Christians, Associations, and the State
I’m working on a paper on voluntary associations in the Roman world. The paper itself is not about Christ-confessing communities as associations, but is looking at the other evidence for collegia/thiasoi. Nevertheless, I was reading Stephen Wilson’s chapter to Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World and he had an interesting comment regarding Christian communities and their relationship to the state:
Two groups that did belong to more active networks, churches and synagogues, were concerned mostly to protect their privileges or to encourage circumstances that allowed them to run their internal affairs without interference. Their aim was not to overthrow the existing political system, but to find their niche within it — even if on their own terms. So while some aspects of early Christian communal life, for example, could be seen as politically or socially destabilizing, in fact most early Christian writers call on their members to support the state (Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2). It is true that some Jews and Christians envisaged the overthrow of the state in the end times, and that the Judaean and North African Jews anticipated this outcome in a series of revolts against Rome in the first and second centuries CE. These uprisings were, however, driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse, were limited geographically and temporally, and were atypical of the experience of the majority of Jews under Roman rule. (3)
This is not all that different than what many other scholars have said, but I like how it’s been phrased here. As an Anabaptist, I have been connected with a lot of Christians who would like to find a biblical basis for political reform. Texts like Romans 13:1-7 are, of course, the big challenge for them. I’m not sure Revelation 13 is much help because, as Wilson notes about Judean revolts, that apocalyptic critique of the state is “driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse.” This revolution, however, is imagined as the act of God in the end of the age because any present revolutions are quite obviously fruitless (understatement!).
I think reformist Christians in the United States, such as the Mennonites in my own “voluntary association,” do better to recognize the historical circumstance of the early Christian movement. We can be honest that the early Christian movement was not trying to make political changes to the imperial government, but just because they were not reformist does not mean that Christians today cannot be. The same as the Anabaptists themselves could not be reformists in 16th century Europe but often are in the United States today. Christians should understand why the Jesus movement was not that way and then understand how the early values might apply in our very different social and political situation.
Obama Going to Messiah College
This is just an update that Obama accepted the invitation to the Compassion Forum that will be held at Messiah College on April 13th. See my earlier post about Clinton’s announcement to attend.
Clinton confirms she's going to Messiah College
I mentioned the Compassion Forum the other day, when we knew the invitations were being considered, but Hillary Clinton has made it explicit: she’s going to participate in the forum at my alma mater (HT: Beliefnet [the article is kind of a watered down version of the press release]). I don’t think this will be proving which candidate is “Christian enough” as one commenter at Beliefnet suggests, since the Forum will be focused on issues of broader concern (e.g., domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, abortion, genocide in Darfur, and human rights and torture). Note that the board includes folks like Jim Wallis, Gary Haugen, Richard Cizik, and David Beckmann.
The spin is that these questions are being asked from a faith perspective. I think it does more for challenging people of faith to think about important social issues than it ranks the candidates on their “Christianness.” What Jim Wallis says is that politicians are “wind chasers.” They stick their finger up in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. Wallis says that Christians (and I think all concerned citizens, no matter religion) need to change the direction of the wind–like MLK, Jr. I hope that this Forum is one more step to raise public awareness that the faith-based voters are not only looking for the best Christian (although some unfortunately are) but they are more interested in making real change with difficult social concerns.
I’m envious of the students on campus right now because of the amazing learning opportunity this provides them.
For the record, I’m still a little dumbfounded that presidential candidates are going to an Anabaptist school!
My Anabaptist Alma Mater To Host Presidential Candidates
This is something else. Messiah College, my undergraduate alma mater located near Harrisburg, Pa., is going to be hosting the “Compassion Forum” in the evening of April 13th (nine days before the Pennsylvania primary). Invited are Obama, Clinton, and McCain for a conversation on important moral issues that bridge the partisan divide. Check out this bit from the announcement on Messiah’s news blog:
The Compassion Forum will be a unique event—not another traditional debate. Each candidate will participate in a separate substantive conversation. The Forum will be moderated by Jon Meacham, editor of “Newsweek,” author of “American Gospel,” and a respected scholar on faith and American politics. Conversation topics will focus on compassion and social justice issues such as U.S. and global poverty; AIDS; climate change; Darfur; and human rights.
The compassion, reconciliation, and social justice issues to be discussed at this forum are relevant to the mission and values of Messiah College. As host organization, Messiah will be able to create important educational opportunities for our students related to this event.
It is sponsored, in part, by Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, the ONE Campaign, and Oxfam America.To my knowledge, the campaigns haven’t officially accepted the invitation yet, but it sounds like it’s assumed they will. I hope they do. It is pretty darn interesting. Presidential candidates come to an Anabaptist school to talk about how issues important to people of faith. Anabaptists have come a long way in their interaction with society and politics. Of course, most of the students at the school are not actually Anabaptist and many probably don’t know much about Anabaptism, but the school is intentional about its Anabaptist values (even if its not as explicit about them as, say, Goshen). I wonder what the campaigns will do when they learn that Messiah doesn’t have a flag pole on campus (oh, heresies of heresies).
What I’m not looking forward to are more jokes about the name of the school or references to the whole Monica Goodling fiasco.
I was first tipped off by these two stories (and my alumni email update).
Huckabee Quizzes America on the Bible
There was a great story on NPR this evening about Huckabee’s rhetorical allusions to biblical stories (as he continues to run as the most Christian candidate). The story was put together by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, who interviews Stephen Prothero especially concerning the fact that so many people don’t understand what Huckabee is talking about. The story is fantastic to listen to, just to hear the responses people give, trying to guess what Huckabee means by things like “the widow’s mite has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world” or “one small smooth stone is even more effective than a whole lot of armor.”
It would be great to listen to in a classroom setting on biblical studies. The NPR page has the story in text as well as audio. [James at Old in the New also took note of the story and gives some analysis.]
Update (2/11/08): Did you hear Huckabee say this weekend that he didn’t major in math, he majored in miracles? Ugh.
Berlinerblau on Huckabee
Jacques Berlinerblau, of “What’s Wrong with the Society of Biblical Literature?” fame, has a new book out called Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics. He has taken the opportunity to reflect the interests of this last book on the current race and has an excellent specimen in Mike Huckabee (I previously reflected about Huckabee and his “theology degree”). On his “The God Vote” column/blog at the On Faith website, Berlinerblau offers some brief, but good thoughts about Huckabee and conservative evangelical voters. Here’s a bit to get you started:
It seems doubtful, for example, that [Huckabee] will carry New Hampshire–if only because Evangelicals there do not comprise anywhere near the 38% of Republican voters that they do in Iowa. It is estimated that about 18% of the Republican electorate in New Hampshire is Evangelical (versus, incidentally, a whopping 53% in South Carolina).
It is for this reason that Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary is our friend, our teacher. It wants to help us answer a question and that question is: will Republicans and Independents with no particular investment in a biblical worldview (though with no particular disdain for it either) find something else about Huckabee that convinces them to vote for him?
Huckabee and his "Theology Degree"
Like Michael Westmoreland-White and Jim West, I am skeptical of thinking a “theology degree” could qualify a person for presidency of the United States. I do see some potential benefits, depending on one’s training in that degree. For example, if a person focused on the relationship between theology and culture in American society or perhaps comparative religion, I think that they would be well-trained with some helpful intellectual tools to assess the religious landscape of the United States and how it affects public policy. I think a theology degree could possibly help an elected leader critically evaluate the use and abuse of religious language to make public policy decisions. Huckabee’s rhetoric is something else. It seems that Huckabee is posturing himself as the most Christian candidate out of all the Republicans. Note this NPR piece highlighting one of his ads in Iowa playing “Silent Night” in the background and talking about the “celebration of the birth of Christ.” I especially liked the comment from NPR’s Martin Kaste afterwards: “Now there’s a wily trick: you get ahead in the polls and then you declare Christmas!”
Check out how he’s talked about his “theology degree”:
I’m as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well. [Interview with Christian Broadcasting Network on 11/8/2007]
Or in answering the creepy questioner who asked “Do you believe this book?” [holding up a King James Version of the Bible] on the CNN YouTube Debate on 11/28/2007 (See James McGrath’s post):
And as the only person here (probably) on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, but I’m not supposed to, because the Bible is the revelation of an infinite God and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small.
He made a few mistakes while answering the YouTube question, like calling the bit about “plucking out your eye” “allegorical” (perhaps it is hyperbole, but not allegory) and his mention of Matthew 25 is a particular interpretation of the text, an exegetically questionable one. But the second quote here is clearly a better use of his alleged “theology degree” than the former.
As it turns out, however, Mike Huckabee does not have a “theology degree.” He spent a year at Southwestern Theological Seminary and dropped out to go work for televangelist James Robison. Check out this bit in a NY Times interview Zev Chafets had with Huckabee:
If young Mike Huckabee was ever rebellious or difficult, there’s no record of it. He preached his first sermon as a teenager, married his high-school sweetheart and went off to Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. There he majored in speech and communications, worked at a radio station and earned his B.A. in a little more than two years. He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television.
During this interview, Huckabee also made the faux pas of wondering aloud about Mormonism:
I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
A theology degree doesn’t have to make you an expert in comparative religion. There are a lot of foci to a theology degree. I’m focusing on New Testament studies and by the time I finish my Master of Divinity this summer, I will not have had a single course on Mormonism. On the other hand . . . neither does it make you an expert on “Islamofascism” (a scary term in the mouth of someone running as the most Christian candidate for president), which Huckabee claims to “understand really well” because he is the only one with a “theology degree.” Even if he had a degree in theology, he would not necessarily be qualified to “understand really well” Islamofascism. Huckabee claimed both a degree that he didn’t have and expertise that such a degree would not have given him.
Mike Huckabee responds to the ensuing fuss:
I have a bachelor of arts in religion and a minor in communications in my undergraduate work. And then I have 46 hours on a master’s degree at Southwestern Theology Seminary. So, my degree as a theological degree is at the college level and then 46 hours toward a masters — three years of study of New Testament Greek, and then the rest of it, all in Seminary was theological studies, but my degree was actually in religion.
Did he really major in religion? Or communication like the NY Times article says? Is Mike Huckabee making his “theology degree” claims sound better by telling the world he was a religion major instead of a communications major? Ouachita Baptist University (who named its school of education after him) says that Huckabee graduated in 1976 with a degree in “pastoral ministry”:
Governor Huckabee and his wife, Janet, entered Ouachita as freshmen in the fall of 1973. The couple married following their freshman year. The Governor graduated from Ouachita in 1976 with a degree in pastoral ministry.
“Religion” sounds better than “pastoral ministry” when you’re in politics, I guess. Well, this mess clearly shows that Huckabee has some problems showing himself in an accurate light. But further, I’m just a little perturbed with how he used a “theology degree” to gain him some traction with voters. People already make assumptions about what my theology degree means. This just makes it worse.
Update (1/08/08): See also Dwight’s reflections on the issue at Versus Populum.
Snapshot of Political Leanings at Fuller Seminary
In academia, Fuller Theological Seminary has a reputation for being a conservative place. Within Evangelicalism, Fuller has a reputation of being a progressive, or even liberal place. I am not a big fan of the terms “conservative” or “liberal” in either the political or theological spheres. I do not find I “fit” within such a spectrum. I have too many questions about either side to associate myself with them. I don’t even want to call myself a “moderate” because that term still defines me within the liberal-conservative continuum.
But people still use the terms and, much of the time, pejoratively. Or if not pejoratively, then at least tied to some kind of value judgment about “conservatism” or “liberalism.” So, one unscientific way to explore the political leanings of Fuller Seminary, which may or may not have bearing on the theological leanings of Fuller Seminary, is via Facebook. Facebook has this feature to select your political leaning from a range of options (you can only select one): Very Liberal, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Very Conservative, Apathetic, Libertarian, or Other. Many people feel comfortable selecting one of these for their Facebook friends to see (I have picked “Other”) and you can thus search through a given “Network” of people on Facebook for those who have chosen those identifiers. Granted, not everybody picks the most accurate category. For example, for awhile, Josh McManaway jokingly selected “Very Conservative” to go with his tongue-in-cheek write-in answer for “Religious Views”: “Very Christian.” [I'd like to say that my favorite answer to Religious Views, by the way, is my friend Alan, who wrote: "Yes, I have some."] Nevertheless, I think people are usually pretty honest about where they feel they fall in the political spectrum.
Facebook created a network for Fuller Seminary about five months ago. Since then (at the time of writing this post), we’ve garnered 742 students, alums, faculty and staff with Fuller email addresses who have joined (you need an official email address to join a school network). Here is a breakdown of those who identify themselves with one of the above mentioned political categories (percentages are of the total who have chosen a category: 327):
- Moderate: 160 (49%)
- Other: 73 (22%)
- Liberal: 48 (15%)
- Conservative: 30 (9%)
- Very Liberal: 5 (2%)
- Apathetic: 4 (1%)
- Libertarian: 4 (1%)
- Very Conservative: 3 (1%)
I’m happy that the vast majority of my Fuller peers in this little Facebook poll are also uncomfortable with the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” We should note, however, that there are one and a half times more self-declared “liberals” than “conservatives” in the Fuller network. It may be fodder for those Evangelicals who believe Fuller is a bastion of “heretical” liberalism, but the numbers should at least give one pause before slapping a singular label on the school and all who reside there.
The irony of George Bush
I try not to get too political on this blog, but this is just too good to resist. Besides, it lends itself to an interesting exercise of interpreting the words of the powerful.
In vetoing the recent bill on stem-cell research, Bush made the following comments:
America is also a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred — and our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values.
[ . . . ]
Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical — and it is not the only option before us.
Does he not realize what other policies he might have could be interpreted through these words? What of collateral damage? What of the science of our vast cache of weapons? The second statement I’ve quoted is particularly interesting. Those exact words could have been applied to going to war with Iraq. The same words could be used to oppose the death penalty for people who are a “threat” to others.
Anyway, these smaller posts will have to suffice while I’m in a two week intensive at Fuller–not much time to blog at the moment.
Everybody likes to quote Lincoln
At Sojourners’ presidential forum on faith, values, and poverty last week (catch a link to the full video of the event here and the transcript here) for the three “leading” democratic candidates, Barack Obama invoked Lincoln’s oft-quoted adage about “whether we are on God’s side.” Since Bush’s mixture of God and politics and his “you’re either with us or against us” policy, I have heard this quoted many times. But, of course, never with an accompanying citation. As with most “famous” quotations without citations, that probably means the source doesn’t say exactly that. Here’s what Obama said in response to Soledad O’Brien’s question, “Do you think that God takes sides in a war? For example, in the war on terror, is God on the side of U.S. troops, would you say?”:
Well, you know, I always remember Abraham Lincoln, when, during the Civil War, he said, “We shouldn’t be asking whose side God is on, but whether we’re on his side.” And I think that’s the question that all of us have to ask ourselves during any battle that’s taking place, whether it’s political or military, is, are we following his dictates? Are we advancing the causes of justice and freedom? Are we our brother’s keeper, our sister’s keeper? And that’s how I measure whether what we’re doing is right.
His interpretation of the Cain and Abel story is a little suspect and his masculine pronouns for God are questionable, but let me stay on task here. Jim Wallis also mentions Lincoln’s sentiments in the introduction of his book God’s Politics (xiv), in similar words, without citation. Searching for the reference, I found this personal note entitled “Meditation on the Divine Will,” which Lincoln wrote in September, 1862, mentioning a similar theme:
The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true — that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.
These themes were later worked into his Second Inaugural Address of 1865, in which Lincoln states:
Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. . . . Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
One problem in applying his quotation to our current situation is the fact that Lincoln was talking about two Christian “sides” at war with one another (“both read the same Bible . . .”). One could also question the motives of Lincoln: was this war really about slavery? In his personal note and elsewhere in the second inaugural address, Lincoln talks about saving and destroying “the Union.” What other reasons were there to preserve the Union? Relating it to today, the United States went to war with Iraq under the auspices that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction.” After we discovered that he had none, the language was about bringing “freedom” and deposing a murderous dictator. I will leave the reasons and motivations for the American Civil War to American historians, but I think it’s fair to say that legitimate questions have been raised about it (and, of course, of our own Iraq War II).
Yes, it is quite profound that Lincoln would reveal his humility here, and admirable. But in the end, he decided essentially (without saying it): Well, yes, I do think that God is on our side here. He highlights a horrific moral problem to encourage the nation that this is the true cause of God. But the question is not whether slavery is wrong, whether Saddam did evil things, but whether we should use violence to answer that problem. Further, if the Civil War was about “saving the Union,” can we say that God is interested in violence for such a cause? You can hear my Anabaptism peeking out here, I know.
Why am I even raising these questions? First, I have not found that most people are even quoting an actual text (please help me out if there is a better basis for the quotation). I think that is worth correcting in itself. Second, I think that we should pause and think about why Lincoln was saying what he was saying before invoking “I like how Lincoln put it when he said . . .” I’m not claiming to have a corner on that market, but it’s good to raise questions nonetheless. Third, though this is not directly related to biblical studies, it does highlight interesting usage of biblical themes in public discourse. And finally, we should ask the same questions about biblical quotations as we should any “old big names” quoted by people who want to sound “authoritative.”
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: