism and maintaining the status quo.

I suppose the application of all of this is to keep God's commands to obey authority in mind, to remember that He is the source of government, and to realize the foolishness of all the humanist rhetoric that is spouted concerning nationhood. Without God's establishment of government, there would be no earthly authority, only anarchy. In a materialistic world, nationhood is bizarre; with God, it's really pretty simple.

All Scripture is God-Breathed

"All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work."
- St. Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, New Jerusalem Bible

2 Timothy is a dark letter. Compared to the rest of Paul's works, and to the New Testament in general, it is full of conflict, sadness, and struggle both inward and outward. There are moments when the glory of grace could not be brighter, but the most uplifting passages and stirring exhortations of 2 Timothy nevertheless presuppose a difficult road ahead.

In the midst of this comes a small section on "the sacred writings". Paul exhorts his protege to remain faithful to the scriptures and the teaching he has received on and from it. This bidding to hold fast to scripture is not without its urgency. "This is what you will need for the days ahead," says Paul. "And you are definitely going to need it."

Paul's tone, then, is somewhat foreboding. After all, Timothy and his Ephesian church are in a difficult situation to say the least, as is Paul himself. But these words are meant for comfort and assurance. Paul is here offering not merely an old friend's encouragement, but the key to Timothy's difficult task. The experienced apostle's point is that the scriptures are the foundation and means of Timothy's work, and they will not let him down, no matter how rough the road.

This point is driven home by a brief look at the overall context of the letter. Paul is on death row and, if the local heretics have their way, so is Timothy's church. Timothy's mentor and father in the faith has the opportunity -- the necessity -- to tell Timothy all that he needs to know, do, and have in order to build the Kingdom in this hostile environment. In this context his constant refrain is, Hold fast to the scriptures, for they are what you need; indeed, they are given by God Himself for this very purpose.

Here it must be noted that what many tend to read into v. 16 is simply not there; namely, a statement of the modern doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible. Such a doctrine, regardless of its accuracy, is simply absent from this text. Paul is here giving one long exhortation to courage, perseverance, and faithfulness in the thick of opposition; the furthest thing from his mind is the age of the earth and whether Jonah really spent three days in a fish's belly. Only if we read in our own notions of what "inspired" might mean can we find a claim here of Biblical infallibility as it is currently formulated. Paul's literal language, "all scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)", is an evocative, wonderful phrase for God's personal involvement in the creation of the scriptures, but it is far from being support, by itself, of this doctrine. There is much to be said on either side of this controversy, but none of it will be said here.

What, then, does Paul mean? He is clear about one thing: these scriptures are what you need. They give wisdom, leading to salvation (v. 15); they are our foundation and means for "refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." They thoroughly prepare the agent of the Kingdom of God, so that he is ready to undertake and complete "any good work." Truly Timothy would have had a near-hopeless task in front of him had he not "the sacred writings".

What meaning can this have for us? Many of us still seek to answer this question within an overly modernist context. We know what the world needs, and that is good authority; we know what good authority is, and that is facts and laws; therefore the Bible is the source of reliable facts and laws.

Others of us are overly postmodern. We know what the world needs, and that is freedom; we know what freedom is, and that is choice and subjectivity; therefore the Bible must be the great affirmer of such things.

Both of these models, and others like them, assume much too readily that we know what the world needs. All of us alike exalt ourselves above the Bible, putting the scriptures into our own molds. In the words of N. T. Wright, "we have tended to let the word ‘authority’ be the fixed point and have adjusted ‘scripture’ to meet it, instead of the other way round." No one expects that what the world needs after all is the Bible; instead, we look for ways to make the Bible fit our own preconceived notions of problem and solution.

Paul would have us act differently. Paul's message to Timothy is that the Bible is profitable for thoroughly equipping the man of God, not because it is fact or law or timeless call to existential decision, but because by it "the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (v. 17) But Paul's message is not merely utilitarian. The Bible does not just happen to have this effect on and through the church, this is so precisely because all scripture is God-breathed.

Whatever the full meaning of this rich and beautiful phrase, it is the greatest reason we could have for taking the scriptures as they are. Perhaps this is impossible; perhaps we can never quite pull away from our own presuppositions. The question of whether we can ever actually get at the Bible without bringing a bit of ourselves into the picture, or even whether this is desirable, is not for now to decide.

What is clear is that this God-breathedness calls for a robust and vibrant praxis centered around the Bible. Liturgy and living, meditation and memorization, praying and preaching, reflection and research each play a role in building the Church's life on and around scripture. We must rush forward into this great and terrifying book God has given us, constantly working out fresher and more accurate ways of talking about and living by it.

...liberty and justice for all.

Ben highlighted how many cords of life intersect, inform, and influence each other. My first post at Cerberus is not quite religious, although the conclusions are hopefully from an increasing application of Scripture to my worldview, namely the distinction between Creator and creature, and the idea that all human beings are crafted in our Creator's image.

Last night, Republican nomination hopeful Ron Paul appeared on The Colbert Report, unlike several other candidates warned to stay away from the program. Stephen Colbert, who does his best to satirize and emulate Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly (whom Colbert affectionately calls "Papa Bear"), grilled the Texas congressman with the same battery of questions raised against anyone questioning Bush II's "War on Terror." Colbert insisted that traditional American freedoms should only be defended when Americans were free from terrorist threats. "I don't want to be free and dead!" Colbert argued.

Congressman Paul countered, "I want to be alive and free, and I think we can do that," and earned roaring applause from the audience.

Benjamin Franklin warned that "those who surrender their freedom for security deserve neither." I first encountered this statement in high school, before the September 11 attacks. After the War on Terror was underway, and the hideous PATRIOT Act was passed, not many dared to question whether the Bush regime had impaired American freedoms to protect them.

What Ron Paul hopes to do as a President is lead citizens into national security by taking seriously these crucial freedoms. He does not draw that imaginary circle around Americans and suggest that the truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to only citizens of the U.S., but to all other human beings. At the core of his platform, and of the libertarian philosophy of government, is the idea that peace is best preserved by using our rights such as free speech and self-determination and by respecting those same exact rights of other nations and and other peoples.

The United States, particularly in the Middle East, is guilty of abusing these sovereign principles of other nations. Paul recognizes that the interventionist policies of the last half-century have put our nation in a dangerous situation. At the center of most of these policies is a twisted self-interest that denies the same rights to others which we seek to protect for ourselves. The solution to these problems is not more of the same, but a return to the classic ideals of our founding fathers who recognized these truths.

In the early 1950s, Iran nationalized the various oil corporations in the country. Naturally, Great Britain and the United States were opposed, and in 1953 through a pair of coups, one failed and one successful, installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Iranian monarch, the Shah. The official rhetoric for the coups was not economic, however, and Eisenhower continued Truman's ideas of "containment." The new Shah would be a safeguard against communism in that region. To ensure democracy, Pahlavi establish single-party rule and established government tests for any Muslim scholars hoping to become mullahs. The United States also collaborated with Pahlavi to aid him in developing nuclear weapons, thus expanding the anti-communist arsenal.

When the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979-80, which was understandably hostile towards the former Shah and ousted him, Pahlavi fled to several countries. President Jimmy Carter ignored the Iranian demands for justice by providing him brief asylum and medical aid. In a completely unjustifiable, but understandable, move, Iranians took American hostages. The tortured Americans had their own freedoms violated by a nation which had endured nearly three decades of quisling governments denying rights of self-determination.

When Ronald Reagan became President in the 1980s, he did not change the fundamental tune of American foreign policy in the Middle East, but instead turned to a new ally, Saddam Hussein. The Reagan administration encouraged Iraq to go to war against Iran, which it did with help from the United States, including arms and the ability to manufacture more potent, unorthodox weapons. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were allowed to tour advanced weapons production sites.

It should be noted that most of the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein was committed during the presidencies of both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, or the twelve years from 1980 to 1992. The crime for which Hussein was executed, the gassing of 154 Kurds, occurred in 1982. In 1982, the Reagan administration dropped Iraq from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states so that American finances could work their magic. Sean Hannity, when he cross-examined Ron Paul about his negative comments about the Iraq war, at the same time suggested that the war was fought to bring a genocidal maniac to justice, that this maniac worked alone, and that he certainly worked against the interests of the United States government.

Only when Saddam invaded Kuwait and international pressure escalated did the United States turn against their former ally.

After September 11th, the United States invaded Iraq for reasons that are numerous and misleading, and all of which probably reveal that the current War in Iraq is unjust. That will be discussed perhaps later, perhaps not.

The past decades of political theater and statecraft have left one nation in shambles and our own nation disillusioned. In such times it is almost impossible to look towards an honest and hopeful future. But in such cases we should remember some of our favorite truths of the past. It is best for the safety of the United States and the liberty of its people that elected officials mind our nation's business and not meddle in the affairs of vastly different cultures and political situations. As you think about candidates for the 2008 Presidential race, see whether opportunist candidates would continue these bizarre foreign policies of intervention or the wisdom of peace.

Welcome to Cerberus

Have you ever met someone who has a Bible verse to legitimize every activity in which they engage? I have, and though I am loath to fall into such a category, I will risk it.

"A threefold cord is not quickly broken," says the Preacher of Ecclesiastes. Perhaps good old Solomon did not have quite this situation in mind, but a more interesting curiosity presents itself to my mind; namely, the irony of juxtaposing a scriptural quotation with the three-headed dog of Greek myth. It's something of a mixed metaphor, one might say, to apply the scriptural with the pagan so closely together.

As such, it is appropriate that this blog begin with such a paradox, as it is our conviction that Christian thought must always be brought to application, and even confrontation, with the world. As Stephen and Daniel have already forecast, this blog will not only deal with theology, not only with philosophy, not only with culture, but it it will deal with all of them together. It's our belief that this is not something strange or forced. Rather, they need each other in order to fully be themselves. What was that about a threefold cord?

Promisamos hablar inglés aquí, excepto cuando queremos paracer erudito.

Welcome to Cerberus!

Welcome to Cerberus. Much like a scholarly journal, Cerberus should be typed in italics while particular postings would be akin to articles, and thus in quotation marks. Remember that when you quote us for your next paper.

I'm looking forward to blogging with Stephen and Ben as I've enjoyed what they've written thus far. As Stephen said, most topics will focus on religion and theology, culture, and other social issues. The three of us, as far as I know, take seriously the idea that Scripture informs our worldview and our approach to anything we encounter. This isn't a particularly new idea to any of us, but it is still exciting and we hope that comes through in our writing.

We really hope you do leave comments. Hopefully this will be a place that fosters discussion, not hasty argument, and use of the heads that the good Lord set squarely on our shoulders.

Ich kann nicht italienisch.

Welcome to Cerberus

Cerberus is a collaborative blog authored by me, Daniel, and Ben. It will almost certainly deal with religion, theology, philosophy, social issues, and a myriad of other topics. As a collaborative blog, there will be a certain level of discussion-oriented content. However, the exact bounds of its content and mode of expression will become evident only as it takes shape.

I don't know how often we will be able to post, but having three authors should ensure fairly regular updates.

Comments are welcome from all readers. Involvement in the conversation is not limited to the three authors, but we are the only ones who get Cerberus heads.

"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."