Curtis Knows Nothing

On Christian Violence

2012-02-07T08:13:00.000-05:00

I've previously about violence and Scripture. I believe Jesus taught active pacifism. But I also think that the Just War tradition is pragmatic and still faithful to the Gospel.

In the news is a tragic story of two children who were hatcheted and trapped inside a home which was then set on fire. Regardless of what Jesus teaches on violence, I would gladly exchange my salvation for those two children's lives. If a Christian is truly selfless, shouldn't that also extend to the resurrection as well?

Book Review: Christian Social Teachings by George Forell

2012-01-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

It just came to my attention that this book is going to see the light of day again in a newly updated edition by Forell and James Childs. The original version obviously doesn't have the newer material in it which should make for a great reason to buy the new version.

It also happens that this was the first book I had to read for an independent study I did on Christian Ethics. I had to write a 10 page book review on it. So this is going to get a bit long . . . but it might be interesting to SOMEONE (or not). Here it is.

In this extensive collection of excerpts, Forell attempts to trace the development of Christian ethics from scripture through various primary sources drawn mainly from Christian theologians. With a brief preface by the author and introduction by Franklin H. Littell, this book consists almost entirely of these primary sources with minimal commentary by Forell. The bulk of work went into selecting and organizing these sources. Organization is accomplished by separating excerpts by historical period or common location (with titles such as “The Alexandrian School” or “Monasticism”) as well as by author (Tertullian, Augustine, Luther and Niebuhr for instance all have their own chapters). Considering Forell's intention to produce a reader, his minimal commentary is understandable. There are times, however, when the reader wishes Forell would do more to “connect the dots” or guide the reader through thematic similarities across time frames. Because these excerpts are organized by historical period and author, it can be difficult to recognize similarities or differences in thought between, for example, Augustine and Pope John XXIII. There are several ways Forell attempted to find threads running throughout this book and also some that I suggest may have proven beneficial as well.

Forell begins by pointing to the relationship Christianity has had to society by establishing three separate paradigms: separation, domination, and integration (ix). The movement from one of these paradigms to the next coincides with the development of Christianity among a hostile population to its acceptance by the ruling power and finally the establishment of liberal democracy. While these three paradigms mirror the development of the relationship between church and state, they continue to appear in authors writing after the historical period of their popularity. Forell believes that the integration paradigm is perhaps the most difficult in which to realize Christian ethics. As he says “[w]hether this integration can be accomplished successfully without abandoning Christianity in the process is the ethical problem of our time” (xi). This focus on how religion interacts with society is also a common theme throughout the selections with different emphases placed on specific relations.

With these specific forms of interaction in mind, it is helpful in identifying cross-historical similarities and differences by identifying several binary opposites whose ideas continue to appear in these selections. Among these are faith vs. practice, private economics vs. communal economics, and just war vs. pacifism. In viewing the selections with these pairs in mind, certain excerpts that may prove to be dated can become applicable in contemporary ethical discussions. Exhortations against slavery or Luther's condemnation of indulgence sales can easily strike contemporary readers as dull topics in our egalitarian times, but when considering the abolition of slavery as part of the just war vs. pacifism pair or the sale of indulgences as fitting into the faith vs. action dialectic, these topics can continue to inform.

Action vs. Belief

With this in mind, I offer some highlights from the selections that speak to these sets of opposites, hoping to show that they both were important to the early church as well as continue to be important to the modern church. The dyad of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy has been an issue within the church long before the Protestant Reformation. Even before Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, the Old Testament addressed the issue of action and its motivation in belief. It is in three chapters of Matthew that Christian scripture first speaks of the importance of action. Jesus's imagery of the light shining for the world and the city on a hill are foundational for Christian ethics (16). This call to action is repeated in various excerpts from epistles, although the absence of any selection from James is interesting—especially considering its influence on later selections. Justin the Martyr continues the emphasis on action by stating that “[t]hose who are found not living as he taught should know that they are not really Christians, even if his teachings are on their lips. . .” (37).

Soon after these early exhortations to action, however, Forell's selections offer a contrary perspective. Clement argues that it is not the act that is important, but the mind's intent which carries the virtue. In comparing the ascetic Christian life to that of the Pagan world, Clement argues that ascetics whose motivation comes from outside of a Christian life are at times doing more mental harm than good, while the Christian ascetic, along with renouncing worldy possessions, is also renouncing the worldly passions that accompany them. He states that, for the non-Christian ascetic, “after having unburdened himself of his property, [he remains] continually absorbed and occupied in the desire and longing for it” (55). Here, the act is not virtuous unless accompanied by the proper belief. This concept reappears in City of God when Augustine discusses the great leaders of the Roman Empire who performed deeds on behalf of the people and shunned greed in order to expand the coffers of the empire. The motivation for these seemingly selfless acts, however, was the glory and honor of the people. Augustine does not spare words when he says to “those who seem to do good that they may receive glory from men, the Lord also says, 'Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward'” (72). Informed not only by Augustine but also Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas arrived at the conclusion that, while the active life has its merit, “the contemplative life is generically of greater merit than the active life” (143). In the Aristotelianism of the late Middle Ages, the idea that the contemplative life can better inform the active life was widespread. In referring to Aquinas, Meister Eckhart points out that “what we plant in the soil of contemplation we shall reap in the harvest of action” (108). Eckhart is also notable for one of the few uses of feminine imagery throughout Forell’s selections. By using Mary as an analog for the contemplative life (as she sat at Jesus's feet listening) and Martha for that of the active life (as she served the disciples), he comments that the contemplative life is “good,” but the active life is “necessary” (108).

Within the realm of rationalism there appears some of the strongest arguments yet against orthopraxy. In the long standing tradition in ethics of using extremes for arguments, John Locke invokes the “heathen philosophers” who visited the temples so that their priests could perform the appropriate ritual sacrifices. Locke's conclusion remains true for many religions that still place an emphasis on ritual over belief—the priests were adept at sacrifices, services and observing the proper feasts and solemnities, but they “made it not their business to teach [the laity] virtue” (244). Surprisingly, the excerpts selected from Luther show no focus on sola fide.

One of the strongest proponents of putting faith into action included in this work is Johnathan Edwards. He counters the argument that doing good deeds will make one lazy from “resting on one's laurels” by pointing out that the reward for doing a good deed is the desire to continue doing good deeds. Throughout his exhortation, Edwards often invokes James—that same author left out of the selection process by Forell. Edwards is also perhaps the best arguer for social action based on Christian faith. Considering Edwards motivation for action, however, one must question if his method could not be improved. Calling upon the fires of hell as a motivator for right action seems incongruous. Could Edwards message have gotten even more traction among the people had he changed his motivation to the love of God as reward? Behavioral psychology tells us that positive reinforcement is a stronger method for modeling behavior than punishment. While many of these primary sources speak for themselves, this book may have been improved by soliciting essays expounding upon tangents such as these to help tie the selections together into the “big picture” as well as establishing ties between selections.

Private Economics vs. Communal Economics

This dyad of economics also has its roots in the Christian scripture and has remained a contentious issue throughout the centuries. Along with the well-known excerpts from Acts (which Forell did not include), Justin the Martyr is again at the vanguard of early church leaders who spoke out regarding economics issues. For Justin, early Christians lived out a past life without Christ and a new life in Christ. Speaking about these new Chrisitians, Justin says “we who once took most pleasure in the means of increasing our wealth and property now bring what we have into a common fund and share with everyone in need” (35). The idea of communal property obviously did not end with Acts. Tertullian makes use of economics in The Apology but with a decidedly free market flair. By emphasizing the good that Christians do for the Roman economy, Tertullian makes no mention of communal property or the evils of private property. His is a pragmatic approach to economics which almost relegates it to a means without a central end for the Christian. While many theologians disagree over economics, Tertullian is one of the few to speak about it without granting it much importance.

In Gerald Stanley's anti-monarchical treatise, Forell offers a view of communal economics neither tied to the ideal outlined in Acts or Justin's apology nor to the class revolt of the later Marxist thinkers. For Stanley, communism and strict egalitarianism are reactions to the political upheavals of 17^th century England. Stanley offers an idealistic view of Christian ethics. His communist egalitarianism is possible because of the faith of its citizens. This idea of making the impossible possible will become a central concept to later ethicists who do not consider pragmatic idealism an oxymoron.

About a century after Stanley, England saw a new theologian with an economical message that would resonate until the present. John Wesley's three-part personal finance plan of “gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can” is still at the heart of the Euro-American ethos. While many in modernity subscribe to the first tenet while gradually ignoring the remainder, Wesley was clear that the first two steps were means to the end of giving. The gain all you can mantra was advice tied to a warning from Wesley. He explicitly states that “to gain money, we must not lose our souls” (277). Wesley also warns that “we are . . . to gain all we can, without hurting our neighbor” (277). But is this even possible? Is it possible to create wealth from nothing? Can wealth be created without inducing suffering at some point? If the world is sinful and wealth is of this world, is it possible to gain all you can without magnifying sin at the same time? These are questions that Wesley does not address but are central to the legacy of his economic teaching. In a later excerpt, Wesley admits that economic inequality can lead to social inequality. Yet he never proposes that his own teaching to “gain all you can” might be contributing to this unequal distribution. Wesley's legacy finds an ally in American minister William Lawrence whose mantra was “Godliness is in league with riches” (331). Lawrence's rationale often comes straight from the playbook that Marx would later attack. Lawrence plays down the extremely rich as being anything to worry about. These multi-millionaires “are simply trustees of a fraction of the national property” (332). His assertion that “it is only to the man of morality that wealth comes” was surely well received by his affluent Massachusetts congregation, but may be a little less than accurate. Contemporary feminist theologians and environmental ethicists would also have a field day dissecting Lawrence's quasi-sexual imagery when referring to Nature's being “conquered “ by the strength of mankind which will also “open up her resources, and harness them to his service” (330). The fact that such arguments and imagery persist to the present attests to the power of the legacy of Wesley and Lawrence.

The unfortunate either this or that argument was eventually reconciled with the middle road doctrine of the encyclicals of Pope John XXXIII. These writings were able to benefit not only from the centuries of Christian economical ethics that came before it, but also advances in economic theory that occurred in the early and mid-20^th century. As an example of this practical reconciliation of diverse economic theories, the Pope realized that, because of its necessity, the product of agriculture must be priced at a level that all citizens can afford. An unwelcome result of this is that farmers tend to become perpetually poor due to low prices. Because the free market would not be able to support both low prices and reasonable wages for farmers, Pope John XXXIII points out that society must step in and play a role in the economy (458). The distrust in the Invisible Hand to solve all economic problems is tacit. Because of the shift in paradigms from domination to integration, the church is no longer the central power in society. The Pope's message implies that Catholics must be willing to accept their orders from their government as well as from the church, having trust that the government’s law are for the greater good.

Just War vs. Pacifism

The debate over a Christian’s involvement in violence has been an issue for Christian ethics for centuries every bit as much as action/belief and economics have. From the “eye for an eye” of the Old Testament to the “resist not the evil doer” of the new, Christian thought has continually swayed from one side to the other. In Origen’s Against Celsus we see an argument for pacifism that presages the Reformation’s priesthood of all believers. Citing the military disinvolvement of the priests of pagan temples, Origen states “[d]o not those who are priests at certain shrines . . . keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods” (57). He furthers his argument by pointing out that the priests time is better spent praying for the state than physically fighting for it (58). These are both timeless arguments for the Christian rejection of violence. They are soon, however, met with Augustine’s rejection of pacifism. Drawing upon the feast parable in Luke, Augustine views the “compel them to come in” verse as justification for the forced confession of heretics and non-believers (83). The hope was that, after compulsion, the wayward Christian would freely eat of the feast laid out for them. For those who refused coercion, however, the result was a bit more ultimate. Augustine’s greatest protégé Thomas Aquinas built upon the compulsion doctrine to determine that “if a man be dangerous or infectious to the community . . . it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good” (131). For Aquinas, Paul’s verse “a little leaven corrupts the whole lump” is taken to its extreme and Jesus’s command to “resist not the evil doer” is ignored. This bias towards punishment over rehabilitation is seen in Luther’s letter concerning his book on the peasant’s revolt. In it, Luther restates that those peasants who are hardened and refuse to submit should be punished through violent acts such as hewing, stabbing, slaying, and laying about them as though among mad dogs (165).

The Anabaptist wing of the Protestant Reformation is the first school represented in Forell’s selections that witnesses a rebirth of the pacifist ideal. In the Schleitheim Confession of Faith the Swiss Brethren express the interest to shun evil and command sinners to “sin no more,”
but to withhold bodily punishment, for Christians should reject “devilish weapons of force . . . by virtue of Christ, Resist not [him that is] evil” (185). When addressing the question of using violence to protect the innocent, the Confession states “such an attitude [against the use of violence] we ought to take completely” (186). The Anabaptists were not universal, however, in their rejection of violence. In his Sermon Before the Princes, Thomas Munzer calls on the civil leaders to “get [evil doers] out of the way and eliminate them, unless you want to be ministers of the devil rather than of God” (189).

The use of force on behalf of justice finds a clearly codified theory of just war in the Jesuit tradition. Suarez’s Disputation XIII: On Charity lists the three principles of just war as: 1) the need for the war to be prosecuted by a legitimate power, 2) the cause for war must be just, and 3) the method of prosecuting the war must be just (213). Here Suarez provides a use of violence for the sake of justice that must meet conditions that stands in contrast to the 16^th century calls for unconditional force. This concept is repeated in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum where “it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury” (342). While this encyclical speaks largely of social order as opposed to war, the delegating to the government of the duty of punishing injustice is in keeping with Suarez’s ideas.

Conditional war contributed largely to the development of just war theory in the 20^th century. Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich are both represented as supporters of just war. Niebuhr espouses the benefits of the development of the hydrogen bomb, while stating that the military should not rely solely on the threat of its use (404) while Tillich believes pacifism has “theological shortcomings” and that armed revolt is the surest way to social change (416). Both Niebuhr and Tillich seem to fall into the fallacy of “pacifism equals passivism.” They believe that non-violence must also mean inaction. Given the publication date of 1966, it is questionable why Forell did not include any selections from pacifist movements that were successful in promoting social change. While Gandhi’s movement may not have been Christian, the influence on it of Leo Tolstoy’s Christian pacifism is well documented. Yet no excerpts from The Kingdom of God is Within You or What I Believe appear in this work. The rise of non-violent resistance in the Civil Rights movement is not represented either, even though its culmination in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” precedes Forell’s publication by two years.

The extent to which the Second World War influenced Christian theology and ethics also raises the question “did WWII influence Christian thought too much?” If WWII could be imagined as an exercise in statistics, would the data gathered from it be so deviant that it overly influenced the average upon which we base our ethics? If WWII is viewed as an event that deviates from the “historical norm” too greatly, is it worth considering it as an exception that should not dictate a new rule? Much of post-WWII just war theory assumes the inevitability of the rise of Nazism and points to the horrors of the Holocaust and the huge number of lives lost across the globe. These assumptions do much to justify a theory of violence for the sake of justice, but if they are incorrect assumptions (was the rise of Nazism truly inevitable without the use of force?) then such strong support for just war over pacifism is damaged. If we accept the rule to be every war other than WWII and WWII to be the exception, how much would this change Christian theology and ethics from the end of WWII to the present?

While Christian Social Teachings provides a concise yet broad overview of primary sources in Christian ethics, it could be vastly improved with a second edition. The inclusion of more excerpts from mid-20^th century thinkers (perhaps while cutting back or eliminating the number of excerpts from the Monasticism and Romanticism chapters), as well as the soliciting of scholarly essays to help tie together the excerpts thematically could greatly improve this already excellent work. The bulk of Forell’s time undoubtedly went into selecting and organizing excerpts. The time spent on a second edition could take up where the first edition left off and complement the “reader” concept without adding too much to the number of pages.

Book Review: Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebuhr

2012-01-27T15:53:00.002-05:00

I'm reading a couple things in order to add an extra angle to my previous Foucault/financial-meltdown paper. Robert Benne's The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism provides an interesting framework from which to analyze business/economics from a Christian standpoint. His framework uses Niebuhr and John Rawls as the two primary thinkers. Niebuhr's primary work on the relation of the Christian to society is find in Moral man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics.

In some ways, this work is similar to a movie whose trailer tells you the whole story. The title itself basically lays out the thesis -- individuals are much more likely to behave morally than groups. Even though groups are made of a individuals, something happens within that interaction that enables groups to do things the individual members would never approve of. The larger the group, the bigger the difference in morals as well. Niebuhr links this to an innate will-to-power related to his vision of Original Sin. The theological background for much of his ethical concepts can be found in The Nature and Destiny of Man which I have sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read. Suffice it to say that Niebuhr views pride as a sin of idolatry. It is difficult if not impossible to shed this as an individual, but impossible to shed as a society.

Those interested in this book but shy away from it's length (277 pages) would not miss much if they skip some of the chapters in the middle. In my opinion, chapters 5-8 can be skipped without missing much. These chapters offer somewhat dated analyses of class struggle and a very-much-dated capitalist/socialist dichotomy which can become a bit burdensome. This isn't to blame Niebuhr -- at the time it was written, these issues were front page news. I wouldn't expect him to predict the fall of communism and the rise of oligarchic capitalism which has in many ways replaced socialism as the "second in line" to traditional capitalism. The question no longer is capitalist or socialist as much as it is unfettered capitalist or regulated capitalist. I think Niebuhr would laugh at some of the common sense regulations which get labeled capitalist these days.

While Niebuhr's work is definitely located in its time period, I'll close by pointing out one amazingly prescient paragraph. Niebuhr was obviously an influence on Martin Luther King, Jr., but Niebuhr's almost uncanny prediction of the civil rights movement is startling:

The technique of non-violence will not eliminate all these perils [discrimination]. But it will reduce them. It will, if persisted in with the same patience and discipline attained by Mr. Gandhi and his followers, achieve a degree of justice which neither pure moral suasion nor violence could gain. Boycotts against banks which discriminate against Negroes in granting credit, against stores which refuse to employ Negroes while serving Negro trade, and against public service corporations which practice racial discrimination, would undoubtedly be crowned with some measure of success.

A Case of Facebook's Bad Ad Algorithms

2012-01-22T17:41:00.002-05:00

I'm an organist. I have been since I was 15. That's over half my life. I've been a church organist since I was 16. Those first couple years playing in church were rough. If it wasn't "Rock of Ages" or "Amazing Grace" I was probably practice 5 hours a week PER HYMN. But nowadays I sight read hymns. (By the way, my first book of organ compositions is available here or here -- THANKS!)

There are three investments at work here. The first is my parent's investment in organ lessons. The second in my investment in time practicing. The third is a bit more obscure. Those first churches I played for paid me about $25-30 per service (3 hymns times 5 hours each hymn plus an hour and a half service equals . . . well, below minimum wage). I'll say it -- they were cheap churches. But they were also small and/or struggling churches. They didn't mine a mediocre young organist because that's all they could afford. THEY were investing in me as well. Now, they'd never see the return on their investment as an individual congregation, but the church catholic certainly would.

So when I see THIS on my Facebook page:

Well, needless to say I was a bit irked. Now I understand the shift from traditional/organ-based worship services to contemporary/pop-based ones. But this advertisement is targeted at churches who WANT traditional hymns, but they don't want someone to play them. From an individual congregation point of view, this may work out. But where are the young organists going to come from if every small/struggling church buys this CD instead of employing an organist? Organists will simply disappear.

So to all you small and struggling churches out there -- sure, the town E. Power Biggs may laugh at you when you ask if they'll play for what you can afford (and by the way, the $25-30 a service was 20 years ago remember! Please account for inflation :)), but surely there is an inspired pianist out there with an interest in the organ. You could even persuade them to play three hymns a Sunday in exchange for paying for their organ lessons!

PS There are some good comments on the Facebook page of Singing from the Lectionary.

Thesis Now Available Online

2012-01-20T15:50:00.001-05:00

For those extremely bored, my thesis, Just Sex: Sexual Ethics for Twentyfirst Century Christians, is now available online through digital commons. Here is the abstract:

This thesis addressed nonmarital sex from a Christian perspective. It questioned the traditional rule of “no sex before marriage” and attempted to define a broader guideline for moral sex that is not dependent on one's marital status. It drew upon five sources for ethical reflection: Scripture, tradition, secular knowledge, experience, and moral discernment. By examining the Biblical commandments concerning sex, this thesis found that the inspiration behind many of the commandments limiting sex to marriage is androcentric and patriarchal. Because of this, the commandments should no longer be accepted with little reflection. Drawing on James Nelson's work, the importance of mutuality and proportionality in relationships was developed. Proportionality presumes that the level of sexual activity in a relationship is commensurate with the level of commitment. Mutuality combined with proportionality provide the foundation for an ethic that allows for nonmarital sex so long as these two concepts are present.

Romanticizing Outliers

2012-01-16T17:08:00.001-05:00

So I've been watching a lot of How I Met Your Mother since Christmas break started. Netflix streaming has revolutionized watching TV. How else could you watch an entire 6 seasons worth of TV in a couple weeks? (Well OK, my wife watched 6 seasons of Bones in about 1 week -- but she made it a full time job. She doesn't read my blog so I can say that :)).

I love the show. Very funny. Neil Patrick Harris is great. But here's the problem: these people drink a ton and have a lot of sex. And I just said NPH is great -- he has the most sex. As an adult, I watch the program and I realize how silly those parts of it are. But at times while I stream it my teenage stepsons watch with me. And it occurs to me: do they think this is what REAL adults do? Are they going to think that people like Barney really are cool? Or that drinking a lot everyday is normal? That kind of scares me.

Surely there are people that drink that much and have that many sexual partners, but they're outside of the bell curve. They're outliers. Does the curve shift, though, if the bell thinks those outliers are "normal"? Some research shows it does. Market studies on sex on campus are an example (see Premarital Sex in America and here). But if we don't romanticize outliers, who are we going to romanticize? Life inside the bell simply isn't exciting enough, now is it? ;)

Book Review: Blessed to Follow by Martha E. Stortz

2012-01-14T13:16:00.002-05:00

I have run across Stortz's writing before in The Promise of Lutheran Ethics and Faithful Conversations. Her contributions to both were among my favorite essays in each collection. So I added Blessed to Follow: The Beatitudes as a Compass for Discipleship to my Christmas list. Not only did I like Stortz from what I had read previously, but the Sermon on the Mount is central to my faith.

This book is from the Lutheran Voices series which offers shorter, easy to read, and easy to use in group study resources for congregations and individuals. It's also priced right. Of the 10 chapters in this book, three stood out for me. The Introduction is an excellent introduction to Lutheran theology and cites Luther quite a bit given it few pages it takes up. The chapter on "blessed are those who mourn" and "blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" stand out as well not only for their theological insights, but for the personal narratives Stortz weaves into her writing. In many ways, she reminds me of Dorothee Soelle who is able to draw upon medieval poetry and 60s folk music in the same paragraph.

There was one glaring omission. In the "blessed are the peacemakers" chapter, Stortz avoids war and peacemaking almost entirely, deciding instead to focus on interpersonal peace. This is certainly important and central to discipleship, but peace on the national and international level is equally important. I suppose the literature already available on pacifism and peacemaking is already substantial, but a nod to these works could have been sufficient to note how important the cessation of war is to this beatitude.

This subject also raises a few interesting questions for me. Is Jesus's salvific power found in his life or in his death and resurrection? Should we focus on his 3 years of earthly ministry or on his 3 days in death's bondage? I admit this is probably a false dilemma. After all, as Bonhoeffer points out, following the Sermon on the Mount inevitably leads to the cross. But where should our focus be: on attempting as best we can to place our faith in Jesus's message -- the one that preaches the beatitudes, or attempting to place our faith in the cross? I imagine a well-developed personal spirituality would resolve the apparent dichotomy. But I wouldn't know -- I'm developing as opposed to developed.

Book Review: Diary of a Player by Brad Paisley and David Wild

2012-01-11T18:52:00.001-05:00

Just like his songs, this book is a great read. Laugh. Cry. Think. It's all there. And as much as they would like you to think that the main thread running through this book is the guitar, it's not. This is a love story pure and simple. Sure, one of the love interests is the guitar. But there's much more.

Before going on, however, I need to disclose how much I love Brad Paisley. And much like the story he tells in the book, it's his songwriting that speaks to me the most. I've said before that Paisley is the artist with the greatest number of songs that make me cry. Then. Waitin on a Woman. He Didn't Have to Be. Letter to Me. Anything Like Me. Then there's the songs that make me laugh. Online. Ticks. Toilet Song. Mr. Policeman. I'm Gonna Miss Her. Both lists are extremely long for an artist only a decade in his career.

Now back to the book. This book is a love story about a boy and his Papaw. Doesn't sound like a best seller, but this is country music. It's a story about a love for music. And a guitar. About staying up late trying to figure out, note for note, what some old geezer is playing on an old tune that only other old geezers listen to. It's about a teenager playing on a big stage with a bunch of old dudes but not letting it go to his head. It's about a love for tradition -- in both music and values. There's a love interest in songwriting itself and the process one goes through in crafting a tune. There's a love story about his wife Kim. That actually doesn't make up too big of a piece of the pie, though. There's the love of being a father. There's the love for Nashville -- all the people that make up the country music family both musicians and fans. There's a great story about the H20 tour and the Nashville floods. Lastly, there's a beautiful story about a Martin guitar.

This book is crafted in a way very similar to Paisley's songs. The only difference is Wild takes the place of Brad's songwriting partners. The result is equally emotional. Equally old-fashioned wholesome goodness. And equally country.

There's No Such Thing as "Judeo-Christian"

2012-01-08T18:56:00.001-05:00

It's a pet peeve of mine. The use of "Judeo-Christian" as if a Jewish ethos and a Christian ethos could be combined. As if any Jewish or Christian ethos were monolithic to begin with. Besides, usually when people say "Judeo-Christian," what they mean is "Christian." The "Judeo" part is usually added for political purposes.

The best counter to the Judeo-Christian myth that I've seen is by Steven Katz in his very hard to find book Jewish Ideas and Concepts: The Building Blocks of the Jewish Intellectual Tradition (and here). This is an excellent book and provides a concise chance for a Christian to get accurate info on the Jewish rabbinical tradition without the danger of Christian Zionists' poisoning the well.

Katz makes it clear when he says "the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is . . . a 'myth,' and realistically speaking, from the Jewish side at least, there is little on which such a tradition could be built" (ix). Katz first refutes the myth by pointing out that viewing each religion as monotheistic is itself problematic -- particularly to Jews. While Christians view themselves as monotheists, any Jewish attempt to explain the Trinity as monotheism would require some theological gymnastics. Therefore, "it seems accurate to note that Jews and Christians cannot both be correct" (ix). So any Judeo-Christian tradition which attempts to be built on the monotheism of both religions runs into problems off the bat.

He goes on to point out that, while Jews and Christians share the Hebrew bible as canon, Christians read these books specifically through the lens of Christ's salvific power. The story of Creation is read with Jesus being present. Adam is a prototype for Christ, etc. The fallenness of humanity is also a requirement of Christianity if Christ's suffering is going to be needed to redeem us. There is nothing of this sort in Judaism. There may be the need for repairing the world, but humanity itself is not condemned to original sin in the same way as in Christianity. This anthropological difference also makes any attempt at a Judeo-Christian tradition difficult.

The Christian and Jewish concepts of "messiah" are also greatly different. As Katz says, "it is important to state that Judaism and Christianity can never reach any theological rapprochement over this crucial issue because the concepts of 'Messiah' and 'messianism' mean something different in the two religions" (xi). Later he states that "the clearest and most important example of this difference is found in the fact that the personal soteriological function which is at the very center of Christian messianism, i.e., 'Jesus died for our sins,' is totally absent from Jewish messianism, which accords the Messiah no role in the drama of personal salvation and judgement. This is a central refutation to the Christian Zionism so loudly proclaimed by preachers such as John Hagee.

Simply put, Judaism and Christianity share no tradition. Historically, the two have been at odds since Acts. There is no shared historical tradition. There is no shared liturgical tradition. There is a nominal shared tradition in secular philosophy and the arts. There is also a similar moral standard between the two. This gives rise to the "Judeo-Christian values" variant. While slightly more accurate, its reflection of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" myth still makes it fall a bit flat. The only thing truly shared between Judaism and Christianity is the Hebrew bible/Old Testament. But as mentioned above, both traditions read these books from a different perspective.

More important than anything else, this myth of a shared tradition -- especially a shared theological tradition -- can be extremely dangerous when found in the violence prone variant of Christianity manifest in Christian Zionism. As mentioned earlier, Hagee and his ilk being at the center of that apostasy. Simply put, there is not one single shred of Scriptural theology in Hagee's work. I don't care how many verses he puts up on the multi-thousand dollar LED screen behind him.

Book Review: A Concise Economic History of the World from Paleolithic Times to the Present

2012-01-07T12:41:00.001-05:00

I don't always have an inspiration for something to blog about. But I AM always reading. So I might as well offer my casual impression of books as I finish them. It's win/win. Whatever that means.

Just finished A Concise Economic History of the World: From Paleolithic Times to the Present by Rondo Cameron. The third edition takes us to the formation of the EU. I only skimmed the last chapter on 1989-1997 anyway so reading the fourth edition wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Overall, this was a very good book. Initially, I was hoping for more of a history of economic theory. More names like Smith, Marx, Kaynes, Friedman along with how their trains of thought progressed and evolved. While that's not what I got, I still enjoyed it. This would best be described as a history of the world through the lens of economics. Definitely more numbers in this book than theory. I definitely could use the info, though, as it has been years since I've had any coursework on world history.

One beef I have is with the title. This is DEFINITELY not a history of world economics. This is a history of European economics (re: "Western") with attention paid to other countries and regions only when their trajectories intersect the West's. It's also Not a history from Paleolithic times to the present. Cameron spends only a couple pages on the economic history from Paleolithic times to the ancient world. With that said, this book would be MUCH larger, if not a multi-volume work, had Cameron actually covered the entirety of the globe along with a full range of 12,000 years of history. In the end, my beef ends up being focused on his title and not the content of the book. A more accurate title would downplay the global as well as time period.

On Goodreads, I gave this book 3 out of 5 stars. The beef described above was -1 star. The fact that it didn't blow my mind would have given it 4 out of 5. Definitely worth reading. If you decide to, try and get the fourth edition. Let me know what's been added. ;)

What Does a Religion Nerd Get for Christmas?

2011-12-27T10:23:00.001-05:00

I'm excited about three books I got under the tree.

Blessed to Follow: The Beatitudes As a Compass for Discipleship by Marth Ellen Stortz. This one was on my wish list because of the two essays I've read by Stortz that I've really liked. I'm pretty bad about the devotional/prayer side of things and Stortz is very good at them. So I'm hoping this helps get my butt in gear.

The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament by Allen Verhey. I got about a third of the way through this book a year and a half ago before someone left my car unlocked and an enterprising person decided my messenger bag looked like a laptop bag. What I got through the first time I liked very much. Looking forward to being able to finish it this time.

Earth Community, Earth Ethics by Larry Rasmussen. From everything I've heard about this book, it should be a great read. And Rasmussen was the Niebuhr professor of ethics at Union Theological Seminary so it has good provenance. :)

A note about buying books. I use Amazon's wish list to keep track of the books I'm interested in reading. Then instead of looking to buy them new, I look at the used option on Amazon. For instance, Rasmussen is going for 4 cents (plus $4 shipping probably). Verhey $2.81. Stortz $1.89. I've bought many books this way and haven't gotten one yet that isn't in good condition. Even the ones listed "acceptable" are usually closer to Very Good. eBay is another option for finding cheap books. Since there's more rotation in what is offered there, saved searches are convenient.

Is the Tea Party Racist? (Reprise)

2011-12-22T15:34:00.001-05:00

There's no use rehashing old topics -- unless of course new information comes to light. I've previously addressed whether I think the Tea Party has a racist bent. A question I answered in the affirmative.

Now some new articles about Ron Paul's newsletter offer a bit more "evidence" for my assertion. The most recent story references how RP walked off the set after being asked about statements made in a newsletter that bore his name.

This story links back to a previous one with more information: The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters. In this story, newletters bearing RP's name contained statements such as: this one concerning the LA riots "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" and that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a " world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Paul's defense is that he used a ghostwriter and that those inflammatory statements came from him/her (although he isn't able to identify who it was). This is, unfortunately, no excuse in a publication that bears your name and which publishes articles written (supposedly) by you. Hence "ghostwriter." No one is supposed to know the identity of the other writer and the named author bears all responsibility for it.

Anyways, in a bit of comic relief, RP in a Youtube video here actually compares himself to MLK! I wonder if that comparison includes the accusations made in his newsletter . . .

10 Best Books

2011-12-15T16:36:00.001-05:00

I have officially graduated. M5 approved and grades posted. I started in Jan '09 and finished just shy of 3 years later. Looking back on everything I've read, here are the 10 best books I've encountered. Some of them were direct results of research for papers. Some were "for fun."

The Complete Maus by Art Spiegelman -- This is a surprisingly brilliant work. A graphic novel where Jews are depicted as mice, Germans as cats, and Polish as pigs? Seriously? But somehow Spiegelman pulls it off. It's an incredibly moving and creative work.

Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer -- A phenomenally complete review of just war thinking along with case studies. And it's not 800 pages long! Walzer is a great social analyst and casuist. I liked this book a lot. It really turned me from a pacifist to a just war adherent. With that said, even just war criteria pronounce "no" the overwhelming majority of the time!

Embodiment by James Nelson -- Nelson is central to Christian sexual ethics and this is one of his primary works. He does a great job establishing a liberal (i.e. not status-quo) Christianity that doesn't simply jettison Scripture.

In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza -- Piggy-backing on my last comment above, Schussler Fiorenza really surprised and impressed me with her ability to reconstruct early Christianity while relying on Scripture. I figured she would ignore Paul as a misogynist, yet she embraces him and brings out a feminist (i.e. not anthrocentric) reading of Scripture.

Suffering by Dorothee Soelle -- I simply love Soelle. She's probably my favorite theologian. Perhaps Niebuhr is a close second for his pragmatism, but Soelle's emotionally poignant theology with its focus on "the least of these" is great.

The Death and Life of the Great American Public School System by Dianne Ravitch -- This is where my degree and occupation line up. A Religious Studies degree with an emphasis on Christian ethics along with 10 years of public school teaching made me a big fan of Ravitch's book. For any teachers or parents with kids in public school it's a must read.

What Was Asked of Us compiled by Trish Wood -- I believe in the primacy of experience when it comes to making sense of the world. Since we simply can't experience everything, vicarious experience is necessary. Narratives, especially first person, are extremely important to me. This compilation of interviews with soldiers recently returned from Iraq merely supports the importance of saying "no" to war when it is not just.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter -- I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed a book by an Austrian economist this much. Schumpeter not only takes Marx seriously, he unbiasedly conisders Marxism/Socialism as a possibility to capitalism. In the end, he decides on capitalism, but it is refreshing to see a conservative economist for whom "Marx" isn't a bad world. The two paragraphs where Schumpeter lays out Creative Destruction simply blew me away.

I and Thou by Martin Buber -- This is a short book. It could probably be even shorter. While some of the esoteric stuff I didn't get too well, the central premise of relating to others as a "thou" as opposed to an "it" is important for anyone other than anchorites. It proved important to establishing "mutuality" for my thesis.

Love and Justice by Reinhold Niebuhr -- This book is a collection of short essays and letters by Niebuhr. Because of that, it is much more accessible than some of his larger works. Since some of them are "letters to the editor" type compositions, the sense of history if preserved more than in his larger works. Yet the same themes that come up in Moral Man . . ., etc. are still present here.

My Next Project -- Generations in the Making

2011-12-14T18:44:00.001-05:00

I've formerly posted about my great-uncle Emmanuel Hoover. He was a Lutheran pastor in Penna Dutch country and graduated from Gettysburg seminary. His sister, my grandmother, grew up in that same tradition. Even as a very small child, I remember her composing and reading us her poems. It was a gift and form of ministry for her. A true charism.

I've been telling my mother for over a year that we need to digitize her poems and catalog them. Now that I have realized how easily Create Space has made self-publishing (and incentivized the effort via really good royalty schedules!), I have decided to publish my grandmother's poems as well.

It will be a long process. I'll have to type them all into the computer. Catalog them. Decide how to arrange them. Design an interior. Nothing fancy, but more than a simple .txt file! I'm now four poems into the process. I figured I'd share one. Drum up some interest!

Not all of her poems are religious, although I'm sure she wouldn't mind being called a "Christian poet." It seems to me, though, that her best poems are the ones written as devotions or forms of worship. Here's one:

Jesus Makes the Difference

by Mary Jane Baer

Living each moment for Jesus all the live-long day,

Nothing can disrupt your life if you take the time to pray.

We grow older every minute, so take a little time,

Accept the love Christ offers, it will make your life sublime.

There are many who are ill, whose lives are filled with stress.

Life grows sweeter when the love of Jesus is confessed.

Listen to His teachings, there is so much God can give.

All we need is faith to trust Him every day we live.

Trusting in our Savior makes a dull life sweet.

Christ much dwell in every heart to make a life complete.

Faith can overcome temptation -- you alone must choose the way.

When have you worshipped in God’s house? When have you knelt to pray?

This world has many people who reject God’s loving grace.

They are much too busy living at a sinful, reckless pace.

The Bible tells us clearly our days are numbered here.

With Jesus living in each heart, love casteth out all fear.

Being ready is the answer, when in death we close our eyes.

Christ gave His all that we might live, it’s later than we realize.

Giving and serving our Master brings joy to a Christian soul.

Try giving your life to Jesus and make Heaven your ultimate goal.

My Response to Tony Perkins

2011-12-06T16:28:00.001-05:00

Tony Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council and recently put an editorial up on CNN.com called "Jesus was a free-marketer, not an occupier." There's a lot to discuss as a response to this editorial. To start with, I dislike anyone stating what Jesus would think or do as if it were some how predictable. But I suppose "most likely" and "probably" are out of vogue in editorial journalism. Absolutes and for-sures are the thing of the day.

I also think it's silly to pretend we would know how Jesus would act if he were here today. I'm pretty sure I know what his opinion would be on the financial elite that caused the mess back in 2008 -- not a single one of whom has been charged with a crime. Compared to the thousands that have been foreclosed through no fault of their own (yes, I'm purposely leaving out the minority who were foreclosed THROUGH fault of their own -- i.e. they walked away from underwater mortgages or they knowingly bought more than they could afford in hopes of "flipping"). I think he would be disgusted at the dichotomy there.

I also think I know how he'd probably feel about the increasing income polarity in this country. What he would DO however is much harder to identify. Would he march down to the DOJ and demand CEO heads on a platter? Would he put the golden roads of Revelation on the market and use the profits to re-purchase the homes lost to foreclosure and give them freely back to the evicted? Or would be pitch a tent in lower Manhattan? I have no idea.

But now for a look at Mr. Perkins's post in specific. Point/counterpoint style.

Here's the direct quote from Luke: "He called his ten servants, and gave to them ten minas, one mina each (a mina today would be worth around $225), and he then told them to 'Occupy till I come.' " (Luke 19:13, King James Version)

Beware of anyone attempting exegesis using only the KJV. NRSV uses "do business." I know, it doesn't tie in as nicely with the #ows movement, but this verges on cherry picking.

Does it mean take over and trash public property, as the Occupy movement has?

Or as Jesus did to the money changers in the temple?

Does it mean engage in antisocial behavior while denouncing a political and economic system that grants one the right and luxury to choose to be unproductive?

Jesus entire message rests on actions that were viewed as "anti-social." I'll be honest, I don't even understand what the second half of this means. If he's referring to unemployment insurance or welfare, I think it's pretty clear where Jesus would side on those issues. Perhaps that's the stance with the least need to nuance or hedge our wording. Jesus would almost assuredly support unemployment insurance and welfare support.

From a spiritual perspective, the mina in this parable represents the opportunity of life; each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives, and each of us shares the same responsibility to invest our lives for the purpose of bringing a return and leaving a legacy. Jesus gave equal responsibility and opportunity to each of his 10 servants.

This is true. And hard to argue with. I hope Perkins also realizes that what we do with what we're given is not based solely on merit or hardwork. That is clear in the Bible as well. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Out of work people aren't out of work simply because they wasted their "mina." Admitting that would in no way undermine the importance of hardwork.

The fact that Jesus chose the free market system as the basis for this parable . . . He used a free market system to bring a tenfold return on investment.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa . . . Jesus chose the free-market system??? The Jerusalem of Jesus's time was a free-market democracy? That is anachronistic to the point of hyperbole.

Jesus rejected collectivism

Interesting non-sequitur. I'm not sure he Perkins gets here. If anything, the Gospels and Acts point to a world that was moving more towards collectivism than away.

There are winners and yes, there are losers. And wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual.

And if we read the parable in the way Perkins is expecting us to, ENRON would be at the Lord's right hand when his kingdom comes! Again, we should not . . . we MUST not measure merit by success.

Some would argue that such an approach encourages abuses, the likes of which we have seen on Wall Street. While some egregious abuses have taken place, they are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise.

Now Perkins lays out the exception to his rule. Sometimes the winners AREN'T deserving. But then he twists it so that these undeserving winners didn't win because of the system, but because of something else. Apparently he believes that #OWS is against free enterprise. This is a strawman. #OWS seeks justice, not a revolution from free-market capitalism to socialism. They (we) seek a shift from crony capitalism to democratic capitalism. From stockholder-centric management to stakeholder-centric management.

The parable of the king and the servants endorses the principles of business and the free market when properly employed.

Here is where I have to ask, "Who is Tony Perkins?" This man is attempting an exegesis of a parable and is on CNN.com's front page educating the nation to what Jesus is saying. Look no further. Tony Perkins is a career politician and now a lobbyist. He is not educated in theology, homiletics, hermeneutics or any other subject that would help him expound upon what Jesus meant anymore than Joe Blow.

Yes, I believe in the priesthood of all believers. That doesn't mean, however, that we all have the appropriate credentials to be interpreting scripture on the front page of CNN.com.

Sources of Moral Discernment: Quadrilateral or Pentagon?

2011-08-08T11:59:00.001-04:00

The sources considered in Christian ethics are nearly uniform among Christian ethicists. The most common version of the four-part theme is: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. In general, I agree with this “quadrilateral” structure, but I prefer Margaret Farley's less catchy but more precise phrasing of: Scripture, tradition, secular disciplines of knowledge, and contemporary experience. Secular disciplines of knowledge refers mainly to the sciences, both “hard” and “soft,” as well as philosophy. I believe this is a better description than “reason.” Reason, after all, is present regardless of which side of the quadrilateral one is engaging.

I would, however, expand these four common sources and add moral discernment as a fifth source because “Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience [are] only the beginning of deliberation. Deliberation becomes incarnate as Christian communities read and speak, listen and pray” (Martha Ellen Stortz). From a Christian ethical perspective, the ability of God to continue to speak to us should not be denied. One could argue that the living word of God continues to be present through the four common sources, but I believe placing an emphasis on a fifth source of discernment gives the Spirit the place to truly work God's will among us. Considering moral discernment as it's own source also makes available perspectives and concepts that would not be easily visible if considering just the four common sources. If “reason” could be considered the work of the human mind, moral discernment could be considered the work of the Spirit within humanity.

The importance of moral discernment should not be minimized. Many authors stress its significance. Lutheran ethicist Karen Bloomquist has pointed out that the differences of opinion in corporate moral discernment “can give rise to a moral outlook, a common moral substance that emerges through interactions in which our perspectives are enlarged and we ourselves are transformed.” Here I emphasize the latent aspect that Bloomquist mentions. The moral substance that is brought out and the personal transformation that takes place were in a sense always present, yet needed to be uncovered through dialogue. Because of its ability to bring these new insights to light, I believe moral discernment should take its place alongside the four common sources and not be relegated to simply “what we do with” those sources.

The work of the Spirit in moral discernment does not need to be limited to corporate dialogue either. James Nelson points out its personal nature in a slightly more academic sense when stating that “the writer does not write out of having found an answer to the problem, but rather out of having discovered the problem and wanting a solution. And the solution is not a resolution of the problem so much as a deeper and wider consciousness of the issue to which we are carried by virtue of having wrestled with that problem.” Experience itself teaches us that discernment, whether individual or corporate, brings out ideas and solutions that were inconceivable before. The place for moral discernment also has a distinctly Pauline air to it. It was Paul who stated “not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:5-6).

On My Bookshelf

2011-07-25T08:57:00.002-04:00

Taking a cue from Sojourners, the 10 books closest at hand/reached for most often. Unfortunately the bookshelf that is described in the link has been on my want list for months. I still have to move to access most of my books. :(

Top 10 (in order from closest to farthest):

1) Chicago Manual of Style -- gotta have it real close for thesis writing. You get the common style points memorized quickly, but there's always those exceptions . . .

2) Lutheran Book of Worship and 3) With One Voice -- For choosing hymns.

4) Just Love -- Just happens to be the one of the many thesis sources on my desk right now.

5) Love Does No Harm 6) Promise of Lutheran Ethics 7) Premarital Sex in America -- These are not on my desk, but are the ones I reach for the most for citations.

8) The New Oxford Annotated Bible -- For getting my scripture on.

9) Love and Justice -- A great collection of shorter writings regardless of topic.

10) Doesn't technically fit as a "book on my desk," but I rely heavily on the internet for stuff like dictionaries, Constitution, free books through my Kindle (such as Luther), this site because I need to be able to spell Schüssler correctly, and probably the most used to go in conjunction with #2 and #3, Revised Common Lectionary.

Chapter Outline of My Thesis

2011-07-19T19:56:00.001-04:00

I. “On the Ethics of Free Milk: From Torah to Today”

This chapter will introduce the thesis and examine the morality of premarital sex from scripture and the present. It will provide an overview of sexual injunctions in the books of Moses, the Gospels, and the epistles while also examining contemporary concepts of sex such as recent developments in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It will also introduce the themes of delayed marriage, hookups, cohabitation, and serial monogamy.

II. “Purity and Property Contracts to Egalitarianism: Marriage in Scripture and Modernity”

This chapter will examine the ideal marriage as described in scripture as well as the rules and traditions surrounding it. It will describe how marriage was viewed as a property transaction between a father and a future husband with the need to guarantee the “new vs. used” nature of the goods being exchanged.

This contrasts with the modern ideal of marriage includes mutual love, submission, and intimacy. The contractual nature of marriage, if still evident at all, is found taking place between the husband and wife as opposed to the husband and father of the bride This will draw heavily on Nelson, Gudorf, and St. Paul.

III. “21^st Century Sex: To Infinity and Beyond”

While much has been written on sex throughout historical periods, this thesis will focus on contemporary ideas of sex – specifically from the second half of the 20^th century to the present. This period has seen a liberation of sexuality. Conservatives have often turned to a slippery-slope argument to counter this trend. It is important to consider at what point liberalization becomes self-righteousness or idolatry and to define the limits of what is permitted. While this thesis will argue for yet another “deregulation” of sex, the same conditions that should apply to sex for non-married couples should also apply to married couples. Thus, it could also be considered an increase in regulation. This thesis will also examine how a focus on egalitarian relationships could help increase “sanctification” as opposed to decrease it.

IV. “Conclusion: Returning to Scripture”

As mentioned above, while looking to scripture for approval is not feasible, holding conclusions up to the light of scripture for evaluation is important. Instead of prima scriptura I'm actually attempting an ultima scriptura in the hopes that it will strengthen a hermeneutic of suspicion and negate any hermeneutic of consent I may have. This section will be taking my hypothesis on nonmarried sex and seeing if it can hold water against scriptural injunctions against it.

Done with the I of I/O

2011-07-19T10:17:00.001-04:00

Finally done with all the reading I wanted to do for the thesis. I hope I took good notes. Now onto "coding" them so I can retrieve citations easier. I use a program that was designed for qualitative data analysis, but it works pretty well for what I need. I'll go through all the quotes I've gotten from reading, and code them according to argument and chapter. With WeftQDA I can just select an argument or chapter and it will show me every quote that fits. Possibly more work than it needs to be, but it works for me.

So far, there seem to be three broad social narratives that contribute to the topic (premarital sex in case you've forgotten).

Since the end of WW2 or so, the ideal marital relationship has been based on romantic and intimate love. The concept of a "soul mate" gets introduced and (probably) greatly affects peoples' decision in a marriage partner.
Going back a little further, we've seen an increasing "deregulation" in sex. This (probably) started with first wave feminism, proceeded to homosexuality, and now gets turned onto premarital sex. Slippery slope arguments abound and often with good reason.
Marketing geniuses have found out how easy it is to sell a mundane product by using sex. This commodification of sex has transferred sex from something relational (something that happens between two people) to a product to be consumed (relationship has no part in the equation--solely orgasm [or at least the hope for one]).

Bibliography Finished

2011-07-12T12:45:00.001-04:00

And almost done reading it all . . . hence my lack of recent posts. For those interested, here it is:

REFERENCES

Althaus, Paul. 2007. The ethics of Martin Luther. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Barkan, Steven E. 2006. Religiosity and premarital sex in adulthood. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45, no. 3: 407-417.

Bloomquist, Karen L. and John R. Stumme, eds. 1998. The promise of Lutheran ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Childs, James M., Jr., ed. 2003. Faithful conversations: Christian perspectives on homosexuality. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

------. 2006. Ethics in the community of promise: Faith, formation, and decision. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Chilstrom, Herbert W. and Lowell O. Erdahl. 2001. Sexual fulfillment: For single and married, straight and gay, young and old. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Countryman, L. William. 1988. Dirt greed & sex: Sexual ethics in the New Testament and their implications for today. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Ellison, M. Mahan, and Kelly Brown Douglas, eds. 2010. Sexuality and the sacred: Sources for theological reflection. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. 2002. Journey together faithfully, part one: A message on sexuality, some common convictions. N.p.: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

------. 2003. Journey together faithfully, part two: The church and homosexuality. N.p.: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

------. 2006. Journey together faithfull, party three: Free in Christ to serve the neighbor, Lutherans talk about human sexuality. N.p.: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

------. 2009. A social statement on human sexuality: Gift and trust. N.p.

Farley, Margaret A. 2006. Just love: A framework for Christian sexual ethics. New York: Continuum.

Fortune, Marie M. 1995. Love does no harm: Sexual ethics for the rest of us. New York: Continuum.

Gudorf, Christine E. 1994. Body, sex, and pleasure: Reconstructing Christian sexual ethics. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press.

Harrell, Daniel. 2003. There's no such thing as premarital sex. Regeneration Quarterly 8, no. 2 [October]: 20-21.

Kaczor, Christopher. 2002. Martial acts without marital vows: Social justice and premarital sex. Josephinum Journal of Theology 9, no. 2 [March]: 310-319.

Keane, Philip S. 1977. Sexual morality: A Catholic perspective. New York: Paulist Press.

Lichter, Daniel T. and Zhenchao Qian. 2008. Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of Marriage and Family 70, no. 4 [November]: 861-878.

Loader, William. 2010. Sexuality in the New Testament: Understanding the key texts. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

McLean, Stuart D. 1985. The covenant and pre-marital sex. In Liberation and ethics: Essays in religious social ethics in honor of Gibson Winter, ed. Gibson Winter, Charles Amjad-Ali, and W. Alvin Pitcher, 111-122. Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Nelson, James B. 1978. Embodiment: An approach to sexuality and Christian theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.

Regnerus, Mark and Jeremy Uecker. 2011. Premarital sex in America: How young Americans meet, mate, and think about marrying. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Regnerus, Mark, Richard Ross, and Donna Freitas. 2010. What's the best way to encourage people to save sex for the covenant of marriage? Christianity Today, January 2010.

Sassler, Sharon. 2010. Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family 72 [June]: 557-575.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 1983. In memory of her: A feminist theological reconstruction of Christian origins. New York: Crossroad.

Thatcher, Adrian. 2003. Norms, rules and steadfast love: Towards an inclusive theology of intimacy. Theology and Sexuality 9, no. 2: 230-241.

Tracy, Steven. 2006. Chastity and the goodness of God: The case for premarital sexual abstinence. Themelios 31, no. 2 [September]: 54-71.

Waite, Linda J. and Kara Joyner. 2001. Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity. Journal of Marriage and Family 63 [February]: 247-264.

Wolfe, Regina Wentzel and Christine E. Gudorf. 2008. Ethics and world religions: Cross-cultural case studies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Zimmerman, Kari-Shane Davis. Hooking up: Sex, theology, and today's “unhooked” dating practices. Horizons 31, no. 1:72-91.

Neck Deep in Thesis

2011-06-13T20:29:00.001-04:00

I've been up to my eyeballs in sexual ethics reading. Hence the no-posting for awhile. Here's what I've read so far. I admit to a compulsion to having to read all of a book or article. I'm told by successful academics that this will not be possible in the future, but so long as I'm a part-time student, I will give in to my vice and read from the roman numeral pages to the end.

Finished:

Ethics in the Community of Promise: Faith, Formation, and Decision by James Childs

Not a sexual ethics book, but I wanted to make sure to read something specifically by a Lutheran on ethics in general. Very good book. I'm a fan of Childs and this book provides an easy to follow method for moral discernment.

Sexuality in the New Testament: Understanding the Key Texts by William Loader

I'll be honest, I don't remember much of this book. Definitely dry. Definitely exegesis. I'm glad I took notes for later perusal.

Body Sex and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics by Christine Gudorf

Full disclosure, Dr. G is my thesis advisor. That said, this is one of my top 3 books so far. Excellent look at Christian ethics from a liberal Christian point of view that is still well informed and well argued. Mutual pleasure is at the heart of the work. I can dig it.

Dirt Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today by William Countryman

This is the second driest read of the group. It's very good exegetically and connects the dots between purity, property, and sex. I can appreciate his general findings (that anything related to purity laws is not binding on Christians; that most of the sexual injunctions in the Bible have a property right reasoning), but cannot agree with some specific findings (on bestiality and polygamy for instance).

Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology by James Nelson

Add this to the canon. It's that good. An excellent look at late 20th century Christian ethics. Only parts of it appear dated (written in 1978, it still has to address some of the "sexual revolution" things). Worth reading by anyone regardless of their level.

In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza

Excellent excellent excellent. I read this for an overview of her hermeneutics of suspicion methodology. But like I said, I had to read the whole thing. What was very surprising is that she didn't throw out Paul and the seeming "misogynist" authors, but rather embraced them and explained how those excerpts seemingly subordinating women could be reinterpreted based on the social ethos of the time to support a "discipleship of equals."

Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old by Herbert Chilstrom and Lowell Erdahl

Bingo! Sexual ethics AND specifically Lutheran. Unfortunately this does not live up to Gudorf or Nelson -- but it's also directed at a different audience. No footnotes, no acadespeak, etc. It's a good book if you don't want all that extra stuff. But if you want more than meat and potatoes it might not live up to expectations.

Currently reading:

Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics for the Rest of Us by Marie Fortune

This is where I'm at now. On chapter 3. So far I am very impressed by her methodology. With rule-based ethic and situation ethic on either pole, she argues for an ethic of moral agency which approaches discernment from principle rather than set in stone rules. I think I'll continue liking this through the end.

Income Polarization and Asking the Right Question

2011-04-26T18:02:00.001-04:00

An article on Yahoo News today addressed the truth to Obama's statements that the rich have been getting richer while the poor get poorer (Economic Study). The article is based on Richard Burkhauser's work. One of his articles that has already been published is similar to the Yahoo article. The one specifically referenced in Yahoo, however, is still coming down the pike.

The article that is already available is "Presidential Address: Evaluating the Questions That Alternative Policy Success Measures Answer" (a bit of an unwieldy title, huh?). Burkhauser makes an important point that at the bottom of every answer is a question, and how one asks the question often greatly affects the answer. So the question "are the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer?" is a great question for casual conversation, but when it comes to actually answering it, things get much more complicated. Specifically, how should we measure how rich or poor someone is? Usually we just look at income, but as Burkhauser points out, this can often be too simplistic.

Burkhaused has an issue with the convenient use of the "bottom 90% and top 10%" as definitions of rich and poor. He prefers to use quintiles (5 groups separated by 20%). Sounds good. Another problem Burkhauser has is with using just income as a judge. He says:

However, this measure of
income growth does not recognize that tax units are a subset of households and that
income sharing can occur across tax units within households. (For example, two
unmarried persons who live together must file their income tax forms separately.
Doing so makes them two separate sharing units in the Piketty and Saez world of
column 1, but they are nevertheless likely to share their market income between
them in their single household.)

Again, he may be onto something. He also believes we should include "in-cash government transfers." Taking these three new additions to the measure of rich or poor:

When we then acknowledge that households are of different sizes and that the
income available to a given individual will be affected by the number of persons in
his or her household (returns to scale are not perfect) and adjust our measure of
income in column 4 accordingly, we find that the increase of the median person’s
household size–adjusted pre-tax, post-government in-cash income increased by 23.6
percent, more than seven times the growth in column 1. The definition of income
used in column 4 is the one most often used in the United States poverty, income,
and income inequality literatures.

OK, I can dig it. Maybe those sounding the alarm about income polarization are a bit hyperbolic. Burkhauser then goes on to add fringe benefits to the mix. This makes income polarization even less likely.

So in addressing what the proper question should be, Burkhauser has revised the conventional approach and added some important ways to better judge income polarization. But has he arrived yet at the right question? No where does Burkhauser address hours worked per week. If the lower 20% are working twice as many hours a week for an increase in his revised income measure of 26.4%, that isn't a real increase. Or if a middle income earner spent 3 years going to school to get a degree and spent $60k of their own money to increase their human capital, that too must be included in the question. Other examples would be easy to come up with.

I appreciate Burkhauser's casuistry, but two things must go along with his revisions. One is the realization that his question still hasn't gotten to the bottom of the Question. And secondly, the more details and specifics that are included (and even those which are left out) can make it much more difficult to tell if a researcher is cherry-picking data in order to arrive at a pre-arranged solution. I am in no way implying that is what Burkhauser has done, simply that it needs addressed.

Not Capitalism, but capitalisms

2011-04-24T19:35:00.001-04:00

One pet peeve of mine is that when people are critical of the economic structure of the US, the free-market capitalists say "but that's not capitalism." As if the macroecnomic situation in this country were merely a case of semantics. Call it by another name and everything is fine, just don't call it capitalism.

Well obviously what we have in this country is capitalism. Vietnam has capitalism as well. So does England. Heck even China is approaching what could be called capitalism. There is no Capitalism with a capital C. There are merely various capitalisms.

At the heart of this argument is the difference between ideal types and reality. Some hold the Smith view of capitalism as the only ideal type for capitalism. Anything else demands another name. This is simply semantic hairsplitting. There will never be a real life incarnation of Smith's capitalism -- so making it the benchmark to judge whether an economy is "capitalist" or not is moot. What exist in the world are real-life versions of capitalism. And there are many of them. They are certainly not the same, but they are all capitalism.

(As an aside, I would offer the theory that economies and finance are socially constructed realities. Since all societies differ, their forms of economy will differ. This also means that what works well for one society may not work well for another. Hence the failure of exporting American capitalism to the developing world.)

I'm currently finishing Joseph Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work (I got it used for $2.25 on eBay and little did I know was signed by the author :O) and then moving onto James Childs's Greed (connecting the economic and Christian ethics dots) before hitting thesis reading full time. In his preface, Stiglitz says much more eloquently what I've been trying to say:

There is also a growing recognition that there is not just one form of capitalism, not just one "right" way of running the economy. There are, for instance, other forms of market economies . . . that have led to quite different societies, marked with better health care and education and less inequality. . .. And when there are alternatives and choices, democratic political processes should be at the center of the decision making -- not technocrats.

Palm Sunday vs Passion Sunday

2011-04-16T08:24:00.001-04:00

It's the time of year for my annual lectionary rant. There are very few events in the New Testament that we can place chronologically. Outside of Holy Week and Pentecost, I can't think of any off-hand. We know that Jesus entered Jerusalem on a Sunday around Passover. We know he was crucified on Friday and that he rose the next Sunday. Yet the lectionary conflates Palm Sunday with Good Friday. I hate that.

The entry into Jerusalem is prophetic, glorious, and inspiring. It is usually relegated to a short march around the church waving palms and saying "Hosannas." Then the congregation enters to All Glory Laud and Honor and that's the end of it. From then on out it's about the events of Good Friday.

Then Good Friday service comes around and the readings are about . . . Good Friday. Yet we just heard this in its entirety on Sunday. Why the redundancy?

The only reason I can think of is that the expert developers of the lectionary were aware that Good Friday services were sparsely populated. Hearing the Passion is certainly important. So they made sure to put it on Palm Sunday so more people would hear it. This is a cop-out of an excuse. Admittedly, I haven't seen an official excuse offered.

It's time we returned the readings to their chronologically appointed days. Palm Sunday is for Hosannas and Blessed is He's. Good Friday is for the Passion. On top of this, everyone should be involved in a movement to get people to church on Good Friday (that is -- people who are church goers). Good Friday services are rightly solemn, but many times unnecessarily boring. Let's keep the solemn but work on the boring. Perhaps even a reintroduction of the Stations of the Cross (egads! But the Reformation!?)?

Here are some other blogs that pick up the topic -- and probably do a better job of it:

Rev Out Loud
Unlikely Conversation: A Lectionary Blog
Old Worship New

What Is Consent After All?

2011-04-14T17:29:00.001-04:00

This came from an assignment where I was supposed to say two pages worth of something interesting about a Foucault interview ("Politics and Ethics: An Interview" for those really interested). I don't know much about Hannah Arendt, but the interviewer asked Foucault about her theory of power compared to his. That part isn't all that interesting, just the very last part of his answer when, concerning power relations, he says “perhaps one must not be for consensuality, but one must be against nonconsensuality.” This is a response to Arendt's concept of consensual power, but I believe there are many questions that can be mined from it. How do we define consent? Is consent the presence of a “yes” or the absence of a “no”? This is a foundational question regarding the definition of consent that I believe is immediately difficult to answer.

If we take this question and turn to a topic Foucault was fond of, sex, we can complicate things even further. In the realm of sexual relations, how is consent obtained? Do the conditions under which it is obtained affect the nature of consent, or even whether consent exists at all? Does the presence of a “yes” with an understanding of a quid pro quo in some way diminish the “yes”?

“Honey I'd like to do x tonight.”
“Eww, I hate x.”
“Well if you let me do x tonight I'll let you do y tomorrow night.”
“OK that's fine.”

From quid pro quo it is not a big jump to coercion. Is the absence of a “no” when obtained under coercion consent? “I don't know how much longer I can hold out baby.” Do threats, even if implicit, of leaving a relationship if sex is not consented to diminish the “amount” of consent when it is given? And from coercion it is not a large jump at all to exploitation. Can a 14 year old Greek boy truly give consent to a 28 year old man? Can a young girl in rural France consent to a “harmless” game of curdled milk? At what point does coercion become exploitation?

These are all questions that I believe would have been fascinating to hear Foucault address in the course of this interview. I believe they continue to be important today – possibly even more so. Given the amount of questionably consensual sex on college campuses, these questions are not merely exercises in theory – they are materially important. I think it is important, however, that in trying to answer them we do not lose sight of the specific in attempting to provide broad rules of conduct.