Summarizing Some Brief Reading About Paul from N.T. Wright

I spent part of my day off reading further into N.T. Wright’s book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Vol. 2. Allow me to summarize the main argument Wright made in the pages I went through.

Paul, like everyone else, believed that there is a problem with the world, that evil persists in what should be a good creation. Like a good first century Jew, zealous for the Law, he believed that the problem stemmed from idolatry and paganism. Humans did not follow

Torah, the Law of God. Furthermore, as a good first century Jew, he believed that the solution to this problem was the return of Yahweh to his people to judge the world through the Messiah. The Messiah would establish the Kingdom of God, defeat the enemies of Israel, and bring justice to the world.

The resurrection proved that Jesus was the Messiah and that Yahweh had indeed returned to his people. However, the fact of the crucifixion and its necessity in the purposes of God suggested to Paul that the problem that was dealt with by the Messiah was much more severe than anyone had known. If God had to allow the crucifixion to occur in order to fulfill his purpose of solving the problem of evil in the world, then the problem of evil went much deeper than the lack of Law-observance. Paul realized that the real problem that was being dealt with by God was sin and its affect upon the heart – a problem going all the way back to Adam. This was a problem that affected both Jew and Gentile, regardless of Torah. That faith brought the Spirit and the evident radical change of the heart in both Jew and Gentile confirmed this.

This realization led Paul to reexamine his thoughts about the purpose of the Law, what it meant to be a Jew or Gentile, the purpose of Israel, and how God was fulfilling his purposes to redeem Creation.

I think there is a real elegance to argument Wright is making here. It would explain quite a bit about Paul’s thought patterns and put this theology in ordered relation.

Capitalism

No economic system is perfect. If you really want a great critique of capitalism, read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s warnings about its vulgar materialism and soulless consumerism. For me, the biggest problem with capitalism is how successful it is in reducing poverty, raising the standard of living, creating wealth across the spectrum of society. Many of the problems, temptations, and trappings that use to only affect the “super wealthy” are now accessible to the “poor” and middle classes.

Nevertheless, capitalism has been the most successful economic system ever devised – by far! As a Christian, my main concern when it comes to economics is how it affects the poor and how it affects freedom. The overwhelming, self-evident conclusion is that free-market capitalism reduces poverty, creates jobs, increases wages, raises the standard of living, creates wealth across the board, funds charity, leads to innovation, reduces work hours, improves the environment, reduces inequality, increases cultural diversity, increases choices, promotes democracy, increases life expectancy, improves quality of life, eliminates many diseases, promotes family, decreases crime, increases mobility, and gives people the opportunity to pursue more meaningful work.

That people don’t see this constitutes a serious intellectual and moral blind spot.

POLITICS

I don’t like politics. I find it’s a highly ineffective way of reaching Kingdom goals. It disturbs me when Christians focus so much upon it. It grieves me to see non-Christians who invest so much in politics as to make it their religion. It annoys me that everything from economics, to art, to food, to weather, to crime, to football must be politicized in order to advance particular agendas.

At the same time, I’m very interested in how people think, how they arrive at their conclusions, and why they believe what they believe. I find politics and people’s reaction to politics to be one of the best arenas in which to study these processes.

It’s like looking at a cluttered and disarrayed house through the window from outside. Politics is like people attempting to put the house in order by focusing on methods of cleaning the window. The methods proposed and the reaction to those methods tell you a lot about how people think and process information even if it doesn’t tell you much about cleaning the house.

The Aeneid, Teleological Meta-Narratives, and the Hope of Israel

I’ve been reading The Aeneid by Virgil recently. My main reason in doing so is because of my reading of N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In the latter work, Wright argues that The Aeneid was the first work in world literature (outside of the books of the Bible) to present a teleological meta-narrative. The running theme of The Aeneid is that history was building itself towards the establishment of Rome, specifically the Augustine reign. Elsewhere, such a view of history was not to be found … that is, outside of the Biblical worldview of God’s redeeming work in history through Israel leading up to the coming of Christ. Wright uses The Aeneid to compare and contrast it with Paul’s understanding of Israel’s teleological meta-narrative.

Much of philosophical modernity from the 19^th and early twentieth centuries focused on teleology. Hegelian philosophy argued an evolutionary, dialectical, mediatory approach to history in which the contradictions in society are resolved through their synthesis. This leads to inevitable progress.

Liberal theologians of the 19^th century (particularly the German history of religions school) applied this philosophical idea to Christianity to argue that the Kingdom of God was advancing through society as a gradual process of improvement and continued revelation to the point in which the world would eventually arrive at a perfect state. In most cases, the state was considered the mechanism by which God worked out his will to advance what became a more secularized Kingdom. Much of this thinking by liberal Christians favored post-Millennialism. World War I put an end to much of the post-Millennial, happy advancement movement, as well as the emergence of the neo-orthodox movement by Christian liberals (Bart, Brunner, Niebuhr) who embraced Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel and the state and who began to take seriously the problem of evil. Now the teleological thrust of history and its meta-narrative was no longer an inevitable, and gradual development of the Kingdom but a progress of fits and starts, advances and retreats that wrestled with the evil of the world and human nature, particularly as it worked itself out in the individual’s relationship with God. The Kingdom of God was inevitable not by evolutionary progress of state control over society and the individual but by God eventually breaking into history.

On the purely secular and materialistic level, Marx embraced Hegelian dialectics as a political-economic struggle of history in which the state was an expression of cold immutable forces and a tool of the progression of society from a capitalistic system to a communistic system that eliminated all societal contradictions. In Marx’s teleological thinking, the meta-narrative of history is the inevitable collapse of capitalism based upon its internal contradictions. However, contra Marx, capitalism continued to thrive unabated leading to self-evident societal progress while socialism continued to destroy and disrupt advancement in the societies in which it was applied. Indeed, in the places where Marxist philosophies were most strictly followed … well, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, post-Revolutionary Mexico, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. speak for themselves. Furthermore, the philosophical developments of the 20^th century, particularly in the 1960s, led to a rejection of the Marxist teleological view of history as an economic meta-narrative. We now entered post-modernity.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of post-modernity is the abandonment of the meta-narrative as philosophical discipline, particularly as a cultural-societal phenomenon that might be considered hegemonic to other cultural narratives. It is interesting and ironic that the current U.S. President – our most post-modern to date – frequently asserts a teleological meta-narrative as rhetoric. “The arc of history bends towards justice.” “We are the ones we have been waiting for.” Whether it is his naiveté of Hegelian-influenced Marxism or the influence of post-Millennial classical Christian liberalism, our current commander ‘n’ chief seems to hold to a teleological meta-narrative worldview. Though I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I’ve written and stated elsewhere, a meta-narrative is essential to Christianity. God’s redemption of creation through Man, Israel, and Christ is central to the Faith. All the teachings of the Bible, the moral codes, life lessons, and church functions are pointless unless there is an over-arching narrative purpose towards which such things are directed and in which contextualized. Indeed, both 1^st century Palestinian Judaism as advocated by the Pharisees and Jesus and the post-Resurrection morality teachings of Paul were teleological in purpose and understood with Israel’s meta-narrative. Both drew from Israel’s Scriptures and similar strains of interpretation of Yahweh’s blessing to Abraham:

“I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore … In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:17-18; cf. 12:12).

This is the core of the Jewish teleological meta-narrative. It is expanded upon in Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah, and Daniel. The idea understood in Jesus’ time is that Yahweh would return to his people, defeat Israel’s enemies, and establish and eternal kingdom that renewed creation.  This was the great hope of Israel. In all this, the teleological meta-narrative was that history was building towards something. It was the special proclamation of John the Baptist and Jesus that the history of Israel was about to reach its climax: Yahweh was returning to Zion, Israel’s enemy was about to be defeated, the Kingdom of God was about to be inaugurated. It was/is the Christian contention that the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus brought about this historical climax, though in a completely unsuspecting way. Jesus is seen as the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15).

This is why Christianity cannot abandon a teleological meta-narrative as a worldview. Israel’s history was building towards the climax of Jesus and his resurrection, while the results of that resurrection builds the rest of history towards its consummation and the resurrection of all believers in new creation. Indeed, a Paul himself wrote, “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14; cf. v.17).

So it’s been interesting to read how Virgil in his The Aeneid writes the history of Troy, Carthage, and Italy to legitimize the Roman Empire and Augustus as its ruler. The difference from the Biblical narrative of course is that Virgil lived at the end point and was writing “prophecies” into this one work, while the Biblical writers had numerous prophecies that they were waiting centuries to see fulfilled. Still, Paul and the other early Christian writers, living 50-60 years after Virgil, are pointing towards Israel’s Scriptures and common Jewish strands of interpretation to make their teleological point. That The Aeneid was well known in the first century Greco-Roman world in which Paul was writing is what makes this interesting.

The Proverbs and Contemporary Moral Relativism

The Book of Proverbs may be one of the most accessible books of the Bible insomuch as it speaks of the general wisdom and common, practical knowledge that is readily available to all peoples and all cultures at all times and places, as opposed to the specific and special revelation that came more directly from God to Israel through the prophets.

The Proverbs are proverbial. They are simple and concrete sayings, popularly known and repeated, that express general truths based on common sense or the practical experience of all humanity.

They are not special to the Bible and many of them can be found in the wisdom teachings of all cultures. Indeed, other Ancient Near Eastern cultural literature, such as that of the Egyptians and the Assyrians, contain proverbs like those found in the wisdom literature of the Israelites. This should not surprise us. One does not have to be a follower of Yahweh to know that adultery (5:3-4), lying (12:17-20; 19:9), drunkenness (20:1), jealousy (6:34), pride (11:2), gossip (20:19) causes problems in one’s life. You do not need to be a Christian to comprehend the benefits of friendship (27:10), respecting parents (6:20; 15:5), and raising children properly (22:6). Such ideas are endemic to human experience because they have been generally found to be true amongst all people, in all places, and at all times.

And for thousands of years amongst every culture, when one fell foul of these general truths, there were typically two cognitive responses:

1)      Either recognize your error and choose whether or not to adapt your actions

2)      Or consider the whole issue a matter of fate/chance

Post-modern culture has thrown us a third option in which culture and society have quickly embraced as they continue to abandon Judeo-Christian morality.

Today when individuals commit selfish, prideful, indolent, and sexual errors in their lives that result in the inevitable, harmful outcomes, they are all too quick to blame what they consider to be social construction and artificially moral codes that are institutionally endemic. The idea here is that, in truth, in reality, there is no moral truth that everyone should prescribe to, only variable, personal social habits dependent upon the individual. But how is it then that there seems to be an apparent moral cause and effect relationship between violations of, say, sexual moral codes and the problems that inevitably follow? The contemporary answer to this vexing question is the belief that society and culture have been constructed over hundreds and even thousands of years so that the followers of a particular moral code are privileged while those who reject that moral code are disadvantaged. In this view, there is nothing absolute about morality that reflects genuine reality; only the social construction of the powerful imposing their morality upon the powerless. Thus, what has been deemed sexual immorality only leads to disaster, heart break, disease, suicide, destroyed relationships, jealousy, tears, poverty, depression, etc. because powerful people of a particular moral code have constructed all of society to make it so. Thus, the negative results of immorality are the fault of society and the not the individual who violates that moral code. Thus, those who promote that moral code as an absolute morality are partially culpable for the disasters that effect moral violators.

This is the contemporary thinking of too many in our culture today. Why do criminality and poor choices lead to poverty? Society is to blame! Why can’t I commit crimes and attack police officers? Institutional injustice! We’re even at the point where biological facts are deemed social constructions and not accurate reflections of scientific reality.

This is not to say that the structures of government, culture, and society cannot be the conduits of evil and negative outcomes. Paul of Tarsus speaks about this (Ephesians 6:12). Certainly, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Nazism, and Progressive Liberalism have all shown to be capable of creating structures which cause massive evil and tremendous casualties in society. However, such power structures are shown to be evil because they support, condone, and perpetuate the immorality that transgresses the codes found in the Proverbs and elsewhere.

Yes, it is the height of hubris to suppose that the proverbial morality found in every culture, at every time, and every place is now to be willfully abandoned in order to assuage the guilt of individuals frustrated by the fact that their moral choices lead to disastrous outcomes.

So what are we to do? How do we address this hard-headed refusal to recognize reality?

Intellectual argument and rational thought won’t work. The immorally defiant are neither intellectual nor rational. You can’t persuade those who refuse to be open to persuasion.

Instead, I submit that we continue to be the light of the world, the city on a hill, the salt of the earth. Clichés, yes, I know, but they are the purpose and mission of the people of God. We need to be true, authentic humans, living like mirrors reflecting the image and light of God in this world. We must continue behaving morally and lovingly, following the proverbs and commandments, and proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. When people see our faithfulness and love, a portion will be come. The rest will continue in their self-imposed misery until God gives them over.

Daniel 3 and Christian Conscience

I’ve always thought that the Book of Daniel is the single greatest work that deals with the subject of state/culture vs. religion.

In chapter 3, the Babylonian government creates a new law requiring all officials in the government to fall down and worship a new state idol. To not do so would be against the law and perceived as disloyalty to the state. Jewish exiles who are a part of the Babylonian government - Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – choose not to fall down and worship this idol, instead choose to follow their consciences and the commands of God regarding the worship of idols.

Now Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had several choices in front of them. They could have chosen to fall down and worship the idol in earnest. They could have chosen to fall down and only pretend to worship the idol. They may or may not have had the option of stepping down from their positions in the Babylonian government, but they could have run away. Instead, the three public officials chose to publicly ignore the law and follow their conscience. Really, why should they cower before the state? Let the state try and make them go against their conscience. Naturally, they were arrested and thrown in prison.

All well and good. Great story. Five stars. The feel good chapter of the summer. How does it play out in real life?

We can all sit and read about the great consciences of individuals like Daniel, Paul, Thomas Beckett, Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More, Eric Liddell, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. We admire them and we hold them on a pedestal. We do that.

Yet, in all practicality, the vast majority of most Christians are cowards. They talk a big game, but, when the rubber meets the road, they will bend to the will of the state like limbo champions.

Peer pressure will get most of them … and the fear of being associated with THOSE Christians. Others are conditioned by the artificial structures of power and authority that make up society and cannot conceive of going against them. Still others might exercise their right to sue and proceed along the avenues of the judicial system until they exhausted all legal remedies. Yet, when they lose, they choose to kowtow to the holy cow. In the end, almost all of them fear losing reputation, possessions, status, and their physical freedom. Yep, Olympic gold medals for Christians on the balance beam.

But when they aren’t bending it like Beckham, they are talking a good game, aren’t they? They are morally outraged by the thing that they must be morally outraged about today. I know because I saw it on Facebook. Yet how often do we see Christians in our own churches cower at the first sign of intimidation. If they break when they have nothing to lose, do you think they will refuse submission when they could lose almost everything?

And, yet, there is a sublime simplicity in alternative: “No.” “Make me.” The words are pure though their consequences are ugly. Yes, you could lose everything – even go to jail – but Christians are supposed to give up everything anyway. Besides, the freedom of one’s conscience is more important than the freedom of one’s body. I’d rather have a free conscience than a mind imprisoned by an unwillingness to embrace the truth. Indeed, Christians have done some of their best work in prison (Paul, Luther, Bonhoeffer, King).

Talk is cheap. Moral outrage is unpersuasive in the calming patience of God’s victory. We’re about to enter a very interesting era of history. Let’s see who bends towards the idol and who remains standing.