Just War & Pacifism

The Nigel Biggar/Richard Hays debate about non-violence in the New Testament was okay.  Richard Hays was more rhetorically polished; Nigel Biggar was slightly more perceptive about the nature of their disagreement; but to some degree the debate itself seemed to dance around the periphery of this fundamental disagreement, I think. 

Hays (probably rightly) felt that Biggar was simply responding to individual exegetical particularities rather than appreciating his whole approach to Christian ethics, seeing the cross as shaping the life of an alternative community.  Biggar (probably rightly) felt that Hays wasn’t appreciating the task of the moral theologian, who is free to take issues & distinctions outside of the text, and bring them to the text to see if they might find validity.

One question I would have been interested to hear Hays address is: Given that (unlike Paul) I have been born into a situation in which the government who wields the sword is chosen by and representative of ME, how am I to approach this situation of “secondarily” wielding the sword – whether I like it or not?

Paul and Post-Modernism

A couple of people (Bryan and Jeff) have recently had posts related to biblical hermeneutics in a post-modern setting.  Today I had the opportunity to sit in on a seminar led by Anthony Thiselton with a visiting group of theologians & students from a German University, on the topic of Paul and Post-Modernism.  There were some interesting points made about biblical hermeneutics along the way.

Thiselton approached the massive topic of post-modernism by choosing to speak about a few key figures and their main contributions: Michel Foucault and truth-as-power; Roland Barthes and language as disguise; Jacques Derrida and deconstruction & deferment; Francois Lyotard and powers & worldviews; and Richard Rorty & Stanley Fish and pragmatism.

Thiselton prefers to think of post-modernism as a “mood” with a mix of the above features, rather than as a period in history.  He was able to ask then about how Paul, and the Christian faith, might find compatibility and incompatibility with this sort of mood (which he thinks characterised first-century Corinth just as much as twenty-first century Europe & America).  He found certain elements of this mood valuable and compatible with Christian faith, such as a reaction against a positivist and scientific worldview and a distrust of surface-grammar.  He found other elements to be highly suspect to a Christian worldview, such as Lyotard’s rejection of grand narratives.

Towards the end of the session Thiselton was asked a question about undergraduates who come to biblical studies classes claiming that it has been proven that nothing has any meaning.  His response was helpful.  For one thing, he suggested that this represented a misunderstanding of Deridda, who was more nuanced than that, and who particularly aimed for his contribution to apply to poetic texts.  Furthermore, he pointed out that there is great variety in Scripture; and that we can reach a sort of “pragmatic” closure on certain issues: For example, if we read “Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate”, we can be confident enough of a straightforward interpretation of this statement to say that we’ve reached pragmatic closure on it.  (That’s my attempt at encapsulating what he said, so it’s not his actual phrase.)  In other words, it’s not as though there are two options open to us – perfect comprehension or total mystification.  Biblical hermeneutics is a viable enterprise!

Pacifism in the New Testament

I’ve just finished reading a paper by Nigel Biggar (Regius Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology at Oxford) which aims to refute the argument for pacifism given by Richard Hays in his book ‘The Moral Vision of the New Testament’.

It’s a relatively concise (10,000 words) argument for the doctrine of just war, and responds to Hays’ pacifistic reading of the New Testament with three main parts:

First, that Hays’ reading of the New Testament stories about god-fearing soldiers, who persist in their profession, is not compelling; second, that he fails to specify sufficiently the meaning of Jesus’ teaching and conduct in terms of Jesus’ own context (particularly the option of armed violence in the service of religiously inspired nationalism); and third, that Hays’ normative moral concepts are often too crude, suffering from a failure to employ valid moral distinctions.

I have found the paper a thought-provoking read.  Some parts seem to persuasively counter Hays; other parts I’m not so comfortable with. 

For example, he argues (and backs it with ‘empirical’ evidence) that soldiers’ use of violence is not necessarily driven by hatred or anger; but can be driven by loyalty etc….  But one question that then arises for me is: What about at a national level?  What if soldiers loyally and impassively participate in a war that is effectively a product of the emperor’s hatred or anger?

Anyway, Biggar and Hays will be debating this issue on Thursday at Oxford, and I will be attending.  It should be interesting.  Here’s how I envisage it beginning:

Biggar: “Richard, I disagree with your pacifist reading of the New Testament”

Hays: “Them’s fightin’ words…”

faith, hope, and sex: and the greatest of these is…

The New York Times reports on the lead-up to the vote on “Proposition 8″ in California:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8.

Now I don’t know the full context of that statement, but it seems pretty silly to me.  I know the issue itself is divisive, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexual marriage is against Christian scripture and tradition: Does that mean that all hell will break loose unless it’s outlawed?  For the first three centuries, no Christian values were consciously enshrined in law; and yet Christianity managed to survive and thrive….  I don’t think laws about homosexual marriage will prove to be “Armageddon”.

But my specific interest in this post is not whether or not Proposition 8 (which aims to ban same-sex marriage in California) should be passed.  My interest is the way that 1 Corinthians 13 has been bent out of shape for the purpose of attempting to make a particular political point:

Regardless of one’s position on Proposition 8, this is such an abuse of 1 Corinthians 13: You may notice that in order to force this chapter of Scripture to make the point the advertisers wish to make, they have had to take out the most crucial verse (v12, Augustine’s and my favourite verse in the Bible – note that it’s the tagline of my blog); and manipulate the image of childhood/adulthood beyond recognition:

In the flow of 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 calls the Corinthians to take their claims for the exercise of their own ”rights” and turn them upside down, knowing that the present will be a time of uncertainty, “partial-ness”, and cruciformity: The present is not a time for demanding or showing off spiritual/ecclesial/bodily/sexual fullness, but for giving oneself in love for others – particularly those upon whom we are inclined to look down.

But in the video above, this message is completely obliterated and transformed to become: “NOW is the time to grow up and give everyone romantic/sexual rights.”

What a travesty.  Regardless of whether Proposition 8 should be accepted or rejected, this is not the way to argue a point.

Curses, Lyres, & Impaling

I spent the day at the British Museum today with some people from the University of Nottingham, and saw a few items of Biblical interest…

Here are some curse tablets, written to bring supernatural curses on enemies.  Bruce Winter has an interesting suggestion regarding the section in 1 Corinthians which he interprets as “No one who has the Spirit can say ‘Jesus, Curse!’”…  That is, Winter suggests that the Corinthians were taking on this convention of ‘cursing’ people, invoking the supernatural name of Jesus.

 

 

Pictured here in a 700BCE wall segment from Nineveh are some prisoners playing their lyres… remind you of a psalm?

 

 

 

 

This Assyrian wall segment depicts Sennacharib’s invasion of Lachish, Judah – as described in the Old Testament.  If you look closely you can see Israelites being impaled by the Assyrians.

 

 

 

 

More Assyrian stuff: Here we see a depiction of the ‘tree of life’ – a relatively common icon in Ancient Near Eastern religions.

 

 

 

 

not MORE Assyrian stuff, surely???  Yep – here depicting people of Israel bringing tribute to Shalmaneser III

 

 

 

 

And finally, some writing materials that would have been in use in the time the New Testament was being written – you can see inkpots, writing implements, pottery, and (up the top) a wooden notebook.

My daughter’s gettin a fine educayshon

The other day our 3yo girl came home with a “certificate of achievement” saying that when they played parachutes at her pre-school, she (and I quote) “laughted and screamed”.  Laughted.

And on the same day, she handed us a picture of a rocket, which she had been given as part of a fundraiser for the pre-school: The idea is that she gets people to sponsor her for sticking pieces of shiny paper onto the picture of the rocket.  Hmmmm…  Okay, I suppose they’re only 3 years old.  But the thing that really made me shake my head was the picture of the “rocket” that they were given.  I can’t be bothered scanning it, so I’ve reproduced it as best I can using MS paint:

oh dear oh dear oh dear

The secret nerve of 1 Corinthians

 

Here’s a wordle for 1 Corinthians chapter 2, kindly prepared for your enjoyment by Peter.  It’s interesting to see that, as in chapter 1, the word “theou” is most prominent.  Karl Barth, in his very worthwhile book “The Resurrection of the Dead”, says that this word – translatable as “from God” is the secret nerve of the whole epistle: The Corinthians need to learn that all that they need comes from God in Christ, rather than from human vitality. 

my wife caught me

Well it wasn’t supposed to happen: I thought she had gone out already – but apparently she was still around.  Suddenly I heard steps toward the bathroom door and those terrifying words: “Are you… are you cutting your own hair???” 

It was supposed to happen like this: She goes out to do some babysitting; I secretly cut my hair and then put on a stylish hat; She comes home and remarks on how stylish my hat looks; I tell her I’ve decided to wear it to bed tonight; and so on…  But anyway, she tried to open the bathroom door.  Fortunately I’d had the foresight to lock it, and I waited in there until she had to go.  Now the deed is done, and I’m waiting for her to return, fearing her response…

Here’s how I did:

on exegesis and movies

The other night we watched an underrated 2007 movie called ‘He was a quiet man’.  The movie stars Christian Slater, and is worth watching, for the way it explores what it means to be a dys/functional human.

The film was reviewed incompetently by the New York Times here - to which I have added a dissenting comment!  It has also received a number of online reviews here, many of which seem to involve confusion about the film’s unexpected ending.  Again, I’ve added my own review.  Of course, interpretation is not straightforward, and particularly in a film that includes surreal elements, the viewer’s own contribution is important.  But I do think a number of reviews have missed something of the coherence of this thought-provoking movie.  As I say in my reviews, it explores disablement and enablement, ironically finding that enablement is found through dependence on and engagement with others, while disablement is found through defiant, independent withdrawal.

But how can you reach an interpretation like this?  How can you “get” a film?  I just want to suggest one little starting point, which is also worthwhile in contemplating biblical exegesis…

Be extremely curious: I think the most important question in exegesis is: “What the..???” – Ask why a writer/director has chosen to put something in and leave something else out. 

With the movie, for example, ask: “Why do we keep seeing this image of a goldfish in a bowl?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why do we keep seeing Bob in a lift (elevator), with the doors closing?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why do we keep seeing an emphasis on Bob being a ‘quiet’ man?”  Or “What is the point of seeing the hula woman broken and then restored?”

With 1 Corinthians, similarly, we could allow curiosity to prompt us to ask: “Why does Paul tell them in the opening verses that they have been made rich in every way, with all speech and knowledge, and that they have every gift they need, when he is later going to slam them for their speech, knowledge, and gifts?  What is that communicating?”  Or “Why does Paul mention Crispus and Gaius by name when recalling those he baptised, but fail to immediately mention Stephanas, who was actually there in Corinth with him!???  What’s going on there?”

In practice, all this really means is being an active listener/viewer, rather than passively letting the text wash over us.

My one indulgence…

…unfortunately it’s not plenary.

Step one:

Step two:

Step three: