The elders of Christ Church (Moscow, Id.) on charity

One of the hard things to sort out in the Christian life is how one should respond to need.  At what point does giving to someone actually do harm?  At the one extreme, you can take Matthew 5:42 ["Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." ESV)] to the limit and say that there are no conditions for giving, ever.  On the other, you might say that a person has to earn the right to charity.  Kevin and I were discussing this last year in the comments on this post, and I hope to get back to that discussion this weekend (this time I mean it, Kevin).

Here’s an attempt by Doug Wilson’s church elders to explore the issue of mercy in a recent document that they produced that explored a range of issues of Christian social responsibility, posted on Wilson’s blog.  The relevant section for this discussion:

Mercy
We affirm that the basis of our charity is to be our recognition of the mercy we have received from God (2 Cor. 4:1).We do not extend mercy because others have earned it and may demand it of us, but rather we extend it with the knowledge that we received it when we did not deserve it (Eph. 2:1-7). Freely we have received, freely we are to give (Matt. 10:8), and we are to give in this way without thought of repayment (Luke 14:12-13).

We deny that men must earn their right to be shown charity. No one can disqualify himself from the realm of mercy ministry by rebellion or sin. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Those who are merciful shall receive mercy (Matt. 5:7). In mercy we give nothing but what was given to us. At the same time, rebellion and sin do distort a person’s sense of what he needs to receive (Prov. 23:35). But we are called to give, as far as it is possible with us, what a person actually needs and not necessarily what he thinks he needs (Acts 3:6).

We affirm that charity should extend equally to the “deserving poor” (1 Cor. 16:1) as well as to the “undeserving poor” (2 Thess. 3:10). Charity makes a distinction between them, but only in what is given, not in a willingness to give. The deserving poor receive, for example, gifts of money (1 Cor. 16:1), clothing (Matt. 25:38), food (Matt. 25:37), and shelter (Matt. 25:38). The undeserving poor receive accountability (Prov. 6:9), a work ethic (2 Thess. 3:12), and godly teaching (Eph. 4:28). The gleaning laws of the Old Testament recognize this distinction plainly. The poor are defined as those who are “without,” and these different categories exist because people go without different things. Some are without Christ, and are spiritually poor, while others are without food, and are physically poor. Some, in danger of starvation, are absolutely poor, while others in First World countries are relatively poor because they have an older car. Charity should be extended to all, but intelligent charity requires a knowledge of what it is they are going without.

Book Review: G.W. Bowersock, “Martyrdom and Rome”

Over the summer, Peter Leithart referred to Bowersock’s short book on martyrdom.  Bowersock made some really fascinating connections in this book of just about 100 pages.  He argued that the Greek word “martyr” and its variants only began to be used in the 2^nd century to denote someone killed for his faith by the political authorities.  Before this, “martyr” simply meant “witness” in the legal sense.  Even in the New Testament, Bowersock writes, only Revelation 2:13 and Acts 22:20 refer to people who were killed by the Greek word that would become “martyr,” and in both of these cases he believes that “witness” (one who saw) is a better translation than “martyr” (one who was killed for his faith).  Even one of the most famous and eager Christian martyrs, Ignatius of Antioch, did not use the Greek word “martyr” for himself.

Instead, Bowersock believes that the Christian tradition of martyrdom came from the urban culture of the Roman Empire, especially in Asia Minor: “Apart from Justin at Rome and the group of martyrs at Lyon in France, the early martyrdoms provide a check-list of the most prosperous and important cities of the eastern Roman empire: Pergamum, Smyrna, Caesarea by the Sea, Carthage, Alexandria” (41).  For Bowersock, martyrdoms fit right with the culture of urban centers.  Like the sophist rhetoricians of this time, they taught and were referred to as “teacher” and “father” in the same way that the sophists (were see the third paragraph of the link for the sophists of the 2nd century AD, as opposed to the pre-Christian sophists).  Bowersock notes that the speeches that the martyrs gave to civic crowds fit with the genre of teachers addressing the cities.  Martyrs tended to be executed on holidays and also could find themselves as victims of city gladiatorial games.  In fact, Tertullian actually told martyrs that God himself was the host and orchestrator of the games in which they would be put to death.  Bowersock sums up the correlation of martyrdom and civic life:

Martyrdom was thus solidly anchored in the civic life of the Graeco-Roman world of the Roman empire.  It ran its course in the great urban spaces of the agora and the amphitheater, the principal settings for public discourse and for public spectacle.  It depended upon the urban rituals of the imperial cult and the interrogation protocols of local and provincial magistrates.  The prisons and brothels of the cities gave further opportunities for the display of the martyr’s faith. (54)

One issue that the church struggled with was voluntary martyrdom.  Perpetua and Germanicus (the latter described in the martyrdom narrative of Polycarp) took hold of a sword and a wild animal, respectively, to hasten their deaths.  On some occasions, people confronted Roman officials demanding to be martyred.  Bowersock traces the enthusiasm of some for martyrdom to Roman culture, which could sometimes have a heroic notion of suicide.  This spilled over into some church figures like Tertullian.  On the other hand, the disdain for suicide by people like Plutarch, Middle Platonists, and neo-Platonists was shared by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, both of whom drew from Plato.

This is a short book of only about 100 pages that packed in a lot of ideas for consideration.  I’ve tried to spell some of them out above.  One thing that makes the book a bit more difficult is that there are a lot of Greek and Latin words that he doesn’t translate, which can make some parts difficult to follow.

There were also some questions that I had.  First, Carthage doesn’t really fit geographically into the eastern Roman Empire, where he says a lot of the culture of martyrdom took place.  Second, he traces the culture of martyrdom to Roman urban culture, but says that Asia Minor was a major location of the martyrdom cult.  The cities of Asia Minor would have had a much longer heritage of Greek culture since at least 600 BC, if not earlier.  So it seems like Carthage fits into the category of Roman-influenced cities, but not into the category of eastern Roman cities.  On the other hand, the cities of Asia Minor fit in as eastern Roman cities, but he doesn’t explain how they became so Roman in culture.  I’m sure that Bowersock would have some answers for these questions, which may well come from my amateur understanding of the ancient world.  This book came from lectures rather than a comprehensive work of scholarship.

Overall, this is an intriguing look into the culture of martyrdom that’s worth it if you’re interested  in the early centuries of the church.

John Piper’s MLK weekend sermon

John Piper always preaches on racial reconciliation on the Sunday before Martin Luther King, Jr. day.  This year, he focused on helping parents teach their children to love people of other races.  I’m going to list his points, Justin Taylor style:

1. Help the children believe in God’s sovereign wisdom and goodness in creating them with the body that they have.

2. Help the children believe in God’s sovereign wisdom and goodness in making other people with the body that they have.

3. Help the children believe that they and all other children and adults are made in God’s image.

4. Teach the children that God tells us to do to others as we would like others to do to us.

5. Teach the children and model for them that their own sin is uglier than anybody they think is physically unattractive.

6. Teach the children that God loves them in spite of the ugliness of their sin and that he proved this by sending his Son to die for our sins and give forgiveness to all who would trust him.

7. Teach the children that because Jesus died for them and rose again, he becomes for them an all-satisfying Friend and Treasure.

8. Teach the children to love others who are different from them, not in order to be accepted by God, but because they already are accepted by God because of Jesus.

Here’s a link to the text, video, and audio of the sermon.

Loving each other in Christ

The first chapter of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together explores what the idea of Christian brotherhood means.  For him, it all comes down to our unity in Christ because of our salvation through His righteousness and under His authority.  Indeed, Christians are united through all eternity in Christ.  These realities allow us to love each other through Christ.  One of Bonheoffer’s major goals in this was to distinguish between human expectations of community and true Christian community.  We may have ideals coming into a community of believers, he writes, but God’s grace will sweep them away when people must actually learn to live with each other’s sins and weaknesses.

The best antidote to disappointment is to be thankful for the very real Christian community that we do have and focus on our own need for growth.  Otherwise, the disappointed person “becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself” (28).  Instead, we should welcome the death of our visions for what community should be so that God’s definition of it can triumph.  An example of God’s definition comes later in the chapter when he talks about love: “What love is, only Christ tells in his Word.  Contrary to all my own opinions and convictions, Jesus Christ will tell me what love toward the brethren really is” (35).  Therefore God’s definition of right community, revealed in the Bible, trumps all of our natural impulses and emotions: it may even require ending fellowship for the sake of truth “despite all the protests of my human love” (35).  A good summary statement comes at the end of one of his sections:

Christian brotherhood is not an idea which we must realize; it is rather a reality created by God in Christ in which we may participate.  The more clearly we learn to recognize that the ground and strength and promise of all our fellowship is in Jesus Christ alone, the more serenely shall we think of our fellowship and pray and hope for it. (30)

Bonhoeffer also contrasts divine love and human love.  The central concept in this discussion is we can love each other spiritually rather than humanly.  He relates this distinction to the Bible’s differentiation between  “pneumatic” (Spirit-driven) and “psychic” (man-driven).  Central to his understanding of loving each other is the idea that we love others only through Christ.  Spiritual love serves, whereas human love desires.  I think that the contrast and the implications are best summarized in this paragraph:

Because Christ stands between me and others, I dare not desire direct fellowship with them.  As only Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others, too, can be saved only by Christ himself.  This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him with my love.  The other person needs to retain his independence of me; to be loved for what he is, as one for whom Christ bought forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  Because Christ has long since acted decisively for my brother, before I could begin to act, I must leave him his freedom to be Christ’s; I must meet him only as the person that he already is in Christ’s eyes.  This is the meaning of the proposition that we can meet others only through the mediation of Christ.  Human love constructs its own image of the other person, of what he is and what he should become.  It takes the life of the other person into its own hands.  Spiritual love recognizes the true image of the other person which he has received from Jesus Christ; the image that Jesus Christ himself embodied and would stamp upon all men. (35-36)

So in loving each other spiritually we allow each other freedom rather than seeking to transform each other by our own actions.  I’m not entirely sure what he means in the last sentence and how he would apply this vision of love to nonbelievers.  I may get a better sense of this as I read further.

UPDATE (2/7/10): I corrected a couple of typos.

Bonhoeffer returns to Germany

I’ve begun reading Life Together. The introduction by translator John W. Doberstein discusses his decision to go back to Germany:

But already [in the late 1930s] Bonhoeffer was deeply involved in the events of his dictator-dominated country.  Through Hans von Dohnanyi, the husband of his sister Christel, he learned something of the crisis that was centering in General Fritsch and the secret plans for the overthrow of Hitler being made by General Beck and others.  The man who felt all the force of the pacifist position and weighed the “cost of discipleship” concluded in the depths of his soul that to withdraw from those who were participating in the political and military resistance would be irresponsible cowardice and flight from reality.  “Not,” as his friend [Eberhard] Bethge says, “that he believed that everybody must act as he did, but from where he was standing, he could see no possibility of retreat into any sinless, righteous, pious refuge.  The sin of respectable people reveals itself in flight from responsibility.  He saw that sin falling upon him and he took his stand.”  Here, he acted in accord with his fundamental view of ethics, that a Christian must accept his responsibility as a citizen of this world where God has placed him.  In 1939 he was in the United States for a brief time.  His friends here urged him to remain and use his gifts as a scholar and teacher in the service of the ecumenical church, but he refused and boarded one of the last ships to return to his manifest destiny. (12)

Islamist terrorism and Middle Eastern states

I just read a really different perspective on this issue that I have not seen before.  Michael Totten recently interviewed Lee Smith (not the former Cubs reliever) about his new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations.  Smith argues that terrorist groups in the Middle East are inextricably tied with Middle Eastern states, who use them to fight other states.  While they cannot ultimately control these groups, they believe that they can use them to deter or harm their enemies.

Here’s how he explains 9/11 in that context:

There’s no doubt that the region is rife with anti-Americanism and an attack on the US, even as it kills thousands of civilians, is apt to win acclaim in too many corners of the Middle East. Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers certainly understood this, but I am not sure the dynamic I am describing is as clear-cut with regard to 9/11. Instead I tend to see 9/11 like this: Middle Eastern regimes, almost all of them, but most notably Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia use various so-called non-state actors to advance their regional interests and deter each other. For instance, Syria’s relationship with Jordan’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front, and Jordan’s friendliness toward the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, means that these two states effectively deter each other—if you use Islamists against me, I will unleash Islamists on you. Al Qaeda, as a transnational outfit, seems to be a group that has been supported, manipulated and penetrated by a whole number of Middle Eastern security services, including but not exclusive of the Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq before Saddam’s downfall. This is not to say that any of these regimes have Al Qaeda or any of these terror organizations under their thumb; when you have a group of people with weapons, money and a deadly ideology it is difficult to manage them very closely. I think this is what happened on 9/11—one of these outfits had the wherewithal to carry its war elsewhere and they did, to the United States.

Christopher Hitchens on North Korean propaganda

Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, tries to update his view of North Korean after reading B.R. Myers’ The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters.  While Hitchens had assumed that North Korean totalitarianism was best understood as a combination of “classical Stalinism with a contorted form of the deferential, patriarchal Confucian ethos,” Myers’ book convinced him that North Korea has actually become a radically nationalist (and therefore far right) dictatorship.  Here’s part of his argument:

Consider: Even in the days of communism, there were reports from Eastern Bloc and Cuban diplomats about the paranoid character of the [North Korean] system (which had no concept of deterrence and told its own people that it had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in bad faith) and also about its intense hatred of foreigners. A black Cuban diplomat was almost lynched when he tried to show his family the sights of Pyongyang. North Korean women who return pregnant from China—the regime’s main ally and protector—are forced to submit to abortions. Wall posters and banners depicting all Japanese as barbarians are only equaled by the ways in which Americans are caricatured as hook-nosed monsters. (The illustrations in this book are an education in themselves.) The United States and its partners make up in aid for the huge shortfall in North Korea’s food production, but there is not a hint of acknowledgement of this by the authorities, who tell their captive subjects that the bags of grain stenciled with the Stars and Stripes are tribute paid by a frightened America to the Dear Leader.

Myers also points out that many of the slogans employed and displayed by the North Korean state are borrowed directly—this really does count as some kind of irony—from the kamikaze ideology of Japanese imperialism. Every child is told every day of the wonderful possibility of death by immolation in the service of the motherland and taught not to fear the idea of war, not even a nuclear one.

I knew that North Korea was a terrible place, but it is of course far worse than I could have imagined.  The title of for the article, “A Nation of Racist Dwarves,” is a bit crude, although here is the explanation for why he refers to the North Koreans in that way:

Here are the two most shattering facts about North Korea. First, when viewed by satellite photography at night, it is an area of unrelieved darkness. Barely a scintilla of light is visible even in the capital city. (See this famous photograph.) Second, a North Korean is on average six inches shorter than a South Korean. You may care to imagine how much surplus value has been wrung out of such a slave, and for how long, in order to feed and sustain the militarized crime family that completely owns both the country and its people.

Myers’ book is short (200 pages or so) and looks like an important read to understand the isolationist dictatorship.  Hitchens wonders if these realities mean that North Korea cannot be dealt with on any kind of normal, rational basis.

Abortion providers who turn pro-life

Justin Taylor recently linked to an article from the Weekly Standard called “Mugged by Ultrasound.”  It described the heart-change of several people who used to work in abortion clinics due to their gruesome experiences.  As Albert Mohler notes, the article says that there are two major trends that have pushed people in this direction: the use of “dilation and evacuation” and the ultrasound technology.  The article contains some awful descriptions abortion in the words of the clinic workers, including doctors and staff.

Here is the powerful conclusion:

This handful of stories is representative of many more. In fact, with the exception of communism, we can think of few other movements from which so many activists have defected to the opposition. Nonetheless, the vast majority of clinic workers remain committed to the pro-choice cause. Perhaps some of those who stay behind are haunted by their work. Most, however, find a way to cope with the dissonance.
Pro-choice advocates like to point out that abortion has existed in all times and places. Yet that observation tends to obscure the radicalism of the present abortion regime in the United States. Until very recently, no one in the history of the world has had the routine job of killing well-developed fetuses quite so up close and personal. It is an experiment that was bound to stir pro-life sentiments even in the hearts of those staunchly devoted to abortion rights.  Ultrasound and D&E bring workers closer to the beings they destroy. Hern and Corrigan concluded their study by noting that D&E leaves “no possibility of denying an act of destruction.” As they wrote, “It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment run through the forceps like an electric current.”

I hope and pray that more providers will follow the path of those described in the article.  Recently, I posted about another article that discussed the moral difficulties faced by defenders of abortion.  This article was by an author who supported abortion-rights, which made it all the more remarkable.  That article, much more than my brief comments about it, is really worth reading.

Hat tip for Mohler article: Rick at Endued

Toby Sumpter on God’s interruptions

Toby Sumpter, writing in Credenda Agenda, follows the logic of God’s intervention into human life from the Incarnation to the world to come (following his postmillennial eschatology).  He writes that God interrupts the way that people do things, calling them to a new way of life.  It’s really just worth it to read the whole article, which isn’t too long but covers a lot of ground.  Here is a taste:

Generally, this Commission goes under the twin titles mercy ministry and evangelism: the gospel declared to the poor. These are the two sides of the one blade of the Word. And John Piper has helpfully said that the way we keep these two sides together, the way we ensure that this sword remains unified is through a robust doctrine of Hell. He says in a round table discussion with D.A. Carson and Tim Keller, “We exist to relieve all suffering, especially eternal suffering.” He goes on to describe how a ministry of so-called “mercy” that neglects the reality of the possibility of Hell after this life is an enormous failure. In other words, like Jesus, the urgency of our intervention is authorized by the reality of final judgment and eternal torment. I hereby resolve to increase my use of the words “damn” and “hell.” Jesus interrupts every conversation, every story with a good damn.

A good damn consists of condemning the brokenness, condemning the sin, and pointing to the reality of final judgment. It intervenes to pull, drag, and beg the slaves of sin and brokenness out of the fire that is already kindled in their lives. It offers grace and freedom to every form of poverty. Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett define poverty as a complex breakdown in relationships. “Poverty is the result of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable. Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meanings.” (When Helping Hurts, 62)

Sumpter also wrote an article about the early church creeds and the gospel last month.

How to work against Roe v. Wade

Justin Taylor posts the text of an interview with Clark Forsythe of Americans United for Life.  Forsythe’s recent book, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, looks quite interesting, and he and Taylor discuss some of the content of the book in the interview.

Forsythe describes the difficulties of undoing Roe by asking the Supreme Court to apply the 14th Amendment to the unborn:

It is not simply “improbable” but almost certainly impossible in our lifetime. That’s because every single justice since Roe has rejected it (the proposition that the unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment), including the most anti-Roe justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. And Scalia and Thomas have rejected it for at least two or three reasons. First, the words “abortion” and “unborn child” are not in the Constitution; they weren’t specifically considered by the framers of the 14th Amendment. Second, Justice Scalia and Thomas believe that the abortion issue was and is an issue for the states to decide, as a constitutional matter. The third is perhaps the most powerful and the one most often ignored by pro-lifers: Scalia and Thomas want the Court out of the “abortion-umpiring business,” which they think has undermined the integrity of the Court as a constitutional and political institution. The declaration that the unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not extract the Court but thrust it more deeply into the “abortion-umpiring business.” So, for both constitutional and institutional reasons, Scalia and Thomas have at least implicitly rejected 14th Amendment “personhood,” and it’s almost certain that any justice nominated by even a pro-life president and confirmed by the Senate in the next 20 years will be heavily influenced by the reasoning of Scalia and Thomas.

On the other hand, Roe could be overturned on less sweeping grounds (which Forsythe considers a more realistic option) and the issue could be left up to individual states, as it was before 1973.  It would then be up to “a majority of states enact and enforce prohibitions on abortion, thereby exhibiting a national political culture that opposes all abortion,” which might eventually create the political climate in which legal abortion would eventually be considered a violation of the 14th Amendment.

What can we do now?

On the legal side, the states can enact (1) fetal homicide laws (the strongest possible legal protection of the unborn child today), (2) legislation to limit and fence in and reduce abortion, and (3) legislation to protect women’s health and ensure that women get full information about the six major medical risks to women from abortion. Political science professor Michael New’s series of statistical analyses attribute the 25% drop in abortions (from 1.6 million annually in 1992 to 1.2 million annually in 2006) to legislation of this kind. The current majority of the Court will likely uphold any regulation of abortion that makes medical sense, and there’s a lot that the states can and should do to protect women from the medical risks.

For private citizens, he has these suggestions:

1. Become active voters. Vote in upcoming primaries, and vote in the upcoming state and federal general elections, including the Congressional mid-term elections in November 2010.
2. Stay informed through reading and information that’s on the Web. See e.g., www.aul.org.
3. Get involved with a pro-life organization in your state that is actively involved in lobbying on the life issues in your state capitol this Spring.
4. Support AUL’s work in the courts and legislatures.