Posts
Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.
Counterpunch: “Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 11/9’: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics,” by Louis Proyect.
Reviews Michael Moore’s newest film about the Trump victory, while
contrasting current Democratic Socialist candidates with old-style
socialists.
Vridar: “Iran, Iran, If Only We Had Been Friends,” by Neil Godfrey.
Iran was standing beside the U.S. soon after 9/11, ready to help the
U.S. take on the Taliban. Then President Bush said Iran was part of the
“Axis of Evil.”
Consortium News: “Privatization, the EU and a Bridge,” by Andrew Spannaus.
The EU’s austerity measures hinder Italy from making necessary
infrastructure improvements, with dire results. Yet, the article
acknowledges that Italy is mired in waste and bureaucracy and has lots
of debt.
The Federalist: “Why Hospital Monopolies Are What’s Wrong with American Health Care,” by Christopher Jacobs.
To quote the subtitle: “Obamacare’s crony capitalism—allowing
hospitals to grow their operations in exchange for political
endorsements—continues to contribute to higher premiums.”
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
Addendum on Mein Kampf: Hitler on Religion
This post is an addendum to my Book Write-Up on Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
This post will briefly discuss Adolf Hitler’s views on religion, as
they are expressed in this book. This is significant because of
contemporary debates about Hitler’s religion, as some regard him as a
Christian, others see him as an atheist, and others label him a pagan or
an occultist.
I hesitantly leave open the comments, in case someone has new information to add. I will not continually re-edit this post in light of new information, though. Snarky and snotty comments will not be accepted.
- Hitler frequently refers to “Fate” thrusting him into situations rather than “God.” At least one time, he referred to the “gods.” This could be a literary device, or perhaps he is giving a nod to paganism, as some suggest. Occasionally, Hitler refers to God, as when he states that, by opposing the Jew, he is doing the work of the Lord
- Hitler expresses admiration for the Catholic church because it commands the loyalty of so many people, from so many walks of life.
- Hitler also sees a valuable place for religion in German society: it provides people, especially the working class, with a moral code.
- Hitler makes use of the Bible when it suits him. In criticizing the Jews, he refers to Christ’s cleansing of the Temple.
- As was stated in my Book Write-Up, Hitler criticizes the Jews for their disbelief in an afterlife. Adherence to a belief in personal immortality, in his eyes, is a mark of strength and ennobles human beings. Jews, in Hitler’s mind, focus on gain in this life and seek to undermine humanity for the sake of power.
- I do not recall Hitler saying anything about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Hitler says that the Jews are incapable of forming a state of their own, since they are ruthless towards each other, so they gain power by being parasites on the accomplishments of others. As I said in my Book Write-Up, though, I wonder how Hitler would reconcile that sentiment with the existence of an Israelite state in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Would he deny that the biblical Jews were the ancestors of the Jews of his day, as some anti-Semites today claim that modern-day Jews are descended from the Khazars (converts to Judaism) rather than the biblical Jews? But that would run contrary to Hitler’s appeal to Christ’s cleansing of the Temple in his attempt to justify anti-Semitism, since the Khazars converted centuries later than the time of the historical Jesus. I recall a book that I read years ago for a paper, Theologians Under Hitler, and one such theologian argued that Christ was not a Jew because Galilee was populated by other people. Is this what Hitler thought? Another reason that I wonder what Hitler thought about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is that some contemporary anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish writings are quite critical of the biblical Jews or the ancient Israelites, including such luminaries as Moses.
I hesitantly leave open the comments, in case someone has new information to add. I will not continually re-edit this post in light of new information, though. Snarky and snotty comments will not be accepted.
Book Write-Up: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
I finished Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I cannot say that I understood all of it, but here are some items, based on my impressions of what he was saying. The wikipedia page about the book
may offer more clarity, but I have not read it yet. This post is
simply a record of what I got out of the book, as I interpreted it.
A. The introduction to the edition that I read was written by Abraham Foxman, who has served as director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman states that “Mein Kampf‘s existence denies the free world the excuse of ignorance.” A question that I asked in reading this book was: Are the things that Hitler did—-invading Europe, the Holocaust, forming an alliance with Italy and Japan, dictatorship—-foreshadowed at all in Mein Kampf?
Some reflections:
—-I cannot recall a passage in which Hitler explicitly says that non-Aryan races should be eliminated. This wikipedia article states that there are such passages, but its endnotes cite sources that refer to Mein Kampf, not Mein Kampf itself. At the same time, Hitler does seem to oppose non-Aryan races being among Germans. A criticism that Hitler has of the Hapsburgs in Austria is that they allowed a lot of Slavs into the country and diluted the German community that was there. While Hitler notes that whites rule non-white peoples in South America in arguing for white superiority, he also laments that the whites there have intermarried with non-white peoples, thereby (in his opinion) diluting the white race. He respects the United States for its restrictive immigration policies and prevalent white population, which he believes have contributed to its advancement as a nation.
—-Hitler despises the Jews. He says that, at first, he was not anti-Semitic, but certain developments led him to embrace anti-Semitism. He did not care for the press because it was not nationalistic enough, as it acknowledged the perspectives of other countries and spoke against the German war effort in World War I. Hitler believed that Jews ran the mainstream media, and he thought that the anti-Semitic media made more sense in speaking about German problems. Hitler was opposed to Social Democracy and Marxism, initially because of the fanaticism of their adherents, but eventually because he concluded that Marxism threatened German culture. Hitler speaks sympathetically about workers and trade unions in this book, and what he professes to support is National Socialism, a nationalist movement of workers, rather than the non-nationalist Marxist movements; while Hitler appears to support German businesses, he also speaks for a parity of wages and against materialism. Hitler noticed that a number of Jews were in the Social Democratic and Marxist movements that he opposed. Hitler speaks about Jewish finance. He laments that the stock exchange has supplanted German businesses in Germany, and he maintains that Jews are seeking, and in some cases already possess, financial control over Europe, Asia, and America. For Hitler, Marxism is one if its tools, since Marxism destroys German culture and society and leaves Jewish finance to pick up the pieces; so is race-mixing, which Hitler regards as the dilution of the Aryan race, which has contributed significantly to culture. Hitler thinks that Jewish finance has especially targeted Germany because Germany is a bulwark against its ambitions, or Germany at least has the potential to be this if it gains strength. Hitler makes other criticisms of Jews: that they are ruthless against each other, that they prevaricate, that they sow dissension among the German states, that they contribute to the degeneration of art (i.e., cubism), that they were not out in the trenches with Germans in World War I (which is untrue), and that they profit from war. He takes a swipe at Jewish disbelief in an afterlife, seeing a belief in an afterlife as ennobling. He even says that Jews cannot form a state, since they are parasites as opposed to being constructive. This puzzled me, since what would Hitler say about the Israelite state in the Bible? Hitler believes that the Jews worldwide are such a problem, that I would say that, in a sense, Mein Kampf foreshadowed the Holocaust. Hitler speaks candidly about his support for the annihilation of France, after all, and he deems France to be a mere puppet of Jewish finance.
—-Something that was surprising: Hitler does not advocate eliminating disabled or weak Germans. He simply says that they should adopt children rather than reproducing themselves.
—-Are Hitler’s imperialist ambitions and alliances foreshadowed in Mein Kampf? Hitler states that Germany is over-populated and needs more land. He definitely wants Germany to take back the land that it lost as a result of World War I. He speaks belligerently about France. He talks about Germany being the leader of the world, but he is unclear about whether that means Germany conquering the world, or Germany merely exercising influence over the world. Overall, he supports alliances, especially with England and Italy, and he believes that such an alliance can successfully undermine French hegemony in Europe. Hitler speaks favorably of Fascist Italy, believing that it has resisted Jewish control. He appears somewhat critical, yet understanding, of English friendship with Asia in order to resist America, yet he states that Jewish finance seeks to undermine Japan. Here, he manifests a sympathetic attitude towards Japan, which he still regards as inferior to the Aryans. He does not seem to care for the prospect of a German alliance with Russia, for he regards Communist Russia as the tragic result of a bloody revolution that eliminated the talented. Some of this foreshadows what Hitler later did—-e.g., ally with Italy and Japan, invade Russia. Some of it, not so much—-e.g., forming a German alliance with England. Hitler also speaks frequently about the German struggle to survive, and this may hint at a support for German belligerence and imperialism.
—-Hitler expresses disdain for parliamentarian government. He doubts that a bunch of heads coming together can lead anywhere constructive, and he states that having a single ruler is best. Such a form of government would attract the right person, he claims, because the weight of responsibility would only be assumed by someone who sincerely desires to help his country. This may foreshadow his authoritarianism. At the same time, he uses buzzwords such as “freedom” and “tyranny,” claiming to support the former and to oppose the latter.
B. Hitler opines about a variety of issues. He believes that memorizing a bunch of vocabulary words to learn a foreign language is a waste of time and that it is better for schools to teach the structure of grammar: that is more easily remembered and can form a foundation for people to learn a foreign language, if they feel so inclined. He laments the prevalence of syphilis and believes that Germans getting married at a young age can counter that. He also offers thoughts on effective propaganda: be clear about the message rather than acknowledging other perspectives and appeal to the workers rather than the bourgeoisie, whom Hitler deems to be lukewarm and spineless.
A. The introduction to the edition that I read was written by Abraham Foxman, who has served as director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman states that “Mein Kampf‘s existence denies the free world the excuse of ignorance.” A question that I asked in reading this book was: Are the things that Hitler did—-invading Europe, the Holocaust, forming an alliance with Italy and Japan, dictatorship—-foreshadowed at all in Mein Kampf?
Some reflections:
—-I cannot recall a passage in which Hitler explicitly says that non-Aryan races should be eliminated. This wikipedia article states that there are such passages, but its endnotes cite sources that refer to Mein Kampf, not Mein Kampf itself. At the same time, Hitler does seem to oppose non-Aryan races being among Germans. A criticism that Hitler has of the Hapsburgs in Austria is that they allowed a lot of Slavs into the country and diluted the German community that was there. While Hitler notes that whites rule non-white peoples in South America in arguing for white superiority, he also laments that the whites there have intermarried with non-white peoples, thereby (in his opinion) diluting the white race. He respects the United States for its restrictive immigration policies and prevalent white population, which he believes have contributed to its advancement as a nation.
—-Hitler despises the Jews. He says that, at first, he was not anti-Semitic, but certain developments led him to embrace anti-Semitism. He did not care for the press because it was not nationalistic enough, as it acknowledged the perspectives of other countries and spoke against the German war effort in World War I. Hitler believed that Jews ran the mainstream media, and he thought that the anti-Semitic media made more sense in speaking about German problems. Hitler was opposed to Social Democracy and Marxism, initially because of the fanaticism of their adherents, but eventually because he concluded that Marxism threatened German culture. Hitler speaks sympathetically about workers and trade unions in this book, and what he professes to support is National Socialism, a nationalist movement of workers, rather than the non-nationalist Marxist movements; while Hitler appears to support German businesses, he also speaks for a parity of wages and against materialism. Hitler noticed that a number of Jews were in the Social Democratic and Marxist movements that he opposed. Hitler speaks about Jewish finance. He laments that the stock exchange has supplanted German businesses in Germany, and he maintains that Jews are seeking, and in some cases already possess, financial control over Europe, Asia, and America. For Hitler, Marxism is one if its tools, since Marxism destroys German culture and society and leaves Jewish finance to pick up the pieces; so is race-mixing, which Hitler regards as the dilution of the Aryan race, which has contributed significantly to culture. Hitler thinks that Jewish finance has especially targeted Germany because Germany is a bulwark against its ambitions, or Germany at least has the potential to be this if it gains strength. Hitler makes other criticisms of Jews: that they are ruthless against each other, that they prevaricate, that they sow dissension among the German states, that they contribute to the degeneration of art (i.e., cubism), that they were not out in the trenches with Germans in World War I (which is untrue), and that they profit from war. He takes a swipe at Jewish disbelief in an afterlife, seeing a belief in an afterlife as ennobling. He even says that Jews cannot form a state, since they are parasites as opposed to being constructive. This puzzled me, since what would Hitler say about the Israelite state in the Bible? Hitler believes that the Jews worldwide are such a problem, that I would say that, in a sense, Mein Kampf foreshadowed the Holocaust. Hitler speaks candidly about his support for the annihilation of France, after all, and he deems France to be a mere puppet of Jewish finance.
—-Something that was surprising: Hitler does not advocate eliminating disabled or weak Germans. He simply says that they should adopt children rather than reproducing themselves.
—-Are Hitler’s imperialist ambitions and alliances foreshadowed in Mein Kampf? Hitler states that Germany is over-populated and needs more land. He definitely wants Germany to take back the land that it lost as a result of World War I. He speaks belligerently about France. He talks about Germany being the leader of the world, but he is unclear about whether that means Germany conquering the world, or Germany merely exercising influence over the world. Overall, he supports alliances, especially with England and Italy, and he believes that such an alliance can successfully undermine French hegemony in Europe. Hitler speaks favorably of Fascist Italy, believing that it has resisted Jewish control. He appears somewhat critical, yet understanding, of English friendship with Asia in order to resist America, yet he states that Jewish finance seeks to undermine Japan. Here, he manifests a sympathetic attitude towards Japan, which he still regards as inferior to the Aryans. He does not seem to care for the prospect of a German alliance with Russia, for he regards Communist Russia as the tragic result of a bloody revolution that eliminated the talented. Some of this foreshadows what Hitler later did—-e.g., ally with Italy and Japan, invade Russia. Some of it, not so much—-e.g., forming a German alliance with England. Hitler also speaks frequently about the German struggle to survive, and this may hint at a support for German belligerence and imperialism.
—-Hitler expresses disdain for parliamentarian government. He doubts that a bunch of heads coming together can lead anywhere constructive, and he states that having a single ruler is best. Such a form of government would attract the right person, he claims, because the weight of responsibility would only be assumed by someone who sincerely desires to help his country. This may foreshadow his authoritarianism. At the same time, he uses buzzwords such as “freedom” and “tyranny,” claiming to support the former and to oppose the latter.
B. Hitler opines about a variety of issues. He believes that memorizing a bunch of vocabulary words to learn a foreign language is a waste of time and that it is better for schools to teach the structure of grammar: that is more easily remembered and can form a foundation for people to learn a foreign language, if they feel so inclined. He laments the prevalence of syphilis and believes that Germans getting married at a young age can counter that. He also offers thoughts on effective propaganda: be clear about the message rather than acknowledging other perspectives and appeal to the workers rather than the bourgeoisie, whom Hitler deems to be lukewarm and spineless.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Church Write-Up: Deep and Wide, Unity, Concrete Blessing, Fruit, and Reality
Here are some items from Wednesday’s LCMS Bible study.
A. One of our texts was Ephesians 3:17-18, in which Paul hopes that Christians will grasp the height, depth, length, and width of the love of Christ. One lady’s Bible said that this means that God’s love can touch whatever situation we are experiencing. The pastor observed that height, depth, and width makes the shape of a cross, which highlights that it is through the cross that we experience Christ’s love. But the cross is significant in another respect, the pastor continued. While we hope to bypass suffering, it is in our suffering that God shows us God’s love, sometimes in ways that we do not know. We also discussed the Book of Esther. God is not mentioned in that book, but Mordecai had confidence that the Jews would be delivered, perhaps because he recognized that God chose the Jewish nation for a purpose and made promises to her. God was at work behind the scenes, as is the case in the world and in our lives. God meets us in our pain and uses it: our pain can encourage us to pray for others in pain, and our mistakes can encourage us to pass on forgiveness to others.
B. A theme in Wednesday’s study was unity in Christ. The pastor believes that Paul wrote Ephesians and that it was relevant to the Judaizers controversy. The pastor compared the controversy to the situation of the LCMS in the 1950’s. People were moving to rural areas and suburbs, and more were joining LCMS on account of its schools. The long-standing Lutherans felt that these newcomers did not grasp what it meant to be Lutheran. Similarly, the Judaizers in Paul’s days saw Gentiles coming into the church and thought that the Gentiles were detached from the roots of Christianity, namely, the Torah. They believed that the Gentiles needed to become circumcised Torah-observant Jews to be Christians. Paul, however, was saying something different. Paul proclaimed that Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God through Christ’s death, so they are one people. Jewish traditions that separated Jews from Gentiles, such as the tradition that kept Gentiles from the Jewish sections of the Temple, are invalid, as Jews and Gentiles are equal worshipers of God within the body of Christ. The pastor also talked about Gnosticism and likened that to the Jesus movement in the 1970’s. There were people who were differentiating between regular believers and “disciples,” as if the latter were superior. People who have intense spiritual experiences can fall into the trap of thinking that they are above other believers. Paul in Ephesians 3:17-18, however, encourages Christians to see the love of Christ as all that they need.
C. Another of our texts was Jeremiah 17:5-8. Those who trust in human beings are like a destitute plant in the desert, whereas those who trust in the LORD are like lush trees planted by the waters. The pastor said that Jeremiah was contrasting looking to alliances for preservation from Babylon with trusting in God. The pastor also said that the Hebrew word for blessed here means a physical blessing, not the state of happiness that the Sermon on the Mount is talking about.
D. Another text that we discussed was John 15:5, where Jesus affirms that he is the vine and his disciples are his branches, and those who abide in him bear fruit. In 14:31, Jesus says, “Arise, let us go hence” (KJV), and the pastor speculated that Jesus may have spoken the words of John 15 on the way to Gethsemane. He and his disciples may even have passed grape vines, and Jesus used them as a teaching opportunity. A lady’s Bible notes said that the fruit of John 15 is not just converts but answered prayer, joy, and love, which are mentioned in John 15-16. The pastor replied that the entire Christian life is the fruit of abiding in Jesus.
E. People were sharing stories about loved ones’ experiences with natural disasters. One lady said that relatives are currently in a hotel because their home has been destroyed, and the head of the household is not the sort of person who likes disruption. Someone else told of when his brother lost his job and his house due to a natural disaster and, years later, he is still shaken by that. These are horrible experiences, but something that I appreciate about this church is that I get to hear about the real world. Amidst this reality, people are still faithful.
A. One of our texts was Ephesians 3:17-18, in which Paul hopes that Christians will grasp the height, depth, length, and width of the love of Christ. One lady’s Bible said that this means that God’s love can touch whatever situation we are experiencing. The pastor observed that height, depth, and width makes the shape of a cross, which highlights that it is through the cross that we experience Christ’s love. But the cross is significant in another respect, the pastor continued. While we hope to bypass suffering, it is in our suffering that God shows us God’s love, sometimes in ways that we do not know. We also discussed the Book of Esther. God is not mentioned in that book, but Mordecai had confidence that the Jews would be delivered, perhaps because he recognized that God chose the Jewish nation for a purpose and made promises to her. God was at work behind the scenes, as is the case in the world and in our lives. God meets us in our pain and uses it: our pain can encourage us to pray for others in pain, and our mistakes can encourage us to pass on forgiveness to others.
B. A theme in Wednesday’s study was unity in Christ. The pastor believes that Paul wrote Ephesians and that it was relevant to the Judaizers controversy. The pastor compared the controversy to the situation of the LCMS in the 1950’s. People were moving to rural areas and suburbs, and more were joining LCMS on account of its schools. The long-standing Lutherans felt that these newcomers did not grasp what it meant to be Lutheran. Similarly, the Judaizers in Paul’s days saw Gentiles coming into the church and thought that the Gentiles were detached from the roots of Christianity, namely, the Torah. They believed that the Gentiles needed to become circumcised Torah-observant Jews to be Christians. Paul, however, was saying something different. Paul proclaimed that Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God through Christ’s death, so they are one people. Jewish traditions that separated Jews from Gentiles, such as the tradition that kept Gentiles from the Jewish sections of the Temple, are invalid, as Jews and Gentiles are equal worshipers of God within the body of Christ. The pastor also talked about Gnosticism and likened that to the Jesus movement in the 1970’s. There were people who were differentiating between regular believers and “disciples,” as if the latter were superior. People who have intense spiritual experiences can fall into the trap of thinking that they are above other believers. Paul in Ephesians 3:17-18, however, encourages Christians to see the love of Christ as all that they need.
C. Another of our texts was Jeremiah 17:5-8. Those who trust in human beings are like a destitute plant in the desert, whereas those who trust in the LORD are like lush trees planted by the waters. The pastor said that Jeremiah was contrasting looking to alliances for preservation from Babylon with trusting in God. The pastor also said that the Hebrew word for blessed here means a physical blessing, not the state of happiness that the Sermon on the Mount is talking about.
D. Another text that we discussed was John 15:5, where Jesus affirms that he is the vine and his disciples are his branches, and those who abide in him bear fruit. In 14:31, Jesus says, “Arise, let us go hence” (KJV), and the pastor speculated that Jesus may have spoken the words of John 15 on the way to Gethsemane. He and his disciples may even have passed grape vines, and Jesus used them as a teaching opportunity. A lady’s Bible notes said that the fruit of John 15 is not just converts but answered prayer, joy, and love, which are mentioned in John 15-16. The pastor replied that the entire Christian life is the fruit of abiding in Jesus.
E. People were sharing stories about loved ones’ experiences with natural disasters. One lady said that relatives are currently in a hotel because their home has been destroyed, and the head of the household is not the sort of person who likes disruption. Someone else told of when his brother lost his job and his house due to a natural disaster and, years later, he is still shaken by that. These are horrible experiences, but something that I appreciate about this church is that I get to hear about the real world. Amidst this reality, people are still faithful.
Monday, September 24, 2018
Church Write-Up: Friendship with the World vs. Agape
Here are some items from last Sunday’s church services and events:
A. The theme for the LCMS service was taken from James 4:8a: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (KJV). The youth pastor said that, when we ask God for something and we do not get what we want, that is still okay because at least we are drawing near to God by making the request. I like that concept because it implies that any prayer that we make is welcomed by God and is not wasted: it is accomplishing something, namely, bringing us closer to God, since we are sharing with God our desires. I think that the concept is broadly Scriptural, as there are passages encouraging people to bring their needs and their requests to God. In terms of the Epistle of James, though, I wonder how it fits with vv. 2-3: “Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” It coincides with v. 2 because it suggests that not receiving is a result of not asking, so it encourages people to ask. Yet, the next verse says that there is such a thing as asking amiss, so that one might consume what one hopes to receive on one’s lust. The verse after that appears to focus on the attitude behind prayer: not praying with an attitude of friendship towards the world, or an alignment with worldly values and desires.
I will sneak in a thought from the Sunday school class. The pastor there was talking about I John and the difference between agape and phileo. Agape is a giving love that originates from God and is exemplified by God’s love for us in sending Christ to die for our sins. Phileo is friendship, which can easily be conditional: you do good to me, and I will do good to you. The pastor was musing that perhaps the concept of friendship with the world implies a hope of redemption, because the friendship with the world is merely philia, which is not as strong of a devotion and attachment as agape.
A few weeks ago, I shared an old post that I wrote, which referred to the scholarly view that agape and phileo are interchangeable rather than distinct. LXX II Samuel 13:1, 15 challenges the idea that agape is always some lofty form of love, for it refers to Amnon’s love for Tamar, whom he raped then rejected. Still, could there be something to the pastor’s insight, and the thought of many Christians who differentiate between agape and phileo? There is a love that Christians have, or are supposed to have, that is rooted in the Gospel, the self-sacrificial, others-oriented love that God showed and shows to us. That love goes beyond the quid-pro-quo of friendship and affection. It is a stronger commitment to the well-being of others, planted and rooted in Gospel territory. In addition, could not our friendship with the world be described as a conditional devotion or affection? We are affectionate towards the world as long as it gives us what we want or makes us feel a certain way.
B. At the “Word of Faith” church, the sermon was a mixture of references to Nehemiah and to the “work out your own salvation” concept in Philippians 2:12.
The pastor used two cups as an illustration. One cup is how we see ourselves, based on our flaws. We may recognize that we are lustful, or bitter, or alone. The other cup concerns what we have in Christ: God, in Christ, sees us as righteous. Which view do we live out? The pastor put one cup into another, and the other cup into the other one, and that represented which cup takes center stage in our lives. Christ may be inside of us, but do we work out the implications of that, living out God’s love and approval of us, or are we burdened by self-condemnation? The pastor compared this to the walls in the Book of Nehemiah. They were intended to keep the Jews safe from attack, so they were associated with salvation. But, like Christians, the Jews rebuilding the walls were assaulted by various forces: commitment to the status quo, mockery, and intimidation. The pastor said that small groups are an important part of the Christian’s battle, for that is where Christians can encourage and remind each other of who they truly are. The pastor observed that Philippians 2:12 is second person plural: it is addressed to the community, not just individuals.
A. The theme for the LCMS service was taken from James 4:8a: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (KJV). The youth pastor said that, when we ask God for something and we do not get what we want, that is still okay because at least we are drawing near to God by making the request. I like that concept because it implies that any prayer that we make is welcomed by God and is not wasted: it is accomplishing something, namely, bringing us closer to God, since we are sharing with God our desires. I think that the concept is broadly Scriptural, as there are passages encouraging people to bring their needs and their requests to God. In terms of the Epistle of James, though, I wonder how it fits with vv. 2-3: “Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” It coincides with v. 2 because it suggests that not receiving is a result of not asking, so it encourages people to ask. Yet, the next verse says that there is such a thing as asking amiss, so that one might consume what one hopes to receive on one’s lust. The verse after that appears to focus on the attitude behind prayer: not praying with an attitude of friendship towards the world, or an alignment with worldly values and desires.
I will sneak in a thought from the Sunday school class. The pastor there was talking about I John and the difference between agape and phileo. Agape is a giving love that originates from God and is exemplified by God’s love for us in sending Christ to die for our sins. Phileo is friendship, which can easily be conditional: you do good to me, and I will do good to you. The pastor was musing that perhaps the concept of friendship with the world implies a hope of redemption, because the friendship with the world is merely philia, which is not as strong of a devotion and attachment as agape.
A few weeks ago, I shared an old post that I wrote, which referred to the scholarly view that agape and phileo are interchangeable rather than distinct. LXX II Samuel 13:1, 15 challenges the idea that agape is always some lofty form of love, for it refers to Amnon’s love for Tamar, whom he raped then rejected. Still, could there be something to the pastor’s insight, and the thought of many Christians who differentiate between agape and phileo? There is a love that Christians have, or are supposed to have, that is rooted in the Gospel, the self-sacrificial, others-oriented love that God showed and shows to us. That love goes beyond the quid-pro-quo of friendship and affection. It is a stronger commitment to the well-being of others, planted and rooted in Gospel territory. In addition, could not our friendship with the world be described as a conditional devotion or affection? We are affectionate towards the world as long as it gives us what we want or makes us feel a certain way.
B. At the “Word of Faith” church, the sermon was a mixture of references to Nehemiah and to the “work out your own salvation” concept in Philippians 2:12.
The pastor used two cups as an illustration. One cup is how we see ourselves, based on our flaws. We may recognize that we are lustful, or bitter, or alone. The other cup concerns what we have in Christ: God, in Christ, sees us as righteous. Which view do we live out? The pastor put one cup into another, and the other cup into the other one, and that represented which cup takes center stage in our lives. Christ may be inside of us, but do we work out the implications of that, living out God’s love and approval of us, or are we burdened by self-condemnation? The pastor compared this to the walls in the Book of Nehemiah. They were intended to keep the Jews safe from attack, so they were associated with salvation. But, like Christians, the Jews rebuilding the walls were assaulted by various forces: commitment to the status quo, mockery, and intimidation. The pastor said that small groups are an important part of the Christian’s battle, for that is where Christians can encourage and remind each other of who they truly are. The pastor observed that Philippians 2:12 is second person plural: it is addressed to the community, not just individuals.
Saturday, September 22, 2018
Current Events Write-Up: Yemen, Obamacare and Netflix, Bernie vs. Debs
Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.
TomDispatch: “The American War in Yemen,” by Rajan Menon.
The saddening story about the U.S.-supported war in Yemen, which has resulted in numerous civilian casualties.
The Federalist: “How Obamacare Is Making the U.S. Health-Care System Run Like Netflix,” by Adam Barsouk.
According to Barsouk, Netflix makes its own movies, and it skimps on quality for the sake of profit: the company wants to make money from subscribers, without spending a lot on production. Similarly, Obamacare, in an attempt to contain costs, limits people to a particular network. They cannot go outside of that network for care that may have more quality. Barsouk also criticizes insurance company-run health care providers, as they seek to skimp on care in order to make more profits for the insurance companies. Interesting analogy. I read an article a while back that said that combining health insurance companies and health care providers into one is the way to go because, that way, both would not be waging war with each other, with the providers wanting to allow more treatments and thus make money, and the insurance companies wanting to deny treatments for the sake of their own bottom line. But there are disadvantages to combining them into one. Progressives, of course, would say that this is why we need to get profits out of the U.S. health care system. On Netflix, I like some of its original programming, especially the Marvel series (i.e., Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist). And, of course, there is Stranger Things!
Counterpunch: “When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid,” by Bruce E. Levine.
Levine argues that Bernie is too much of a warmonger and has become a shrill for the Democrats. His old hero, Eugene Debs, by contrast, started out as a Democrat and came to see the system as corrupt. There were people during the 2016 election who were saying that Bernie is not as progressive as people think. Maybe. Still, I am glad that he gave Hillary a run for her money! And I will not apologize for feeling that way. On his becoming a shrill for the Democrats, he may think that is the best option for the country: for him to work within the system and to move the Democratic Party further left.
TomDispatch: “The American War in Yemen,” by Rajan Menon.
The saddening story about the U.S.-supported war in Yemen, which has resulted in numerous civilian casualties.
The Federalist: “How Obamacare Is Making the U.S. Health-Care System Run Like Netflix,” by Adam Barsouk.
According to Barsouk, Netflix makes its own movies, and it skimps on quality for the sake of profit: the company wants to make money from subscribers, without spending a lot on production. Similarly, Obamacare, in an attempt to contain costs, limits people to a particular network. They cannot go outside of that network for care that may have more quality. Barsouk also criticizes insurance company-run health care providers, as they seek to skimp on care in order to make more profits for the insurance companies. Interesting analogy. I read an article a while back that said that combining health insurance companies and health care providers into one is the way to go because, that way, both would not be waging war with each other, with the providers wanting to allow more treatments and thus make money, and the insurance companies wanting to deny treatments for the sake of their own bottom line. But there are disadvantages to combining them into one. Progressives, of course, would say that this is why we need to get profits out of the U.S. health care system. On Netflix, I like some of its original programming, especially the Marvel series (i.e., Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist). And, of course, there is Stranger Things!
Counterpunch: “When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid,” by Bruce E. Levine.
Levine argues that Bernie is too much of a warmonger and has become a shrill for the Democrats. His old hero, Eugene Debs, by contrast, started out as a Democrat and came to see the system as corrupt. There were people during the 2016 election who were saying that Bernie is not as progressive as people think. Maybe. Still, I am glad that he gave Hillary a run for her money! And I will not apologize for feeling that way. On his becoming a shrill for the Democrats, he may think that is the best option for the country: for him to work within the system and to move the Democratic Party further left.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Book Write-Up: The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger E. Olson
Roger E. Olson. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. IVP Academic, 1999. See here to purchase the book.
Roger E. Olson teaches theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, which is at Baylor University. In this book, Olson tells the story of Christian theology from the second through the twentieth century.
The book is organized chronologically rather than topically, but among the topics that it engages are: the tension between an emphasis on grace in salvation and an emphasis on good works; Christological debates about the relationship of the Son to the Father and the divine and human nature within Christ; ecclesiastical evolution and disputes over the primacy of the Bishop in Rome; monergism vs. synergism; the presence of Christ in the sacraments; the tension between emphasizing orthodoxy and emphasizing personal piety; the relationship between Christian theology and philosophy and, later, modernism; and liberation theology.
The book is very lucid. There were some thinkers whom I failed to understand, such as those who posited that God’s existence was somehow contingent on the world. Olson explained them as best as he could! Overall, the book effectively broke down the thoughts of major Christian theologians throughout history. Olson admits that this book is not a comprehensive treatment, but it does provide the gist of what prominent theologians have argued, and this can provide a crucial foundation and context for further study.
Olson managed to phrase issues in a manner that I found clear. For instance, I have wondered how exactly to define Nestorianism and to differentiate it from what became orthodoxy. It says Jesus had a divine and human nature. What’s wrong with that? But Olson explained that Nestorianism presented two personages as present within Jesus: a divine being and a human being. Another question that I have had concerns who experiences prevenient grace, according to Arminianism. Is it only those whom God chooses to woo, or is it everyone? Olson states that, according to Arminianism, everyone does, on some level.
The book also conveys that there are nuances, without getting lost in a mess of details. While it seems to acknowledge that a belief in Jesus’ divinity goes back to the first century CE, it states that the conception of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were different in the Shepherd of Hermas and Athanasius’ writings than in what came out in orthodox Trinitarianism.
Olson also corrects common misconceptions, as when he states that deists believed in a God who could interfere in the cosmos. He also addresses questions that some may be afraid to ask, thinking they are dumb questions. For example, does Black Liberation Theology hold that only black people will go to heaven after they die? Olson’s willingness to engage this brings the book down to an accessible level.
Olson is not afraid to share his views, here and there. He characterizes the Shepherd of Hermas as legalistic, seeing it as a departure from Paul’s message of grace. He tends to root for the orthodox Trinitarian side. He sees the Council of Orange as a mess when it comes to the issue of predestination. He is skeptical about Process Theology. While Olson is known as an Arminian theologian, he is not particularly negative towards monergism in this book. Even when discussing positions that he may not hold, he tries to get inside of the heads of their adherents and convey their point of view, as when he explains the development of liberal theology. At times, Olson discusses the effects of past disputes on the present, as when he maintains that the U.S. religious culture is privately pietist and publicly deist.
There were things that I learned in reading this book. For one, Olson states that Celsus, against whom Origen argued, may have been raised in a Christian household. Second, there was the issue of nominalism. Nominalism believes in particulars, not categories. As Olson explains, this has profound ramifications on Christian theology. If there is no category of divinity, for example, what does that do to the Trinitarian model in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one what and three whos? There is no longer a what called divinity! There are only three distinct whos, and saying they are one because they share a divine nature is precluded, under nominalism. Is there such a thing as goodness? Olson shows that nominalism led to a divine-command model of ethics: something is right simply because God commands it, not because it is right in itself, according to some category called “right.” According to Olson, such an idea influenced Martin Luther. Olson explained nominalism well, but I have a hard time believing that Luther rejected the idea that God is good.
This book covers a lot of territory, but in an accessible manner. It is a go-to book, yet it is more than a reference book, as Olson provides a compelling narrative and displays his love for the subject matter. There are thinkers who are not treated in this book, such as Tillich, but Olson has written another book about modern theology, which I will read in the future.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Roger E. Olson teaches theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, which is at Baylor University. In this book, Olson tells the story of Christian theology from the second through the twentieth century.
The book is organized chronologically rather than topically, but among the topics that it engages are: the tension between an emphasis on grace in salvation and an emphasis on good works; Christological debates about the relationship of the Son to the Father and the divine and human nature within Christ; ecclesiastical evolution and disputes over the primacy of the Bishop in Rome; monergism vs. synergism; the presence of Christ in the sacraments; the tension between emphasizing orthodoxy and emphasizing personal piety; the relationship between Christian theology and philosophy and, later, modernism; and liberation theology.
The book is very lucid. There were some thinkers whom I failed to understand, such as those who posited that God’s existence was somehow contingent on the world. Olson explained them as best as he could! Overall, the book effectively broke down the thoughts of major Christian theologians throughout history. Olson admits that this book is not a comprehensive treatment, but it does provide the gist of what prominent theologians have argued, and this can provide a crucial foundation and context for further study.
Olson managed to phrase issues in a manner that I found clear. For instance, I have wondered how exactly to define Nestorianism and to differentiate it from what became orthodoxy. It says Jesus had a divine and human nature. What’s wrong with that? But Olson explained that Nestorianism presented two personages as present within Jesus: a divine being and a human being. Another question that I have had concerns who experiences prevenient grace, according to Arminianism. Is it only those whom God chooses to woo, or is it everyone? Olson states that, according to Arminianism, everyone does, on some level.
The book also conveys that there are nuances, without getting lost in a mess of details. While it seems to acknowledge that a belief in Jesus’ divinity goes back to the first century CE, it states that the conception of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were different in the Shepherd of Hermas and Athanasius’ writings than in what came out in orthodox Trinitarianism.
Olson also corrects common misconceptions, as when he states that deists believed in a God who could interfere in the cosmos. He also addresses questions that some may be afraid to ask, thinking they are dumb questions. For example, does Black Liberation Theology hold that only black people will go to heaven after they die? Olson’s willingness to engage this brings the book down to an accessible level.
Olson is not afraid to share his views, here and there. He characterizes the Shepherd of Hermas as legalistic, seeing it as a departure from Paul’s message of grace. He tends to root for the orthodox Trinitarian side. He sees the Council of Orange as a mess when it comes to the issue of predestination. He is skeptical about Process Theology. While Olson is known as an Arminian theologian, he is not particularly negative towards monergism in this book. Even when discussing positions that he may not hold, he tries to get inside of the heads of their adherents and convey their point of view, as when he explains the development of liberal theology. At times, Olson discusses the effects of past disputes on the present, as when he maintains that the U.S. religious culture is privately pietist and publicly deist.
There were things that I learned in reading this book. For one, Olson states that Celsus, against whom Origen argued, may have been raised in a Christian household. Second, there was the issue of nominalism. Nominalism believes in particulars, not categories. As Olson explains, this has profound ramifications on Christian theology. If there is no category of divinity, for example, what does that do to the Trinitarian model in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one what and three whos? There is no longer a what called divinity! There are only three distinct whos, and saying they are one because they share a divine nature is precluded, under nominalism. Is there such a thing as goodness? Olson shows that nominalism led to a divine-command model of ethics: something is right simply because God commands it, not because it is right in itself, according to some category called “right.” According to Olson, such an idea influenced Martin Luther. Olson explained nominalism well, but I have a hard time believing that Luther rejected the idea that God is good.
This book covers a lot of territory, but in an accessible manner. It is a go-to book, yet it is more than a reference book, as Olson provides a compelling narrative and displays his love for the subject matter. There are thinkers who are not treated in this book, such as Tillich, but Olson has written another book about modern theology, which I will read in the future.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)