Posts
My church is still going through its twelve-session Bible study on the Book of Romans. We're using Romans: The Letter That Changed the World, with Mart De Haan and Jimmy DeYoung. Last night, we did session 10. I have three items.
1.
The DVD that we watched opened by saying that the Roman government
regarded Christians as dangerous. This was interesting to me, since
I've been reading some about Notre Dame Professor Candida Moss' recent book, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. See here, here, here, and here
for more information about this book. The book intrigued me because I
wondered if it responded to an argument that I've long heard from
Christian apologists: that Jesus must have risen from the dead, because
why else would the early Christians have been willing to die for him?
The question that usually floated around in my mind when I heard that
argument was, "Well, how do we even know that some of Jesus' disciples were martyred for their faith?"
Is
Professor Moss' book relevant to this Christian apologetic argument?
I've not read Professor Moss' book yet, so I can only speculate on the
basis of what I've read about her book. She does seem to
contend that Christian narratives about the martyrs were rather late and
served an ideological purpose (i.e., to inspire Christians in their
commitment to the faith, etc.), and she doubts that they are
historically-accurate. At the same time, she does not appear
to dismiss that Christians were put to death in the days of the Roman
empire. But she does not think that the Romans were obsessed with the
Christians and were specifically singling them out for persecution, or
that the time of Christians' martyrdom lasted all that long. And yet,
she does seem to acknowledge that the Christians were somewhat of an annoyance to the Romans, since the Christians were believed to hold subversive ideas.
I
should probably read the book before I comment more. I'd love to use
this book to knock Christian apologists off of their arrogant high
horse, but I can easily picture them coming back with, "But she doesn't
deny that Christians were martyred, right?"
2. As I watched the
DVD last night, I had to appreciate the contribution that Christianity
made to the Roman empire. The DVD was depicting Roman society as
bloodthirsty and as cold, even if it upheld certain virtues.
Christianity, according to the DVD, was revolutionary because it claimed
that God cared about each human being. Moreover, Christianity was
counter-cultural in that it emphasized love, peace, joy, and
self-sacrifice, in a world of selfishness, greed, and power.
On my blog, I've questioned whether Christianity actually was
a step up from paganism. There are people who argue that there were
progressive strains on gender and slavery within paganism, disagreeing
with the notion that the Bible is superior (see here and here).
They're probably on to something there, on some level. And yet, I do
believe that Christianity was a step up, in certain respects.
Christianity, for example, opposed infanticide. Perhaps the DVD that we
watched last night is on to something when it contends that
Christianity emphasized love above and beyond what paganism did.
And
yet, even if Christianity made positive contributions, it also (in my
opinion) left some negative effects. The rivalry between Christians and
Jews since the first century led to medieval anti-Judaism, which set
the stage for the Holocaust. Blaming Eve for the problems of the world
contributed to misogyny. The Bible's tolerance of slavery was used to
justify slavery in the American South. Biblical teachings about
homosexual conduct have set the stage for homophobia, which
psychologically (and often physically) damages people with a homosexual
orientation.
3. The DVD and the curriculum
were saying (a la Romans 12:2) that we should not be conformed to this
world, with its selfishness, greed, and desire for power, but we should
be transformed by the renewing of our minds. We should see people as
Jesus saw them, with love. I heartily agree with this. Can one do this
without being a Christian? Maybe. I know of loving non-Christians.
But I've often wondered if Christianity, or at least some belief in the
supernatural, can give one that extra boost to do good, since it holds
that those who do good will be rewarded because a good God is in charge
of the universe.
Someone in the group, whom
I will call Jeff, was saying that there are churches that compromise
with the world, and he noted his own denomination's acceptance of gay
marriage and promotion of the Palestinian cause. I replied, "Yeah, and I
think that many evangelicals are wrong to assume that Israel is always
right because it's 'God's country', and so we shouldn't care about the
Palestinians." I'm not sure if my comment got internalized by others,
though, for people there may have wondered what exactly I was blabbering
about. I was nodding my head when people in the group were talking
about their own denomination's struggle with the gay marriage issue, but
that was because I was trying to be understanding, not because I agreed
with their stance against it. It takes a lot of courage to go against
the grain. A Christian jerk could say to me, "Well, that's because
deep-down you know that conservative Christians are right. If you
believed in the truth, you'd be unashamed to speak it! But you're
ashamed to speak your liberal convictions because you know they are
wrong." Not necessarily. Going against the grain is difficult,
whatever one's stance is.
I liked the curriculum's focus on how we should be loving in a world that has selfishness,
greed, and a lust for power----not because I've mastered love by any
stretch of the imagination, but because I think that love is important.
I have a hard time equating sympathy for the plight of homosexuals or
Palestinians with worldliness, for I see that as compassion. Jeff was
saying that there are denominations that don't take what's in the Bible
seriously. Well, I believe that there are evangelicals who don't take
people's plight seriously, but rather seek to dismiss it with a couple
of proof-texts! On compromising with the world, heck, I'd say that
Christians who assume that God is a right-wing Republican who backs the
free market system are themselves compromising with the world! Should I
have said that? I fantasize about saying that in the group! But
perhaps an "us vs. them" approach is not an appropriate way for me to
get my message across.
I will say this,
though: I do feel accepted in the group, even though I have expressed my
ideological differences. That contrasts with some of the previous
religious settings I've been in, where people assume that shoving a
particular belief down my throat makes me want to accept it.
Friday, March 22, 2013
RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, Volume 2: 6
I have three items for my write-up today on volume 2 of Richard Nixon's memoirs.
1. A couple of posts ago, I wrote about Watergate. In that particular post, I said that Nixon admitted that he sought to encourage the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate. In my latest reading, however, Nixon said that he had serious reservations about cover-ups. On page 151, we read:
"...I knew that the two worst actions in this kind of situation were to lie and to cover up. If you covered up you would inevitable get caught, and if you lied you would be guilty of perjury. That was the story of the Hiss case and the 5 percenters under Truman."
(UPDATE: On page 413, Nixon mentions the story that he released claiming to explain why he encouraged the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate: Nixon said in a document that he sought to ensure that the investigation would not uncover "secret CIA operations", I presume because Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt had done things for the CIA in the past. But Nixon denied in the document that he wanted to impede the investigations into Watergate.)
But Nixon and his advisers still deliberated about how they should handle Watergate. Regarding Watergate conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder, should Magruder be encouraged to plead the Fifth Amendment? Should Magruder simply admit that he got carried away? Should Magruder say that he ordered the gathering of information but did not envision that this would be carried out through a break-in and wiretapping? Should he "rationalize a story that would not lead to his conviction", since Nixon was concerned that "Magruder's whole life would be ruined for this one mistake" (pages 151, 153)? On conspirators G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, would it be so terrible to let them take the fall and be convicted? Were their ties to the White House sufficient enough to bring bad publicity to the White House? Maybe Nixon realized that there were disadvantages to lying and covering things up, but, according to his own story, he was weighing various options.
On pages 175-176, Nixon says that his aide John Ehrlichman assured him that "John Dean, the Justice Department, and the FBI all confirmed that there had been no White House involvement" in the Watergate break-in. But that apparently didn't bottle up the scandal!
2. In my write-up on volume 1 of Nixon's memoirs, I said that Nixon appears to be shadier in his memoirs than he was in his 1962 book, Six Crises. That is still the impression that I am getting, and I'll mention two examples. First, on page 124, Nixon narrates, "Later in the day, I said that every time the Democrats accused us of bugging we should charge that we were being bugged and maybe even plant a bug and find it ourselves!" Nixon may have been kidding, I don't know. But Nixon's critics have charged that one of the strategies that Nixon and/or his henchmen frequently employed was to do something sinister or controversial and to blame the Democrats for it, in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad. According to Stephen Ambrose, Nixon's defenders alleged that Democrats did the same sort of thing. I recall reading in Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician that one of Nixon's defenders speculated that, in Nixon's 1946 run for the U.S. House against Democrat Jerry Voorhis, when voters were receiving phone-calls calling Voorhis a Communist, it was the Democrats who made those calls in an attempt to make the Nixon campaign look despicable. People who like to profile Nixon psychologically could say that Nixon or his defenders are projecting onto their opponents their own characteristics (not that the psychological profiles of Nixon that I read made this claim about this specific case, but Bruce Mazlish, and I think Eli Chesen, liked to accuse Nixon of projecting his own flaws onto others). Or maybe politics truly is a dirty business, within both political parties!
Second, on page 172, Nixon discusses the case of Larry O'Brien, a Democrat who loved to hit Nixon below the belt in his rhetoric. O'Brien was accused of not paying taxes on money that wealthy magnate Howard Hughes gave as a retainer to his lobbying firm. Essentially, Nixon was rooting for O'Brien's fall and was trying to make it happen. Nixon states, "I was doubtful as I was hopeful that we would nail him on this issue", that "I ordered Haldeman and Ehrlichman to have the audit expedited and completed before the election", and that "it would be a pleasant----and newsworthy----irony after all the years in which Howard Hughes had been portrayed as my financial angel, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee was in fact the one profiting from a lucrative position on Hughes' payroll." Instead, Nixon narrates, the IRS cleared O'Brien of the charges.
Why does Nixon appear shadier in his memoirs than he did in Six Crises? I mean, in his memoirs, we still see the fair-minded Nixon of Six Crises, the one who sees the good even in some of his political opponents. But Nixon in his memoirs appears shadier, at times. Perhaps Nixon was more honest and candid in his memoirs because he could not hide who he truly was by that point: people had heard the Watergate tapes, and they were aware of Nixon's activities. Nixon could justify them, express regret for them, or simply acknowledge them, without offering an explanation. It seems to me that Nixon in his memoirs does all three, depending on what he's narrating. Or maybe Nixon actually was a more honest and morally-conscientious politician in his earlier years, but the press' criticism of him and his political defeats convinced him that he needed to play dirty in order to succeed, since the other side played dirty. Politics can harden a person.
3. On pages 163-163, Nixon lists his accomplishments in his first term as President. Inflation went down from 6.1 percent to 2.7 percent. The growth of the Gross National Product went up by 2.9 percent. The stock market was doing well. Real earnings were increasing at an annual rate of 4 percent by 1972, and "Average income per farm was 40 percent higher than the average from 1961-1968" (page 164). Federal income taxes were reduced "by 66 percent for a family of four making $5,000, and by 20 percent for a family of four making $15,000" (page 164). Welfare reform was proposed. A national health insurance plan----which "shared the cost between those who could afford to pay for health insurance, employers, and government"----was offered as an alternative to "several socialized medicine schemes proposed by others" (page 164). Funding to fight cancer went up, as did arrests for drug crimes. The increase in the crime rate came down. There was created a "formal research institute for learning and education" (page 164). Government spending on mass transit went up. There was progress in revenue-sharing between the federal and the state governments, environmental protection that (according to Nixon) balanced the preservation of the environment with the needs of industry, and the development of parks. A higher percentage of government spending was for "education, social services, [and] health" than for national defense. Government spending on the arts and social security benefits increased. Draft calls were reduced, and "we were on our way to the elimination of the draft and the creation of an all-volunteer Army" (page 165).
Nixon is bragging here about a number of accomplishments that could be considered liberal or progressive, which is odd, considering the conservative rhetoric about government that he employs elsewhere in his memoirs. Perhaps he figured that, yes, he increased government spending, but he was more reasonable about it than many of the Democrats.
Is Nixon accurate? I'm sure that there's another side to the story, but I don't know what it is right now, so I can't critique Nixon's claims. It does interest me that inflation remained a problem under the Presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, so, even if Nixon succeeded in taming inflation, it made a comeback.
1. A couple of posts ago, I wrote about Watergate. In that particular post, I said that Nixon admitted that he sought to encourage the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate. In my latest reading, however, Nixon said that he had serious reservations about cover-ups. On page 151, we read:
"...I knew that the two worst actions in this kind of situation were to lie and to cover up. If you covered up you would inevitable get caught, and if you lied you would be guilty of perjury. That was the story of the Hiss case and the 5 percenters under Truman."
(UPDATE: On page 413, Nixon mentions the story that he released claiming to explain why he encouraged the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate: Nixon said in a document that he sought to ensure that the investigation would not uncover "secret CIA operations", I presume because Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt had done things for the CIA in the past. But Nixon denied in the document that he wanted to impede the investigations into Watergate.)
But Nixon and his advisers still deliberated about how they should handle Watergate. Regarding Watergate conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder, should Magruder be encouraged to plead the Fifth Amendment? Should Magruder simply admit that he got carried away? Should Magruder say that he ordered the gathering of information but did not envision that this would be carried out through a break-in and wiretapping? Should he "rationalize a story that would not lead to his conviction", since Nixon was concerned that "Magruder's whole life would be ruined for this one mistake" (pages 151, 153)? On conspirators G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, would it be so terrible to let them take the fall and be convicted? Were their ties to the White House sufficient enough to bring bad publicity to the White House? Maybe Nixon realized that there were disadvantages to lying and covering things up, but, according to his own story, he was weighing various options.
On pages 175-176, Nixon says that his aide John Ehrlichman assured him that "John Dean, the Justice Department, and the FBI all confirmed that there had been no White House involvement" in the Watergate break-in. But that apparently didn't bottle up the scandal!
2. In my write-up on volume 1 of Nixon's memoirs, I said that Nixon appears to be shadier in his memoirs than he was in his 1962 book, Six Crises. That is still the impression that I am getting, and I'll mention two examples. First, on page 124, Nixon narrates, "Later in the day, I said that every time the Democrats accused us of bugging we should charge that we were being bugged and maybe even plant a bug and find it ourselves!" Nixon may have been kidding, I don't know. But Nixon's critics have charged that one of the strategies that Nixon and/or his henchmen frequently employed was to do something sinister or controversial and to blame the Democrats for it, in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad. According to Stephen Ambrose, Nixon's defenders alleged that Democrats did the same sort of thing. I recall reading in Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician that one of Nixon's defenders speculated that, in Nixon's 1946 run for the U.S. House against Democrat Jerry Voorhis, when voters were receiving phone-calls calling Voorhis a Communist, it was the Democrats who made those calls in an attempt to make the Nixon campaign look despicable. People who like to profile Nixon psychologically could say that Nixon or his defenders are projecting onto their opponents their own characteristics (not that the psychological profiles of Nixon that I read made this claim about this specific case, but Bruce Mazlish, and I think Eli Chesen, liked to accuse Nixon of projecting his own flaws onto others). Or maybe politics truly is a dirty business, within both political parties!
Second, on page 172, Nixon discusses the case of Larry O'Brien, a Democrat who loved to hit Nixon below the belt in his rhetoric. O'Brien was accused of not paying taxes on money that wealthy magnate Howard Hughes gave as a retainer to his lobbying firm. Essentially, Nixon was rooting for O'Brien's fall and was trying to make it happen. Nixon states, "I was doubtful as I was hopeful that we would nail him on this issue", that "I ordered Haldeman and Ehrlichman to have the audit expedited and completed before the election", and that "it would be a pleasant----and newsworthy----irony after all the years in which Howard Hughes had been portrayed as my financial angel, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee was in fact the one profiting from a lucrative position on Hughes' payroll." Instead, Nixon narrates, the IRS cleared O'Brien of the charges.
Why does Nixon appear shadier in his memoirs than he did in Six Crises? I mean, in his memoirs, we still see the fair-minded Nixon of Six Crises, the one who sees the good even in some of his political opponents. But Nixon in his memoirs appears shadier, at times. Perhaps Nixon was more honest and candid in his memoirs because he could not hide who he truly was by that point: people had heard the Watergate tapes, and they were aware of Nixon's activities. Nixon could justify them, express regret for them, or simply acknowledge them, without offering an explanation. It seems to me that Nixon in his memoirs does all three, depending on what he's narrating. Or maybe Nixon actually was a more honest and morally-conscientious politician in his earlier years, but the press' criticism of him and his political defeats convinced him that he needed to play dirty in order to succeed, since the other side played dirty. Politics can harden a person.
3. On pages 163-163, Nixon lists his accomplishments in his first term as President. Inflation went down from 6.1 percent to 2.7 percent. The growth of the Gross National Product went up by 2.9 percent. The stock market was doing well. Real earnings were increasing at an annual rate of 4 percent by 1972, and "Average income per farm was 40 percent higher than the average from 1961-1968" (page 164). Federal income taxes were reduced "by 66 percent for a family of four making $5,000, and by 20 percent for a family of four making $15,000" (page 164). Welfare reform was proposed. A national health insurance plan----which "shared the cost between those who could afford to pay for health insurance, employers, and government"----was offered as an alternative to "several socialized medicine schemes proposed by others" (page 164). Funding to fight cancer went up, as did arrests for drug crimes. The increase in the crime rate came down. There was created a "formal research institute for learning and education" (page 164). Government spending on mass transit went up. There was progress in revenue-sharing between the federal and the state governments, environmental protection that (according to Nixon) balanced the preservation of the environment with the needs of industry, and the development of parks. A higher percentage of government spending was for "education, social services, [and] health" than for national defense. Government spending on the arts and social security benefits increased. Draft calls were reduced, and "we were on our way to the elimination of the draft and the creation of an all-volunteer Army" (page 165).
Nixon is bragging here about a number of accomplishments that could be considered liberal or progressive, which is odd, considering the conservative rhetoric about government that he employs elsewhere in his memoirs. Perhaps he figured that, yes, he increased government spending, but he was more reasonable about it than many of the Democrats.
Is Nixon accurate? I'm sure that there's another side to the story, but I don't know what it is right now, so I can't critique Nixon's claims. It does interest me that inflation remained a problem under the Presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, so, even if Nixon succeeded in taming inflation, it made a comeback.
Interested and Disinterested Love, and Merit
I was thinking recently about selfish people. I cannot say that I
know anybody who is completely selfish. Nor can I say that I myself am
completely selfish. There are people whom the self-righteous might
label as selfish, for there are plenty of evangelical Christians and
"spiritual" people out there who like to compete to show how unselfish
they supposedly are, and they enjoy sitting in judgment of others. But
even those whom they judge are not necessarily selfish. For that
matter, the people judging are not entirely selfish, either!
Everyone I know cares about at least somebody. A friend. A Mom. A Dad. A husband. A wife. A son. A daughter. A dog. A cat. Maybe there are people out there who have been so bruised by life that they don't care for anyone. But I try not to sit in judgment of them. Rather, I pity them because they are so lonely. And, when I say that I pity them, I'm not saying that from a condescending standpoint of moral superiority. It's not easy for everyone to make friends. And it's sad when people have been so abused and beaten down that they neither care for someone else nor feel that others care for them. What can they do? Perhaps therapy or a relationship with God can launch them onto a path to healing, so that they can love themselves or feel loved by God.
One biblical passage that disturbs me is Matthew 5:46 (and I'll be using the King James Version): "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" I recognize and appreciate that Jesus is trying to encourage people to love their enemies, to go above and beyond what many people do. Jesus is telling people that loving their enemies will bring them a reward, which can motivate them to keep on trying to love their enemies, especially when the going gets tough.
But my problem with the passage is this: I think that it's commendable when people love those who love them. Shouldn't affection for another human being, or even a pet, be something that we should celebrate, rather than dismissing it by saying "That's not special, for everyone loves those who love them"? Can't affection for another human being----even if it's reciprocal----serve as a foundation for a love that is disinterested? Should I beat myself up because I love those who love me, on some level? Do I need to find difficult people and be nice to them before I can finally feel good about myself?
I think that the Bible is all for gratitude, and so I'd say that it's commendable when we love those who love us, even if love for enemies may deserve a greater reward. Moreover, another point to make is that it can be a challenge at times for us even to love those who do love us----family and friends. I believe that, anytime one meets that challenge, one should pat himself or herself on the back.
Why not celebrate love, both when it is interested and also when it is disinterested?
Everyone I know cares about at least somebody. A friend. A Mom. A Dad. A husband. A wife. A son. A daughter. A dog. A cat. Maybe there are people out there who have been so bruised by life that they don't care for anyone. But I try not to sit in judgment of them. Rather, I pity them because they are so lonely. And, when I say that I pity them, I'm not saying that from a condescending standpoint of moral superiority. It's not easy for everyone to make friends. And it's sad when people have been so abused and beaten down that they neither care for someone else nor feel that others care for them. What can they do? Perhaps therapy or a relationship with God can launch them onto a path to healing, so that they can love themselves or feel loved by God.
One biblical passage that disturbs me is Matthew 5:46 (and I'll be using the King James Version): "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" I recognize and appreciate that Jesus is trying to encourage people to love their enemies, to go above and beyond what many people do. Jesus is telling people that loving their enemies will bring them a reward, which can motivate them to keep on trying to love their enemies, especially when the going gets tough.
But my problem with the passage is this: I think that it's commendable when people love those who love them. Shouldn't affection for another human being, or even a pet, be something that we should celebrate, rather than dismissing it by saying "That's not special, for everyone loves those who love them"? Can't affection for another human being----even if it's reciprocal----serve as a foundation for a love that is disinterested? Should I beat myself up because I love those who love me, on some level? Do I need to find difficult people and be nice to them before I can finally feel good about myself?
I think that the Bible is all for gratitude, and so I'd say that it's commendable when we love those who love us, even if love for enemies may deserve a greater reward. Moreover, another point to make is that it can be a challenge at times for us even to love those who do love us----family and friends. I believe that, anytime one meets that challenge, one should pat himself or herself on the back.
Why not celebrate love, both when it is interested and also when it is disinterested?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, volume 2: 5
For my write-up today on volume 2 of Richard Nixon's memoirs, I'll
comment about Richard Nixon's view of his Democratic opponent in the
1972 Presidential election, Senator George McGovern. I'll base my
comments on what I have read in Nixon's memoirs so far.
My impression is that Nixon's view of McGovern was rather ambivalent. Nixon thought that McGovern was sincere, yet he anticipated that McGovern might distance himself from his leftist positions in an attempt to get more votes, for, according to Nixon, right-wingers were more principled than left-wingers when it came to standing by their convictions. (This comes from a man who reportedly supported a campaign strategy of running to the right in the primaries and moving to the center in the general election. I'm not sure where Nixon explicitly endorsed that strategy, but it has often been associated with Nixon.) Still, Nixon criticizes the 1972 Democratic National Convention because it featured unconventional voices expressing their frustrations in an undisciplined manner: "women, blacks, homosexuals, welfare mothers, migrant farm workers" (page 144). (Sounds to me like a convention that valued authenticity, for a change!) So, in a sense, Nixon seems to be implying that McGovern's campaign was too left-wing. My impression is that Nixon did not take McGovern all that seriously, for McGovern was alienating Democrats, including organized labor (one of whose heads disrespected McGovern for abandoning an ally), plus Nixon thought that McGovern lacked charisma and came across as dour.
I appreciated Nixon's narration of his compassion for Thomas Eagleton, who was McGovern's first running mate, yet was dropped from the ticket when it was discovered that Eagleton had been treated for depression. Nixon sympathized with Eagleton on account of Nixon's own experiences on the 1952 Republican ticket, when Nixon was attacked for having a fund from the donations of businessmen. Nixon thought that the press' treatment of Eagleton was reprehensible, and he was watching to see if McGovern would lead or would wait for the latest poll before making his decision to drop Eagleton. McGovern stood by Eagleton, but then he dropped him, and Nixon expected that McGovern would do so to appease the press and party professionals. Nixon then wrote a kind note to Terry Eagleton, Thomas Eagleton's son.
My impression is that Nixon's view of McGovern was rather ambivalent. Nixon thought that McGovern was sincere, yet he anticipated that McGovern might distance himself from his leftist positions in an attempt to get more votes, for, according to Nixon, right-wingers were more principled than left-wingers when it came to standing by their convictions. (This comes from a man who reportedly supported a campaign strategy of running to the right in the primaries and moving to the center in the general election. I'm not sure where Nixon explicitly endorsed that strategy, but it has often been associated with Nixon.) Still, Nixon criticizes the 1972 Democratic National Convention because it featured unconventional voices expressing their frustrations in an undisciplined manner: "women, blacks, homosexuals, welfare mothers, migrant farm workers" (page 144). (Sounds to me like a convention that valued authenticity, for a change!) So, in a sense, Nixon seems to be implying that McGovern's campaign was too left-wing. My impression is that Nixon did not take McGovern all that seriously, for McGovern was alienating Democrats, including organized labor (one of whose heads disrespected McGovern for abandoning an ally), plus Nixon thought that McGovern lacked charisma and came across as dour.
I appreciated Nixon's narration of his compassion for Thomas Eagleton, who was McGovern's first running mate, yet was dropped from the ticket when it was discovered that Eagleton had been treated for depression. Nixon sympathized with Eagleton on account of Nixon's own experiences on the 1952 Republican ticket, when Nixon was attacked for having a fund from the donations of businessmen. Nixon thought that the press' treatment of Eagleton was reprehensible, and he was watching to see if McGovern would lead or would wait for the latest poll before making his decision to drop Eagleton. McGovern stood by Eagleton, but then he dropped him, and Nixon expected that McGovern would do so to appease the press and party professionals. Nixon then wrote a kind note to Terry Eagleton, Thomas Eagleton's son.
Deuteronomy, Debts, and Student Loan Reform
In this post, I'll blog about Deuteronomy 15:7-11. The passage states (according to the King James Version):
"(7) If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: (8) But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, [in that] which he wanteth. (9) Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. (10) Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. (11) For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."
I have three thoughts:
1. The passage tells the Israelites to lend to their fellow Israelites who are poor. It's interesting that the passage does not talk about giving, but rather lending, which implies that the poor Israelite would have to pay back the person lending to him. I say that because v 9 refers to the seventh year, during which debts were cancelled, and I don't think that the seventh year would be mentioned here if the subject of the passage were gifts rather than loans. Of course, if the lending occurred at a time that was really close to the seventh year, then the loan would practically amount to a gift, since the lender would lend the poor Israelite money, and the poor Israelite's debt would soon be cancelled and he wouldn't have to pay the lender back. But, in many cases, we're not dealing with free money. The idea is probably that the poor Israelite ordinarily would get off his feet and would be able to pay back the lender, by working for the lender as an indentured servant, or by finding some way to gain enough wealth to pay the lender back.
This is not to say that there are no handouts in the Torah, for there are: there are gleanings for the poor or the widows and orphans (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), the command to leave the corners of the fields for the poor (Leviticus 23:22), and the exhortation to share with widows and orphans during the festival (Deuteronomy 16:11). There was supposed to be a safety-net. But not everything was intended to be free, for God exhorted Israelites to lend to the needy.
One verse that has long given me problems is Matthew 5:42, which states: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." So I'm supposed to give to everyone who asks me for money? What would prevent people from taking advantage of me? But the second part says "borrow", so is there a presumption that I'd get paid back? Not so fast, for Luke 6:34-35 commands that people lend without expecting to be repaid. I'm all for giving something to a needy person who comes to me, such as a sandwich or a meal. But I'm not willing to give indiscriminately to everyone who asks of me, for then I could go broke. I'd prefer to give to charities, for I have more confidence that they will spend the money appropriately. Is that a violation of Jesus' teachings? Or is there a more common-sense, less absolutist way to interpret what Jesus is saying?
2. Something that I've long wondered: If debts are cancelled every seven years, what would keep a debtor from not paying for seven years until his debt is finally cancelled? I don't think that happened, and the reason is that Deuteronomy 15:9 says that Israelites are supposed to lend to their poor brethren even if the seventh year is near. That tells me that, when the seventh year was further off in the future, the creditor felt that there was a greater chance that he'd be paid back. Perhaps the creditor could appeal to courts to make the debtor pay back at least some of the debt. Even with the seventh year, there are still loans and debts, at least for six years. But the seventh year was most likely intended to ensure that Israelites were not weighed down by debt for long periods of time, such that they became perpetual slaves with little hope of paying their creditors back and getting off their feet. Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:20, Israelites were not to charge usury when they lent to their fellow Israelites, and so indebted Israelites would not be weighed down by rapidly and massively accumulating interest as they sought to pay back their creditors.
3. My hunch is that the likelihood that, during six year periods, indebted Israelites would be expected to pay back their creditors would ensure that people would lend, since they'd have an expectation that they'd be paid back, on some level. Or perhaps it worked better back then than it would now (assuming that the policy was ever implemented), for, today, debts are so huge that they take much longer to pay back. I think of mortgages and student loans. Even in the first century, there was a rabbinic attempt to circumvent the seventh year debt cancellation (see here), which may show that the Sabbatical year was impractical even then. But was it always impractical? I'm hesitant to say that.
But would people lend if they couldn't charge interest? After all, don't bankers make their money from interest, in part? I don't see anything in the Torah about banks, and so the idea was probably that private individuals rather than institutions would lend. And Deuteronomy presents a scenario in which the lenders would not need to charge interest in order to support themselves, for the Israelite lenders would already be wealthy on account of their crops. My impression is that Deuteronomy has a prosperity Gospel sort of mindset: lenders wouldn't even have to be worried if they lent close to the seventh year and thus didn't get paid back, for they'd have plenty of wealth. But they had to obey God to get that wealth, and one element of being obedient to God was lending to the needy, even when the seventh year was at hand.
Can we apply any of these principles to today? One important principle is that people should pay off their debts. But another important principle is that debt should not become a form of perpetual slavery or a burden that keeps people from getting off their feet, and so exorbitant interest rates are wrong. In light of these principles, I favor some elements of President Barack Obama's student loan proposals, but I have problems with other parts. (And I'm writing this post on December 1, 2012, so my understanding of the proposals in this post is based on how they were conceptualized then.) Cancelling the student loan debt after a certain number of years may be problematic, for the government would have to take the loss from people not paying back all of their debt. But imposing a high interest rate on student loans, even though that brings the government revenue, can become an undue burden on the debtors, and so I agree with President Obama's desire for interest rates on student loans to be low. I believe that people should pay off their loans as long as it takes, based upon their income, and that the interest rate should be really low. Of course, if this country were booming with prosperity, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if the government cancelled student loan debt after a certain number of years, the same way that Deuteronomy envisioned a situation in which a lender could practically give somebody money and not be hurt if he wasn't paid back. But would that ever happen?
"(7) If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: (8) But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, [in that] which he wanteth. (9) Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. (10) Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. (11) For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."
I have three thoughts:
1. The passage tells the Israelites to lend to their fellow Israelites who are poor. It's interesting that the passage does not talk about giving, but rather lending, which implies that the poor Israelite would have to pay back the person lending to him. I say that because v 9 refers to the seventh year, during which debts were cancelled, and I don't think that the seventh year would be mentioned here if the subject of the passage were gifts rather than loans. Of course, if the lending occurred at a time that was really close to the seventh year, then the loan would practically amount to a gift, since the lender would lend the poor Israelite money, and the poor Israelite's debt would soon be cancelled and he wouldn't have to pay the lender back. But, in many cases, we're not dealing with free money. The idea is probably that the poor Israelite ordinarily would get off his feet and would be able to pay back the lender, by working for the lender as an indentured servant, or by finding some way to gain enough wealth to pay the lender back.
This is not to say that there are no handouts in the Torah, for there are: there are gleanings for the poor or the widows and orphans (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), the command to leave the corners of the fields for the poor (Leviticus 23:22), and the exhortation to share with widows and orphans during the festival (Deuteronomy 16:11). There was supposed to be a safety-net. But not everything was intended to be free, for God exhorted Israelites to lend to the needy.
One verse that has long given me problems is Matthew 5:42, which states: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." So I'm supposed to give to everyone who asks me for money? What would prevent people from taking advantage of me? But the second part says "borrow", so is there a presumption that I'd get paid back? Not so fast, for Luke 6:34-35 commands that people lend without expecting to be repaid. I'm all for giving something to a needy person who comes to me, such as a sandwich or a meal. But I'm not willing to give indiscriminately to everyone who asks of me, for then I could go broke. I'd prefer to give to charities, for I have more confidence that they will spend the money appropriately. Is that a violation of Jesus' teachings? Or is there a more common-sense, less absolutist way to interpret what Jesus is saying?
2. Something that I've long wondered: If debts are cancelled every seven years, what would keep a debtor from not paying for seven years until his debt is finally cancelled? I don't think that happened, and the reason is that Deuteronomy 15:9 says that Israelites are supposed to lend to their poor brethren even if the seventh year is near. That tells me that, when the seventh year was further off in the future, the creditor felt that there was a greater chance that he'd be paid back. Perhaps the creditor could appeal to courts to make the debtor pay back at least some of the debt. Even with the seventh year, there are still loans and debts, at least for six years. But the seventh year was most likely intended to ensure that Israelites were not weighed down by debt for long periods of time, such that they became perpetual slaves with little hope of paying their creditors back and getting off their feet. Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:20, Israelites were not to charge usury when they lent to their fellow Israelites, and so indebted Israelites would not be weighed down by rapidly and massively accumulating interest as they sought to pay back their creditors.
3. My hunch is that the likelihood that, during six year periods, indebted Israelites would be expected to pay back their creditors would ensure that people would lend, since they'd have an expectation that they'd be paid back, on some level. Or perhaps it worked better back then than it would now (assuming that the policy was ever implemented), for, today, debts are so huge that they take much longer to pay back. I think of mortgages and student loans. Even in the first century, there was a rabbinic attempt to circumvent the seventh year debt cancellation (see here), which may show that the Sabbatical year was impractical even then. But was it always impractical? I'm hesitant to say that.
But would people lend if they couldn't charge interest? After all, don't bankers make their money from interest, in part? I don't see anything in the Torah about banks, and so the idea was probably that private individuals rather than institutions would lend. And Deuteronomy presents a scenario in which the lenders would not need to charge interest in order to support themselves, for the Israelite lenders would already be wealthy on account of their crops. My impression is that Deuteronomy has a prosperity Gospel sort of mindset: lenders wouldn't even have to be worried if they lent close to the seventh year and thus didn't get paid back, for they'd have plenty of wealth. But they had to obey God to get that wealth, and one element of being obedient to God was lending to the needy, even when the seventh year was at hand.
Can we apply any of these principles to today? One important principle is that people should pay off their debts. But another important principle is that debt should not become a form of perpetual slavery or a burden that keeps people from getting off their feet, and so exorbitant interest rates are wrong. In light of these principles, I favor some elements of President Barack Obama's student loan proposals, but I have problems with other parts. (And I'm writing this post on December 1, 2012, so my understanding of the proposals in this post is based on how they were conceptualized then.) Cancelling the student loan debt after a certain number of years may be problematic, for the government would have to take the loss from people not paying back all of their debt. But imposing a high interest rate on student loans, even though that brings the government revenue, can become an undue burden on the debtors, and so I agree with President Obama's desire for interest rates on student loans to be low. I believe that people should pay off their loans as long as it takes, based upon their income, and that the interest rate should be really low. Of course, if this country were booming with prosperity, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if the government cancelled student loan debt after a certain number of years, the same way that Deuteronomy envisioned a situation in which a lender could practically give somebody money and not be hurt if he wasn't paid back. But would that ever happen?
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, Volume 2: 4
In my latest reading of volume 2 of Richard Nixon's memoirs, the
topic of Watergate was discussed. In June 1972, five men were arrested
for breaking into the Watergate hotel, where the headquarters of the
Democratic National Committee was located. Their purpose was bugging
it. One of those who broke in was formerly a CIA employee, and three of
them were Cubans. In the address books of two of the men was the name
of Howard Hunt, who once worked in the CIA and was a consultant to
Charles Colson, who was part of President Richard Nixon's inner circle.
Within Hunt's safe were found "architectural plans of the DNC office"
and "wiretrapping equipment" (Nixon's words on page 132). Also involved
in organizing the break-in was G. Gordon Liddy, who "once worked at the
White House on narcotics problems for Bud Krogh on [John] Ehrlichman's
Domestic Council" (page 133). Nixon narrates that he wondered if
Attorney General John Mitchell knew about the bugging before it
occurred, and that his hunch at the time was that Mitchell supported "planting an
informant" to get information at the DNC but did not know that people
would break in and bug the place.
In Nixon's telling, Nixon's reaction upon hearing about the break-in was bafflement. It's not that Nixon had a serious problem with bugging, for Nixon notes that bugging was quite frequent in politics and had been done by the campaigns of Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Rather, Nixon's problem was with the stupidity of the break-in, for "Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign" (page 113). Nixon says that he heard different rationales for the break-in and the bugging. One of them was fear that the Democrats would attempt to disrupt the Republican National Convention by distributing counterfeit tickets to demonstrators. Another was that those who broke in sought to photograph classified documents that the DNC allegedly was holding. Moreover, Liddy was trying to be a hero to the Committee to Re-Elect the President (which Nixon understandably calls "CRP" rather than "CREEP"). Why were Cubans involved in the break-in? According to Nixon, Colson soon after the break-in speculated that the Cubans organized the break-in on their own out of fear that a President George McGovern (McGovern would be Nixon's Democratic opponent in the 1972 Presidential election) would seek to "resume diplomatic relations with Castro" (Nixon's words), something that many Cuban emigres dreaded (page 115). Nixon relates that he was actually thinking of publicly highlighting that most of those who broke in were Cubans in order to portray McGovern as soft on Castro (page 120)!
Nixon says that he sought to persuade CIA head Richard Helms to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate by saying that looking into Hunt could embarrass the CIA, since Hunt was involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco under President John F. Kennedy, and investigating Hunt could reveal just how much of a catastrophe the Bay of Pigs was! This interested me because of the references to the Bay of Pigs in Oliver Stone's Nixon. When I first saw the movie, I was confused about how exactly the Bay of Pigs related to Watergate, and (if I'm not mistaken) one of Stone's theses was that the Bay of Pigs pertained to the Kennedy assassination, since Stone argues that anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the plot to kill Kennedy because Kennedy reneged on helping them to overthrow Fidel Castro. Nixon does not say that, but rather he narrates that he appealed to the Bay of Pigs as a bargaining chip to encourage the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation.
(UPDATE: On page 413, Nixon mentions the story that he released claiming to explain why he encouraged the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate: Nixon said in a document that he sought to ensure that the investigation would not uncover "secret CIA operations", I presume because Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt had done things for the CIA in the past. But Nixon denied in the document that he wanted to impede the investigations into Watergate.)
On page 135, we read the following:
"It was in these days at the end of June and the beginning of July 1972 that I took the first steps down the road that eventually led to the end of my presidency. I did nothing to discourage the various stories that were being considered to explain the break-in, and I approved efforts to encourage the CIA to intervene and limit the FBI investigation. Later my actions and inactions during this period would appear to many as part of a widespread and conscious cover-up. I did not see them as such. I was handling in a pragmatic way what I perceived as an annoying and strictly political problem. I was looking for a way to deal with Watergate that would minimize the damage to me, my friends, and my campaign, while giving the least advantage to my political opposition. I saw Watergate as politics pure and simple. We were going to play it tough. I never doubted that that was exactly how the other side would have played it."
Politics, pure and simple. Needless to say, Watergate will come up often later in this book!
In Nixon's telling, Nixon's reaction upon hearing about the break-in was bafflement. It's not that Nixon had a serious problem with bugging, for Nixon notes that bugging was quite frequent in politics and had been done by the campaigns of Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Rather, Nixon's problem was with the stupidity of the break-in, for "Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign" (page 113). Nixon says that he heard different rationales for the break-in and the bugging. One of them was fear that the Democrats would attempt to disrupt the Republican National Convention by distributing counterfeit tickets to demonstrators. Another was that those who broke in sought to photograph classified documents that the DNC allegedly was holding. Moreover, Liddy was trying to be a hero to the Committee to Re-Elect the President (which Nixon understandably calls "CRP" rather than "CREEP"). Why were Cubans involved in the break-in? According to Nixon, Colson soon after the break-in speculated that the Cubans organized the break-in on their own out of fear that a President George McGovern (McGovern would be Nixon's Democratic opponent in the 1972 Presidential election) would seek to "resume diplomatic relations with Castro" (Nixon's words), something that many Cuban emigres dreaded (page 115). Nixon relates that he was actually thinking of publicly highlighting that most of those who broke in were Cubans in order to portray McGovern as soft on Castro (page 120)!
Nixon says that he sought to persuade CIA head Richard Helms to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate by saying that looking into Hunt could embarrass the CIA, since Hunt was involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco under President John F. Kennedy, and investigating Hunt could reveal just how much of a catastrophe the Bay of Pigs was! This interested me because of the references to the Bay of Pigs in Oliver Stone's Nixon. When I first saw the movie, I was confused about how exactly the Bay of Pigs related to Watergate, and (if I'm not mistaken) one of Stone's theses was that the Bay of Pigs pertained to the Kennedy assassination, since Stone argues that anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the plot to kill Kennedy because Kennedy reneged on helping them to overthrow Fidel Castro. Nixon does not say that, but rather he narrates that he appealed to the Bay of Pigs as a bargaining chip to encourage the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation.
(UPDATE: On page 413, Nixon mentions the story that he released claiming to explain why he encouraged the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation into Watergate: Nixon said in a document that he sought to ensure that the investigation would not uncover "secret CIA operations", I presume because Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt had done things for the CIA in the past. But Nixon denied in the document that he wanted to impede the investigations into Watergate.)
On page 135, we read the following:
"It was in these days at the end of June and the beginning of July 1972 that I took the first steps down the road that eventually led to the end of my presidency. I did nothing to discourage the various stories that were being considered to explain the break-in, and I approved efforts to encourage the CIA to intervene and limit the FBI investigation. Later my actions and inactions during this period would appear to many as part of a widespread and conscious cover-up. I did not see them as such. I was handling in a pragmatic way what I perceived as an annoying and strictly political problem. I was looking for a way to deal with Watergate that would minimize the damage to me, my friends, and my campaign, while giving the least advantage to my political opposition. I saw Watergate as politics pure and simple. We were going to play it tough. I never doubted that that was exactly how the other side would have played it."
Politics, pure and simple. Needless to say, Watergate will come up often later in this book!
The Different Tithing Laws in the Torah
I'm going through the Book of Deuteronomy for my daily quiet time,
and what I would like to talk about in this post is the different laws
on tithing in Numbers 18 and Deuteronomy. Biblical scholars have
discussed this issue in the past, and so I'm not coming up with anything
new in this post (as far as I know). At the same time, I remember
something that Madeleine L'Engle said in one of her Crosswicks Journals:
When her husband told her that her thoughts in her writings were not
original, she replied that, even if her thoughts had been said before by
others, she had to say them herself. Learning does not always
entail coming up with something new, but it also includes learning old
stuff for yourself, and articulating it (to yourself, and maybe even to
others) as part of your learning.
In Numbers 18, the tithing law goes like this: The Israelites give a tithe to the Levites, and the Levites give a tenth of that tithe to the LORD, which seems to mean giving it to the Aaronic priests. Moreover, the firstfruits and firstborn of cows, sheep, and goats belong to the Aaronic priests (though parts of these animals are sacrificed to the LORD). In Deuteronomy 12 and Deuteronomy 14, by contrast, the Israelites eat the tithe themselves at the central sanctuary, but they are instructed to share the tithe with the Levites. Every third year, the Israelites are to store their tithes within their towns, and the tithes are to be used for the Levites, resident aliens, widows, and orphans. So, in Deuteronomy, are the Levites expected to survive on whatever scraps from the tithes the Israelites are willing to spare? According to Deuteronomy 18, the Levites are to eat from the animal sacrifices, and the Israelites are to give the Levites their firstfruits.
The impression that I get from these passages is this: In Numbers 18, the tithe goes to the Levites, and the firstfruits go to the Aaronic priests. In Deuteronomy, however, which does not elevate the Aaronic priests above the other Levites, the tithe belongs to the Israelites at the festival, and they can share it with the Levites. Meanwhile, the firstfruits belong to the Levites in general, not just the Aaronic priests.
In Armstrongism, people in the church were expected to pay three tithes. The first tithe went to the ministry. The second tithe was to be used by the church members during the Feast of Tabernacles. And the third tithe occurred every three years and was supposed to be for the poor. My understanding is that Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism, too, maintained that the Torah commanded at least two tithes: one (the one of Numbers 18) went to the Levites, and the other was used by Jews at the festival, but every third year it went to the vulnerable of society.
My Dad once gave a sermon in which he argued that there was only one tithe. I don't remember every argument that he made, but I do recall him pointing out that, according to the Armstrongite interpretation, a lot went to the Levites, with whom the Armstrongites equated the ministry. After all, the Israelites gave an entire tenth to the Levites, and the Israelites were exhorted to share some of their festival tithe (which they used for their own enjoyment) with the Levites.
I myself wouldn't say that there was only one tithe, for Numbers 18 commands the Israelites to give a tenth to the Levites, and Deuteronomy tells them to put aside a tenth for their own (the Israelites') enjoyment at the festivals. When these laws are put together, I do not think that we can get out of the Torah that the Israelites only had one tithe, part of which went to the Levites, and part of which was used by the Israelites at the festivals, for Numbers 18 seems to present the entire tenth going to the Levites (though the Levites are then to give a tenth of that to the Aaronic priests).
Rather, what I think is going on is that we have two different tithing laws, from two separate sources in the Torah. When the two laws are put together, of course the Levites are getting rich! Not only do they get a tenth from the Israelites, but the Israelites also have to treat the Levites like vulnerable poor people during the festivals and every third year. But why would the Levites be so vulnerable, if they are receiving tithes every year? My guess is that tithes amounted to a lot of domesticated animals, fruits, and vegetables, and so I doubt that the Levites would be poor and vulnerable if they were getting tithes every year! But in a scenario in which the Levites are not receiving tithes but rather firstfruits and sacrificial meat, which is what we see in Deuteronomy, the Levites are not getting as much, and so they are poorer. And since they are poorer, it makes sense that Deuteronomy would exhort the Israelites to share what they have with the Levites during the festivals. In the Deuteronomic system, the Levites are more vulnerable. And, on a side note, because the Levites are so vulnerable in Deuteronomy, some scholars question the proposition that Levites wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, for why would the Levites support a system in which they would be so lowly?
In Numbers 18, the tithing law goes like this: The Israelites give a tithe to the Levites, and the Levites give a tenth of that tithe to the LORD, which seems to mean giving it to the Aaronic priests. Moreover, the firstfruits and firstborn of cows, sheep, and goats belong to the Aaronic priests (though parts of these animals are sacrificed to the LORD). In Deuteronomy 12 and Deuteronomy 14, by contrast, the Israelites eat the tithe themselves at the central sanctuary, but they are instructed to share the tithe with the Levites. Every third year, the Israelites are to store their tithes within their towns, and the tithes are to be used for the Levites, resident aliens, widows, and orphans. So, in Deuteronomy, are the Levites expected to survive on whatever scraps from the tithes the Israelites are willing to spare? According to Deuteronomy 18, the Levites are to eat from the animal sacrifices, and the Israelites are to give the Levites their firstfruits.
The impression that I get from these passages is this: In Numbers 18, the tithe goes to the Levites, and the firstfruits go to the Aaronic priests. In Deuteronomy, however, which does not elevate the Aaronic priests above the other Levites, the tithe belongs to the Israelites at the festival, and they can share it with the Levites. Meanwhile, the firstfruits belong to the Levites in general, not just the Aaronic priests.
In Armstrongism, people in the church were expected to pay three tithes. The first tithe went to the ministry. The second tithe was to be used by the church members during the Feast of Tabernacles. And the third tithe occurred every three years and was supposed to be for the poor. My understanding is that Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism, too, maintained that the Torah commanded at least two tithes: one (the one of Numbers 18) went to the Levites, and the other was used by Jews at the festival, but every third year it went to the vulnerable of society.
My Dad once gave a sermon in which he argued that there was only one tithe. I don't remember every argument that he made, but I do recall him pointing out that, according to the Armstrongite interpretation, a lot went to the Levites, with whom the Armstrongites equated the ministry. After all, the Israelites gave an entire tenth to the Levites, and the Israelites were exhorted to share some of their festival tithe (which they used for their own enjoyment) with the Levites.
I myself wouldn't say that there was only one tithe, for Numbers 18 commands the Israelites to give a tenth to the Levites, and Deuteronomy tells them to put aside a tenth for their own (the Israelites') enjoyment at the festivals. When these laws are put together, I do not think that we can get out of the Torah that the Israelites only had one tithe, part of which went to the Levites, and part of which was used by the Israelites at the festivals, for Numbers 18 seems to present the entire tenth going to the Levites (though the Levites are then to give a tenth of that to the Aaronic priests).
Rather, what I think is going on is that we have two different tithing laws, from two separate sources in the Torah. When the two laws are put together, of course the Levites are getting rich! Not only do they get a tenth from the Israelites, but the Israelites also have to treat the Levites like vulnerable poor people during the festivals and every third year. But why would the Levites be so vulnerable, if they are receiving tithes every year? My guess is that tithes amounted to a lot of domesticated animals, fruits, and vegetables, and so I doubt that the Levites would be poor and vulnerable if they were getting tithes every year! But in a scenario in which the Levites are not receiving tithes but rather firstfruits and sacrificial meat, which is what we see in Deuteronomy, the Levites are not getting as much, and so they are poorer. And since they are poorer, it makes sense that Deuteronomy would exhort the Israelites to share what they have with the Levites during the festivals. In the Deuteronomic system, the Levites are more vulnerable. And, on a side note, because the Levites are so vulnerable in Deuteronomy, some scholars question the proposition that Levites wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, for why would the Levites support a system in which they would be so lowly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)