Wednesday, April 29, 2009
On Friendship
If man likes all he has no enemy, but neither does he have a friend. For to like all is to be indifferent to all.
In the ancient world friendship was viewed as the highest form of love, the most important relationship. A man could live without sex, for what good is sex is something that even beasts share with men. But friendship is something typically human. Think of Socrates: at his death he sends his wife and children away so that he may end his life with his friends. Likewise, Jonathon and King David were said to be closer than brothers.
These examples stand in clear contrast with friendship in our time and culture. Here sex is valued far more highly than culture. There is plenty of evidence of this ranging from the commonality of sleeping with a friend’s spouse to the places we spend social time (generally noisy bar type areas designed to meet potential mates rather than quite places to cultivate friendship.
This is not to say that friendship should be valued more highly than the marital relationship (indeed it should not), but rather only to point out the fact that friendship within our culture is very cheep. Friendship is cheap: we only keep a friend so long as they benefit us in the sense that we enjoy their company or they make us happy, but the second they fail to meet our perceived needs we accuse them of changing and drop them like last week’s mail. They are boring, they make us uncomfortable, we are no longer happy when we are around them—whatever it is, we no longer want to be around them.
In fact in our culture friendship is loosely defined as merely knowing someone. You can have met someone a week ago, but when you introduce them to others you introduce them as your friend. A friendship so easily formed will be just as easily discarded.
Further, our friendships have no obligations. But a relationship without obligation is one without depth or real benefit. This tends to confuse foreigners who believe that friendship entails responsibility and requires time to form. They tend to think that Americans make bad friends simply because we define the term too broadly and loosely.
In focusing in on sex (where a true ‘friend’ is but a wing man) and the perceived meeting of our needs we have lost one of the greatest gifts God: a friend.
Genocide in the Bible?
Why did God instruct Moses and the Israelites to wipe out entire communities when they entered the promised land?
Short answer: Nagasaki and Dresden.
Longer answer: 1. Why did we kill a quarter million in Nagasaki and over a million in the fire bombings of Dresden? Because we were fighting against unjust states and unjust states cannot exist without popular support; because the people, through their leaders, committed unjust actions. E.g. Germany acted as an aggressor against Poland and perpetrated genocide against the Jews; likewise Japan tried to conquer other territory and they committed great slaughter and other unmentionable outrages against the Chinese). For these acts they both deserved punishment and our bombs did the punishing.
The ancient occupying societies of Israel were about as unjust as societies can be. Child sacrifice was rampant and of those that lived, the majority (if not all), of the kids were at an early age forced to work as cultic prostitutes. The people in these societies either actively participated in these despicable acts or they were complacent. Therefore all of them deserved death.
2. Going along with this, ancient societies had more of a collective notion of guilt, rather than a more modern notion of individual guilt. Societies, not just the individuals, were guilty of crimes. Think of Achan from the Book of Joshua Chapter 7. Achan disobeyed God after the military defeat of Jericho by stealing goods reserved for the Lord. As a result of his sin Israel suffers military defeat. All the people suffer until he is punished for sins have collective consequences.
When a society sins it effects the land like a cancer (e.g. Abel's blood cries out from the ground, the Law talks about blood guilt and healing for the land, and the prophets over and over repeat that the land cries out against injustice). So again, when a society lives in rampant injustice they must be wiped out in order to cleanse the land (think of Sodom, and when all the earth was evil, the flood).
3. Finally, the actions of the Israelites were in line with the rules of warfare at that time. If a town surrendered, you treated them well. But if they resisted it was expected that you would wipe them out (for the hardship you endured in besieging them). This is what Rome eventually did to Carthage. At first they showed mercy, but a generation after they had first defeated Carthage, they themselves were almost defeated by Carthage. Annihilation was the only way to be safe. In the same way Israel’s safety, to some degree, required them to completely defeat their enemies. (And oddly enough Carthage was a Phoenician colony that worshiped the same child 'eating' God Baal as did the inhabitants of ancient Israel).
4. One more things must be noted: in the case of Israel, none of these people had to die. There were instructions in the law of how to bring outsiders into the Israelite community (if they so desired). We have examples of this in Rahab and Ruth. Both were so integrated into the Israelite community that from their lines descended Christ, and Ruth herself was the grandmother of King David.
Judgment only befell those who rejected the invitation to join the Israelites (and we have no idea how many people joined or refused to join them). In the same way Noah invited people to join his ark, but those that rejected this invitation incurred judgment. There is an obvious parallel with salvation here. God invites all to join His people. It is only those that reject this invitation that will meet judgment (in their case, Hell).
Paul says that the stories in the OT are examples for us of spiritual truth. Those that rejected the invitation to join God's community were judged by means of temporal/physical death. In the same way those that reject the invitation into the Church will be judged by eternal/spiritual death. The former is like a living parable (just as Isaac was a Christ figure, the Red Sea a form of baptism, etc).
Short answer: Nagasaki and Dresden.
Longer answer: 1. Why did we kill a quarter million in Nagasaki and over a million in the fire bombings of Dresden? Because we were fighting against unjust states and unjust states cannot exist without popular support; because the people, through their leaders, committed unjust actions. E.g. Germany acted as an aggressor against Poland and perpetrated genocide against the Jews; likewise Japan tried to conquer other territory and they committed great slaughter and other unmentionable outrages against the Chinese). For these acts they both deserved punishment and our bombs did the punishing.
The ancient occupying societies of Israel were about as unjust as societies can be. Child sacrifice was rampant and of those that lived, the majority (if not all), of the kids were at an early age forced to work as cultic prostitutes. The people in these societies either actively participated in these despicable acts or they were complacent. Therefore all of them deserved death.
2. Going along with this, ancient societies had more of a collective notion of guilt, rather than a more modern notion of individual guilt. Societies, not just the individuals, were guilty of crimes. Think of Achan from the Book of Joshua Chapter 7. Achan disobeyed God after the military defeat of Jericho by stealing goods reserved for the Lord. As a result of his sin Israel suffers military defeat. All the people suffer until he is punished for sins have collective consequences.
When a society sins it effects the land like a cancer (e.g. Abel's blood cries out from the ground, the Law talks about blood guilt and healing for the land, and the prophets over and over repeat that the land cries out against injustice). So again, when a society lives in rampant injustice they must be wiped out in order to cleanse the land (think of Sodom, and when all the earth was evil, the flood).
3. Finally, the actions of the Israelites were in line with the rules of warfare at that time. If a town surrendered, you treated them well. But if they resisted it was expected that you would wipe them out (for the hardship you endured in besieging them). This is what Rome eventually did to Carthage. At first they showed mercy, but a generation after they had first defeated Carthage, they themselves were almost defeated by Carthage. Annihilation was the only way to be safe. In the same way Israel’s safety, to some degree, required them to completely defeat their enemies. (And oddly enough Carthage was a Phoenician colony that worshiped the same child 'eating' God Baal as did the inhabitants of ancient Israel).
4. One more things must be noted: in the case of Israel, none of these people had to die. There were instructions in the law of how to bring outsiders into the Israelite community (if they so desired). We have examples of this in Rahab and Ruth. Both were so integrated into the Israelite community that from their lines descended Christ, and Ruth herself was the grandmother of King David.
Judgment only befell those who rejected the invitation to join the Israelites (and we have no idea how many people joined or refused to join them). In the same way Noah invited people to join his ark, but those that rejected this invitation incurred judgment. There is an obvious parallel with salvation here. God invites all to join His people. It is only those that reject this invitation that will meet judgment (in their case, Hell).
Paul says that the stories in the OT are examples for us of spiritual truth. Those that rejected the invitation to join God's community were judged by means of temporal/physical death. In the same way those that reject the invitation into the Church will be judged by eternal/spiritual death. The former is like a living parable (just as Isaac was a Christ figure, the Red Sea a form of baptism, etc).
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Liberty, Equality, and Tyranny
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.
But equal in what way? I am smarter than some, shorter than others; I can run faster than some, but others jump higher than me: in what way are we equal?
We are in no way equal in ability. However our value is not based on our abilities. Therefore we may be unequal in ability while remaining equal in worth.
This is an important distinction because many who talk about equality want men to be equal in ability. Equality in this sense is impossible and it undermines men’s liberty. Take the following example as an illustration.
I decide to challenge LeBron James (i.e. King James for the layman) to a game of one on one hoops. Every time I go to shoot, he blocks my shot. In order to have a ‘fair’ game, he must be told not to block my shots. As we continue he proceeds to steal the ball from me. This is not ‘fair’ as it gives him an undue advantage and makes the game unequal. We make another rule that says he cannot steal the ball. Still, he shoots better than me. We make a rule that he must give me some of his points so that our game may be ‘equal.’
In making our game ‘fair’ LeBron has lost the liberty to play basketball. The same is true in our society. Some in our society are able to make more money or have other advantages. In order to make them ‘equal’ with others, they must lose the liberty of developing their God given potential.
Furthermore there is an intimate connection between creating a more ‘fair’ society and creating a dictatorship. The Gracchi Brothers, Caesar, Robespierre, etc, all these men set out to help the less fortunate. But just like my hypothetical basketball game, more stringent measures were needed than originally supposed to bring ‘fairness’ to society. As society was hesitant to accept these measures, the reformers needed to claim more and more power for themselves to push these changes through.
This is not to say we should not help the poor. However, I do believe we should be hesitant of any leader who purports to help the poor for as many who have claimed to do this have done so for the sake of aggrandizing power for themselves.
But equal in what way? I am smarter than some, shorter than others; I can run faster than some, but others jump higher than me: in what way are we equal?
We are in no way equal in ability. However our value is not based on our abilities. Therefore we may be unequal in ability while remaining equal in worth.
This is an important distinction because many who talk about equality want men to be equal in ability. Equality in this sense is impossible and it undermines men’s liberty. Take the following example as an illustration.
I decide to challenge LeBron James (i.e. King James for the layman) to a game of one on one hoops. Every time I go to shoot, he blocks my shot. In order to have a ‘fair’ game, he must be told not to block my shots. As we continue he proceeds to steal the ball from me. This is not ‘fair’ as it gives him an undue advantage and makes the game unequal. We make another rule that says he cannot steal the ball. Still, he shoots better than me. We make a rule that he must give me some of his points so that our game may be ‘equal.’
In making our game ‘fair’ LeBron has lost the liberty to play basketball. The same is true in our society. Some in our society are able to make more money or have other advantages. In order to make them ‘equal’ with others, they must lose the liberty of developing their God given potential.
Furthermore there is an intimate connection between creating a more ‘fair’ society and creating a dictatorship. The Gracchi Brothers, Caesar, Robespierre, etc, all these men set out to help the less fortunate. But just like my hypothetical basketball game, more stringent measures were needed than originally supposed to bring ‘fairness’ to society. As society was hesitant to accept these measures, the reformers needed to claim more and more power for themselves to push these changes through.
This is not to say we should not help the poor. However, I do believe we should be hesitant of any leader who purports to help the poor for as many who have claimed to do this have done so for the sake of aggrandizing power for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
