(Do they have “townships” in your neck of the woods?  My family and I thought the word “township” was utterly laughable when we first encountered the term upon moving to Pennsylvania.)

You didn’t know there was a “no blondes” rule, you respond.

Doesn’t matter, says the police person, by entering the township you consented to all the township’s laws.

You’re thrown in jail and fed on bread and water for the rest of your life, all because you foolishly consented to the decisions made by the township’s “Council of Elders,” without even knowing it.

____

Now, from last time, you might suspect that I would disagree with the police person’s use of the word “consent.”  To consent to something, I argued, you have to be aware of it, and then purposefully (at least at some low level) allow it.

Nevertheless, the police person is right that consent is something passive.  It is an allowing-something-to-happen (e.g., allowing someone else to take some action, or someone else to make some decision), not a making-something-happen.

____

Then, Jeff offered the helpful distinction between “consenting to” and “giving consent to.”

(Why are you so worried about words? you might ask. Isn’t this all just semantics?  No, I respond.  I’m worried about how people live and act.  I’m trying to understand the living and acting that the word “consent” points us to.  We’re getting at something through the word, and people have built entire countries [e.g., the USA] on it.  Therefore, I want to figure out what real-world phenomenon/phenomena we’re referring to through it.)

____

We mean by “giving your consent to someone” something much more active than what we mean by “consenting to something.”

The other person is still the initiator of the action or decision to which you are consenting, but you are not merely like a judge saying, “I’ll allow it.”

To give consent is more like acquiescing or capitulating, but without the sense that you regret what you’re giving-in-to.

____

To give consent to someone regarding something, you have to have the power/authority to stop it.  Without your “approval,” whatever “it” is couldn’t happen.

In constrast, the fact that I consent to the laws of my city makes no difference in whether they get “enforced on” me.

I can withdraw my consent to the laws against theft and defacing property, but the police are still not going to let me get away with shoplifting or vandalism.

____

Also, Jeff pointed out that people seem to use the phrase, “I had no choice” in two different ways.  But I’ll get to that next time.

Are you excited?

Well, you should be.  This is the chapter from which theologians after Paul developped the Doctrine of Original Sin.

But I’ll deal with that when I come to it.

Right now, it’s time for overview.

____

In chapter 5 of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul pushes his case for unity back beyond Abraham — the physical ancestor of some of his listeners, and the spiritual ancestor of all of them — to Adam — the physical ancestor of them all.

Don’t believe in Adam?  Read up on Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitocondrial Eve before you draw extremely skeptical conclusions.  (And remember that Wikipedia’s job is just to get you started, not to tell you the “current state of research.”)

____

Paul’s argument: the fact that we’re all made righteous in the same way points us once again to the fact that we’re all in the same boat, and got there in the same way.

That we have all become part of the family of Abraham through the righteousness that is by faith reminds us that we are all part of the family of Adam.

“You can’t escape the fact that you’re family, you Romans!” Paul is saying.  “Now, live like it!”

____

^{[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5: Intro ]}

However, the topic is extremely relevant to anyone in a democratic society — especially anyone in this American democratic republic — given that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent” (not the decision!) “of the governed.”

So, what is the difference between consenting and deciding?

____

First, for the etymology of the word “consent”:

It would seem to be derived from Latin (con-sent), meaning essentially to “with feel,” to “feel with.”

That’s helpful, insofar as it emphasizes that there always have to be two “agents” when consent happens: the person consenting, and the person to whom consent is “being given” (you might say).

____

Second, for synonyms.  “Consent” is somewhere between “agree” and “acquiesce.”

“Agree” is an active word (it means to actively take up a position also occupied by someone else.)

“Acquiesce” is a passive word (it means to allow, after initially being resistant to allowing, some other person to act or decide).

“Consent” likewise has the passive sense of allowing or going along with the action or decision of someone else; however, unlike “acquiesce,” to “consent” does not necessarily imply that you were originally “not on board with” the action or decision.

____

In consent, therefore, there are always two persons.  One person who is the source of an action or decision, and another who consents to that action or decision.

To consent to something (to an action or decision) is to treat the original source of agency as being outside yourself.

The person consenting to an action or decision is not the originator of the action or decision, but instead at least allows — and perhaps even accepts — the action or decision.

____

However, there is something active about consenting, even though it is passive in contrast deciding.

To consent to something, you have to be cognitively aware of it, and make at least a vague “decision” about whether or not to consent to it.

For example, a loaf of bread in a plastic bag is sitting on the table, under the ceiling fan.  Part of the bag is moving about in the breeze from the fan.

I am allowing this to happen, since I could stop it if I wanted to.  But before I noticed that it was happening, and decided not to stop it (it’s not bothering me or anyone else, so why should I?), I wasn’t consenting to it.  (I wasn’t even aware of it, much less aware of it as something over which I had any say.)

____

Thus, consenting is more than simply allowing something to happen.  It is consciously and purposefully allowing something to happen.

But it is still an allowing, rather than an actually doing.  The action or decision allowed doesn’t come from the consenter, but instead comes from someone or something else.

With respect to the action or decision consented to, the consenter is passive.

____

More to come.

____

So, Paul has argued three things in Romans 4:

1. Making you righteous was never the point of the Law.  You don’t become righteous by following the Law, since you’re not righteous (at the moment) because you’ve already broken the law.  (Not murdering anyone from here on out doesn’t make someone suddenly not guilty of murdering someone in the past!)
2. Becoming righteous through faith historically preceded the Law.
3. Abraham became righteous through faith, not to save his soul, but in order to enable God’s promise to him to come about.  (God had promised that Abraham would, through his descendants, inherit the whole earth [Paul says], but the only way this would be possible is if his descendants were all of those, both Jew and Gentile, who joined him in becoming righteous through faith.)

____

In other words, Paul is explaining soteriology not to get people saved — nor to add another section to his Systematic Theology — but to get the members of the ethnically-divided Roman church to see all other members as descendants of Abraham (as siblings, as family), regardless of ethnicity.

Paul is explaining to them all that the fact that they have all already been made righteous through faith means that they have no excuse to see themselves as better than their fellow church members (who come from “the other side” of the Jew/Gentile divide).

And thus, Paul is laying down his argument for church unity.

Along the way, we have seen Paul describe what faith is, and seen how simple/easy/unremarkable a thing it is to “do”/”have.”

____

^{[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3| 4: Intro, 1-8, 9-17, 18-25, Conclusion | 5 ]}

(It’s usually pastors who do this.)

Conservatism is better than liberalism, because conservatism actually understands the truth about human nature, and liberalism is naive about human nature.

(I know, I know.  I’m supposedly not a conservative.  I’m more a classical liberal or a libertarian or something.  Whatever.  I come from a conservative background, and I’m more conservative than liberal, for present purposes.)

____

But that’s too vague.  What is it really trying to say?  I think it’s something like this:

Liberals think people are fundamentally good at heart — thus, you should expect people to be selfless — while conservatives think people are fundamentally selfish — thus, you should expect people to be selfish.

____

Thus, conservatism will claim that you should set things up (”adopt policies”) so that all the selfishnesses “cancel out” (whether by limiting each other, or by meeting the selfish goals of others in the process of meeting their own goals).

That is, conservatism is expressed in a preference for “competition” (between three co-equal branches of government, between entrepreneurs in a free-market economy, etc.).

Competition uses the selfishness of each actor to limit the effects of the selfishnesses of others, and gives each actor a selfish reason to work with other selfish actors (thus helping others in the process of helping themselves).

_____

Liberalism, on the other hand, will claim that you should set up your political and economic systems to cooperate with people’s natural desire to give to each other (to be selfless).

You should have government programs to help the rich share their money with the poor, and to help businesses share their money with their communities.

You should expect people to be selfless, and thus should set up your political and economic systems so that people know what is expected of them.

____

For conservatism, people “fail to meet expectations” in two ways:

First, by being stupid, and not actually doing what’s in their own self-interest.

Second, by being selfless, and doing what’s in other people’s best interest.

Failing in the first way shows you can’t even rise to the base level of human existence.

Failing in the second way shows that you have moved beyond the base level of human existence.

____

Therefore, if you don’t like getting taxed for welfare programs, that’s to be expected, and conservatives will try not to make you angry (it’s not in their self-interest for you to be angry at them).

And if you freely give to charities’ welfare programs, that’s a pleasant surprise.

____

For liberals, on the other hand, people can “fail to meet expectations” in only one way:

They can fail to be selfless by being selfish (doing what they think is in their own self-interest).

Therefore, you’re expected to like getting taxed for welfare programs, and if you don’t . . . well, you’re just not living up to legitimate expectations.

And therefore you deserve the pain of having your money taken from you against your will.

____

Therefore, from the conservative point of view, “liberalism” will always mean things like “government coercion, theft, and violence,” because liberalism expects everyone to be something they’re not, and thus is willing to force everyone to live up to its expectations.

And, from the liberal point of view, “conservatism” will always mean things like “government promotion of selfishness, greed, and exploitation,” because conservatism (seems to!) want(s) everyone to be selfish, and constantly at each other’s throats in a competition to see who can make the most money.

____

But, if I could put in a good word for the conservative side, all conservatism (at least in its libertarian, classical liberal strains) is claiming is that a political and economic system based on a realistic understanding of what human nature is, is more likely to work than one that is based on an ideal.

Given that people are generally selfish, what way of setting things up is most likely to work out best?

I had claimed, you see, that “a culture is a set of fundamental decisions about how to look at a broad range of things in life (food, friends, family, country, religion, government, the arts, clothing, careers, entertainment, living quarters, transportation, etc)” that “[i]n large part, no one ever makes,” but rather “consents to.”

____

In response to Jeff’s question, I tried to provide a couple examples of decisions that he, as a member of the culture to which I also belong, makes without actually making them.

What I was trying to do is to get at the difference between decision and consent.

____

At its root, the difference between deciding and consenting, is that when you consent, you’re going along with a decision someone else has made.

However, the more I think about it, the more I see how many different types of phenomena fit that description.

For example, to go along with another person’s decision could mean:

1. to decide to make the same decision she had made,
2. to follow her in making the same decision (without consciously deciding to),
3. to “accept” a decision as having been “made for you,”
4. to follow a decision without even realizing a decision has been made,
5. to make a “typical” or “normal” or “usual” or “expected” choice amongst several options (with or without explicitly considering the other options, or with or without even realizing there are other options),
6. etc.

____

Therefore, I’m going to take a post or three in the future to work out, for myself, a good, thorough description of all the possible situations in which one could say that someone has somehow made a decision without actually making it (whether by consenting to it, or by making a decision about it, or by imitating it, etc.).

In other words, I’m going to be trying to work out what precisely is the difference between decision and consent.

Romans 4:18-25 (NRSV)

18 Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was said, “So numerous shall your descendants be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 Therefore his faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

23 Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

____

4:18-25 — Abraham didn’t waver in his faith, eh?  What about the whole having a son with his wife’s servant, then?

Unless Paul is just completely pulling his hearers’ legs — which he couldn’t get away with, given the Jewish members of his audience, and their familiarity with the story of Abraham — he must simply be describing Abraham’s attitude in the conversation in question.

____

In other words, Paul must be giving us an explication here of what it meant for Abraham to have faith as he listened to God make the promise to him, such that in the very next verse, the writer (whether Moses or the original source Moses “edited” [see Rethinking Genesis, by Duane Garrett]) could declare the faith Abraham had just had/displayed as leading Abraham to be reckoned righteous.

In still other words, what Paul is doing here is giving us a description of Abraham’s experience of faith, to help us get a better picture of what faith is like.

____

And I think v. 21 is a great summary of what faith is: “being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.”  Which, as I’ve argued before, is nothing really to be proud of, or to think is even that big of a deal.

God is God.  God can do whatever God wants. Therefore, who could really doubt — if she or he actually took the time to think about it — that “God [is] able to do what he [has] promised”?

God promises that we will be saved if we have faith in/believe in God/Jesus (e.g., vv. 23-24).

What does it mean to have faith?  To be convinced that God is able to do what he has promised.

____

But why would God promise something that God couldn’t do?

First, God is omnipotent, and therefore can do anything that’s actually a “thing” (i.e., anything that’s not self-contradictory [e.g., "both being and not being good"] or senseless [e.g., "making a rock to heavy for God to lift"]).

Second, God is not a liar, so God wouldn’t make false promises (see Numbers 23:19, which is perfect for this context!).

So, being convinced that God can do what God promises is not that big of a deal.  It’s not that hard.  It’s just a matter of reminding yourself of what and who God is.

And when you do that, you can’t help but be convinced, any more than you can help but be convinced that rocks on earth fall down in most situations (once you remind yourself of what a rock is, and what gravity is, and that most rocks on earth are not in the middle of being thrown upward by people, tornadoes, or hurricanes).

____

^{[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3| 4: Intro, 1-8, 9-17, 18-25, Conclusion | 5 ]}

____

Romans 4:9-17 (NRSV)

9 Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation. 16 For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

____

4:9-11a — Paul here makes a fascinating philosophical move.  By pointing out that Abraham was declared righteous because of his acceptance of God’s promise (his “faith”) before he performed the central act of identifying himself as a Follower of the Law (circumcision), Paul argues that righteousness by faith historically precedes, and therefore is logically independent of, becoming a Follower of the Law.

By showing that the Law hasn’t always been the way to become righteous, but was preceded by another way of becoming righteous, Paul makes the Law look more limited in scope, more temporally-bound, more arbitrary.  Therefore, he makes it more difficult for any of his hearers to simply assume that the Law is the only way to become righteous.

____

Now, as I argued last time, it’s obvious that following the Law isn’t how you become righteous, since you’re not righteous (and therefore need to become righteous, to get justified) because you’ve already broken the Law.

Keeping the Law from here on out doesn’t change the fact that you broke the Law before.  Therefore, the point of the Law isn’t to make you righteous (i.e., it’s point is not to help you make up for those times where you’ve broken it).

What Paul is doing here, therefore, is to add another argument to that line of reasoning, in order to get his hearers to stop thinking that the Law somehow allows them to change the past.

Not only can’t following the Law now change the fact that you haven’t always followed it in every one of its aspects before — i.e., it can’t make you righteous — but Abraham became righteous before he even entered on the path (through circumcision) of Following the Law.

____

4:11b-12 — Now, Paul asks what was the point of Abraham’s becoming righteous before becoming circumcised.  Was it to get him into heaven or save him from hell?

No.  It was to create unity between Jews and Gentiles.

That is the point of Romans so far.  This is not a letter about soteriology (the theory of how salvation works).  This is not a letter whose purpose is to expound the Doctrine of Salvation (even though it does that).  This is a letter about church unity.

Paul’s soteriological claims are made, not to get people saved, or to save them from eternal damnation, or to get them into heaven, etc.  (He’s writing to Christians who are all already saved!)  Paul makes these claims in order to get his hearers to see each other as equals, and therefore to get them to live in harmony with each other.

He obviously believes his claims about salvation/justification are true.  He’s not lying to his readers about how they become righteous (how they’ve all already become righteous).  It’s just that teaching them how they become righteous is a means to a further end: getting them to live the kind of life together that they’re supposed to be living.

_____

4:13-17 — If Abraham was to have the promise that he would inherit the world (I’m not sure where that promise is stated; perhaps Genesis 22:17?) fulfilled, and that would mean his descendants would have to inherit the world.

But if to be Abraham’s descendant means to follow the Law, then Abraham has no descendants, since no one has followed the Law in its entirety for their entire lives.

Therefore, Abraham has no descendants at all, and therefore he could not inherit the earth.

____

However, everyone can be righteous through faith — and if being Abraham’s descendant means participating in the same righteousness through the same “means” (faith) as Abraham, then the promise that Abraham’s descendants will inherit the earth can be fulfilled (since everyone who has inherited their little part of the earth can become righteous like Abraham).

Therefore, Paul says — and this is the conclusion he has been trying to reach — Abraham “is the father of all of us”; that is, both the Jews and the Gentiles in the Roman church have Abraham as their father.

Thus, they should live like a family.

____

^{[ Romans 1 | 2 | 3| 4: Intro, 1-8, 9-17, 18-25, Conclusion | 5 ]}

I think it all started with this post on the “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” blog.

The post excerpted this satire article I wrote for The Free Liberal.

And since then, pieces from the original article have been quoted around the internet (e.g., here), as if I was serious.

I’m never serious about anything.

Except this current post.  Which is totally serious.