Nothing New Under The Sun...

I continue to be amazed at the insight and wisdom of the author of Ecclisiastes when he observed that there is nothing new under the sun. This time, the surprise was not a pleasant one.

One of the thrusts of the postmodern world is a growing awareness and desire for community, as well as questioning of the individualistic capitalism that drives the globalization of the world’s economies. Surprisingly, this is not new. Defenders of slavery in the antebellum South did, according to Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis,” in fact, “raise serious questions from Scripture about the moral order of an individualistic and profit-mad economy which they saw as the North’s aggressive alternative to a slave order. In Eugene Genovese’s words, the threat was of ‘a materialistic, marketplace society that promoted competitive individualism and worshiped Mammon’… In that postbellum climate, Southern Christian defenses of patriarchal communalism were fatally compromised by their association with slavery…” (pp 52-53).

Interesting twist on my desires for communalism and less materialism. A tainted desire? I don’t think so. But as Noll points out, war fatigue cut short the theological debates about economic systems which should have been natural at the time of the Civil War. “The result was theological weakness in the face of pressing economic circumstances: while there was a heightened capacity to produce wealth, there was also a heightened capacity to produce alienation and vast economic inequality. These issues were eventually addressed practically by pietists like the Salvation Army and theoretically by leaders of the Social Gospel, yet theological incoherence in the face of modern economic realities has remained a major problem for Christian thinking ever since the Civil War” (pp 53-54).

That sounds like a resounding call to the emerging theologians to continue tackling a growing interest of mine, the theology of economics. May thoughtful Christians everywhere rise up to this challenge.

Double Take (an apologetically lengthy blog entry with lots of quotes)

I have been reading a fascinating book recently. It has really challenged my way of thinking about a lot of things, especially about how I form my views of things, especially homosexuality (not necessarily the conclusions, but how I form my views). For example, read the following passages:

Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants…, elite literati…, and practitioners of realpolitik… who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society.

With increasing frequency as the national debate heated up, biblical defenders against homosexuality were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense against homosexuality as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Open and Affirming leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try homosexuality by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of love…”

The power of the anti-homosexual scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly condemned homosexuality… how could genuine Christians attack modern stances against homosexuality as an evil?

It was no coincidence that the biblical stance against homosexuality remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest… it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the anti-homosexual biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts…

In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense against homosexuality were largely overcome… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by… the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how prejudice against homosexuals could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism.

The primary reason that the biblical defense against homosexuality remained so strong was that many biblical defenses for homosexuality were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical defense of homosexuality were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical defenses of homosexuality offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, they were much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles.

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical homosexuality argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.”

These passages fairly clearly lay out two distinct views of homosexuality. One is based on the Protestant and American principles of the primacy and accuracy of the Scripture and of reading Scripture individually and determining the meaning, while the other view is based more on the scope, or arc, of the Bible and the primary principles of mercy and justice. Which side are you on? Which side resonates with you, and which raises your hackles as a shiver runs down your spine? To be honest, I get a shiver of hesitation when I think about arguing not from specific passages but from the “big picture” when so many specific passages address the issue. In other words, I tend to resonate with the structural arguments against homosexuality presented here.

One problem, though. The above arguments were not made regarding homosexuality. They are only slightly modified quotes from Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.” The arguments against homosexuality are constructed the same way that the arguments for slavery were constructed, while the proponents of the acceptance of homosexuality appeal in the same general way as the anti-slavery leaders of the 1800s, such as William Wilberforce.

Read the passages again, only this time unaltered:

By 1860 Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., elite literati like William Dean Howells, and practitioners of realpolitik like William Henry Trescot, who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society. (p 31)

With increasing frequency as the sectional conflict heated up, biblical defenders of slavery were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense of slavery as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Abolitionism leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try slavery by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of freedom…” (p 32)

The power of the proslavery scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly sanctioned slavery, and even the trade in “strangers,” how could genuine Christians attack modern slavery, or even the slave trade, as an evil? (p 33)

It was no coincidence that the biblical defense of slavery remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest. By the nineteenth century, it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the proslavery biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts… (p 34)

Between… the early 1770s and the intensification of American debate over slavery six decades later, circumstances in the North Atlantic world shifted significantly. In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense of slavery were largely overcome as the Parliament first outlawed the slave trade… then banned slavery in all British territories… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by the founding of the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how slavery could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism. (p 35)

The primary reason that the biblical defense of slavery remained so strong was that many biblical attacks on slavery were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical attacks on slavery were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical attacks against slavery offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, the wer much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles. (p 40)

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical antislavery argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.” (p 41).

What!? Double take. You mean the same way I look to the simplicity of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality is the same way many defended slavery? And the way people advocate for acceptance of homosexuality is the same way people advocated for emancipation and human equality?

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I encourage people to read Noll’s book not only for the insight in brings on the Civil War, but the intriguing light he shines on American theological development.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of glossing over specific passages on homosexuality to fit some grand understanding of love and mercy and justice. And I’m certainly not comfortable with espousing a view that legitimates slavery in an effort to “plainly read” specific passages from the bible.

And before anyone says it, I know that the two issues are different (one is a sanction and one is a prohibition), and the issues are more thoroughly debatable on both sides. My goal is not to defend slavery or promote acceptance of homosexuality. Since it is not my purpose, I’m not even going to take a side. My motivation in sharing these quotes is to challenge us to realize how we form our beliefs and how we organize our arguments are just as important as what we believe and what we argue. We must be willing to look at not just our individual beliefs, but also our underlying cultural influences (as Noll points out repeatedly regarding the influence of American republican and democratic ideals on theological interpretations) that led us to those beliefs.

So you think going to war in Iraq was stupid...

If you think that the reasons for going to Iraq (and staying there) were stupid, try reading a little bit of the history of World War I. Most likely, you'll come out of that endeavor confused, frustrated, and acknowledging the wisdom of Solomon when he stated that there was nothing new under the sun.

I mean, come on, can we even now understand the foolish reasoning of a war that engulfed nearly all of Europe and much of North Africa and the Middle East? I remember growing up, and learning that World War I was triggered by the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo (yep, that Sarajevo, famous for the Winter Olympics, the bombings of the Bosnian War, and Christmas Night Over Sarajev0). But that was the the extent of my knowledge.

But here is the gist of the start of the war: Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated in Sarajevo, Austria attacks Serbia, Germany invades Belgium, and then invades France. France mounts a defense and Russia begins preparing to attack Germany. Does that make any sense to anyone? And that is just the beginning of the War.

A little more background and detail does not bring much elucidation: A Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Ferdinand, while he was in Austrian-controlled Bosnia. Austria retaliated against Serbia. Russia, who was allied with Serbia, prepares to intervene. Germany, who is supportive of any action by Austria, decides that it is in their best interest to try to neutralize its biggest threats, France and Russia. Foolishly, it decides to attack France through neutral Belgium, breaking longstanding neutrality treaties, thus irking the wary British who feared the industrial power of Germany and Germany's rising threat to the British naval supperiority.

See what I mean? Very confusing. The pretenses for war were "legitamate" (in their eyes) but the reality is that each country had its own selfish reason for joining in.

Why do I bring all this up? I used to think that people seeking higher office should be intelligent people who were altruistic. But I now think it should be more than that. Perhaps all public officials in higher office should be well educated in either history or ecology. Why history? Even principled leaders are doomed to bring pain and suffering to many if they are not aware of how history shapes the current landscape, much less the lessons of history themselves. (As a sidenote, I find it interesting that the Matrix Trilogy explores the interplay between history, free will, and fate/destiny.)

Why ecology? I think that ecologists are at least aware of the interconnectedness of things. They may not be be experts in economics, but I imagine that they would at least know to look or anticipate how an action may inpact other areas. Same thing with foreign policy. Anyone can learn the "facts on the ground." But it takes the insight to look for and seek the bigger picture of things. And that requires a mindset that has trained you to see the connections of things. I guess history teaches that as well.

Perhaps instead of debates, we should have history questions for the candidates. Would that give the voters anymore insight?