Respondeo

Is a King a Good Thing?

On April 18, 2018

The question arises from reading Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8. In Deuteronomy 17, God assumes that Israel will eventually want a king like the nations around them. He gives instructions for how that king is to live before him and before Israel.

In 1 Samuel 8, when Israel comes to that moment where she does look for a king like the nations around here, Samuel refuses. He sees the folly of Israel’s request. God tells Samuel otherwise but encourages him to warn Israel about the prerogatives of a king.

Samuel presumes that the king will not follow the rules of Deuteronomy 17. Deuteronomy warns against multiplying horses (Deuteronomy 17: 16). The king Samuel speaks of has many horses and his depredations are connected with his stables (1 Samuel 8: 11-12). The king in Deuteronomy does not pile up silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17: 17). Samuel’s king freely taxes the people (1 Samuel 8: 13-17).

The key difference between what happens in Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8 is not that Israel wants a king like the nations around them. This is a common comment from the commentators. The fact is both Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8 assume that the king is like the nations around Israel.

No, the key difference is that Israel, when she comes before Samuel is rejecting God as king. She is coming with the wrong heart. She is not seeking a king after God’s own heart. If she was she would seek the king of Deuteronomy 17. This is demonstrated in that after Samuel’s warning, Israel gladly accepts the type of king that Samuel describes. If she had been reading Deuteronomy, she would have asked God to apply the warnings of Deuteronomy 17 to the king. Now God does provide a king for Israel and he does warn the king to follow in his ways, but this is out of grace, despite the fact his people rejected him.

Actually, if Israel had been careful to circumscribe their king with the laws that Deuteronomy provides, much of the bad power of the king would have been undermined. The king would have been constrained by the law of God from seeking great riches and honor. God told the king not to collect gold, or horses, or wives. If the kings of Israel had listened, they would not have moved in the direction of tyranny.

But why was it so important to have a king? Did God intend to give Israel a king all along? The king is important because the people of God needed somebody who could give true justice. In the end, judges failed, regular avenues of justice failed, and the people of God needed a person with great wisdom to discern the hardest cases. It is interesting that in Deuteronomy 17 the rules for a king follow the section concerning hard cases. Because of man’s sinful nature, there is no such thing as perfect justice and we crave that justice. The king would fill that role but in order for the king to fulfill that role well he had to be a man after God’s own heart.

In the end the only king that did not fall prey to the temptations mentioned in Deuteronomy 17 was and is the Lord Jesus Christ.

We can conclude that a king is a good thing. The rules of Deuteronomy 17 assume that. 1 Samuel 8 demonstrates that the impatience of the people warped God’s gift of a king to Israel. Israel did not have the patience to put boundaries in place so that the king would not become a tyrant. The role of Jesus Christ assumes that. A king without the boundaries God gave is an evil thing. Israel never asks for the boundaries of Deuteronomy 17 in 1 Samuel 8. Israel rejects the Lord as king because she rejects his teaching for a king.

n.b. I don’t pretend to have the final word on this controverted subject.

The key distinction

By James

On April 9, 2018

In Libertarianism, typology

Maybe you’ve noticed all the posts on authority lately.

As I’ve worked through these issues, I want to point out a key distiction. It is this distinction that is relevant to the question of resistance and to the question of nullification. The key distinction is Davidic Authority vs. magistral authority. Christ’s authority is Davidic and so it demands each and every man’s obeisance from birth. If Christ rightly punishes the rebellious one with death. Nobody has the right to nullify Christ’s authority.

In the Old Testament, however, one loses Davidic authority when the one who excercises such authority fails to obey God. Those who obey God may challenge it when those invested with it fail.

Magistral authority has a different weight. We can see this in Samuel’s warnings against the monopolizing authority of a king in 1 Samuel 8. This kingly authority, which will later become Davidic authority, gives the leader far more opportunity for abuse than the authority earlier judges had.

This distinction remains in-exact. However, I believe that it is key to working out how authority works in our contemporary situation.

Also note that this Davidic authority is private in the sense that Hans Herman Hoppe speaks of in “What must be done.”

Authority in the Old Testament; Authority in the New Testament

By James

On April 9, 2018

In Church, Libertarianism

You can find my former articles on this topic here and here.

Like my blog post on Davidic authority vs. magistral authority, I want to once again to make a distinction between two types of authority. However, I am not merely distinguishing between two types of authorities here, but rather, two different dispensations of authority. I want to argue that the Christians has a qualitatively greater degree of authority in the New Testament than the Jew of the Old Testament. There is a difference in the administration of authority after Christ has been seated at the right hand of God.

Unfortunately, I cannot explore all the practical manifestations of my case. However, I want to begin by stating that this is the case; I will argue further from that point.

Let’s begin with the administration of authority in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve take of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. By doing so they claim to the authority that God has. This authority is the ability to make a judgment between good and evil. We know that this is true because Solomon asks for the same gift in ruling over the people of Israel when he becomes king.

In the old dispensation or covenant this gift was taken or grasped by mankind and so mankind lost the ability to use it properly. Adam and Eve could have learned to exercise such authority by relying on God and his word. Instead, they took the gift before it was given. This distorted the gift.

So God took one man among the nations, Abraham, and began to train Israel so that they could learn to use the wisdom of God rather than seeking to grasp wisdom themselves. God taught Israel this through laws of holiness, through sacrifices, through a set calendar. Through the institutions of Israel God sought to reform or to restore Israel to the calling he had given to Adam and Eve.

God subjects Israel to this law. The civil leaders and the kings and the emperors that God raises up he also calls to enforce this whole law (though exclusively to the land of Israel). Israel has a limited wisdom in interpreting and applying the law to their lives. Therefore God provides Israel with priests, prophets, and kings, equipped with the Spirit in order to help Israel in applying the law.

Then God sends Israel her Saviour. The priests, prophets, and kings of the Old Testament were only shadows of this Saviour. This Saviour shared his Spirit of office with his entire congregation so that every Christian now exercises the office of prophet, priest, and king.

These Christians now have the freedom to apply the law to their own lives, they don’t need a calendar or sacrificial laws or laws of holiness. Christians exercise a greater freedom and wisdom than any of the kings of the Old Testament. The moral law still bears authority because God enfleshed that law in their Lord and Saviour. Christ replaces the rest with a different order or a different dispensation. Christians may now use the law of the Old Testament as a way to freely order their lives in him. All Christians bear a responsibility to judge between good and evil.

However, Christians still have civil leaders and they have spiritual leaders. Their power is restricted just as it was in the Old Testament. God restricts the civil leader’s power to defending life and property. God restricts the Spiritual leaders’ power. They may not exclude a Christian from the church of God on the basis of regulations that are extra to the word of God. However, they still exercise moral authority on the basis of the law of the Spirit and the law of Christ.

So what’s the real difference? even in the Old Testament, the leaders had a degree of freedom to apply the law and to obey the law. Is the only difference one of quantity?

No. Christ also brought the Christians a different degree of authority. We can see this in Galatians 4. In the Covenant at Mount Sinai, Israel functioned as a child. Israel was under a tutor. God was training his son to practice the authority he would eventually call her too. She is an ambassador (a prophet, priest and king) in training. In Christ, God’s son reached maturity. She is now an ambassador of Christ. The church is no longer under a tutor, but directly under Christ and the law of Christ.

Some Highlights of Peter Leithart’s Defense of Typological Preterism.

By James

On April 7, 2018

In eschatology, Hermeneutics, Traditionalistic exegesis

Peter Leithart’s new commentary on revelation recently came in the mail. On reading the introduction I came upon these gems, which respectfully but clearly take apart idealist and a-millenial readings of revelation. You can find the commentary here.

One of the biggest questions in reading revelation is how specific John intends his imagery to be. The idealist reading of Revelation argues that John’s writings are not specific to a time or a place but rather are abstract. Leithart argues:

“Idealism” is a coherent, plausible, and venerable method for interpreting the symbols and types of Revelation. It is not however, consistent with the way biblical poetry works. Isaiah describes Jerusalem, not some generic city of man, as Sodom, and so does Ezekiel. Daniel sees beasts coming from the sea, and the beasts are identifiable kingdoms (with some qualifications, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome). Daniel sees a goat racing over the land without touching the ground. It crashes into a ram with two horns and shatters the ram’s horns (Dan. 8:5-8). That is not a generic portrait of “conquest.” It is Alexander’s conquest of the Persians. We can tease our generalized abstracted types from the historical referents: The goat is Alexander, but other fast-moving empires have appeared in history (e.g., Hitler the speeding goat who shatters the horns of Poland and France), and we can and must extend the biblical imagery to assess and evaluate them. There will be other cities like the Babylon of Revelation, and they will display some of the same features that John sees in the city and, importantly, meet the same fate. But John is not referring to those other cities, nor to some transcendent concept or class of “harlot-city” of which there are many specific instances. He refers to a real harlot city, one that existed in his own time, and that harlot city becomes a type of future cities.

He is appealing very simply to the way the rest of the Bible is read. People will often approach the book of Revelation with a whole different set of hermeneutical rules than the rest of the Bible.

A similar problem is encountered with the time markers of Revelation and in the rest of scripture. After summarizing the scriptural evidence for expectations of an immanent apocalypse, Leithart argues:

Faced with this mass of evidence, we have several options in reading Revelation. We might fudge the time frame: God’s arrival is always near. Common as it is, that option is exegetically irresponsible. We cannot eliminate the claims about timing, or the agitation it creates, without excising much of the NT. We might project the time frame into the future: The kingdomis near, but the prophetic clock does not start ticking until much later, perhaps in the thirteenth, or the nineteenth, or the twenty-first century. Once the clock gets all wound up, then it is imminence all the time. Until, then we are in a holding pattern. That too is exegetically irresponsible, the result of digging that chasm between Jude and Revelation I mentioned above. If the Apocalyps is part of the NT, we expect it to have some connection with the concerns of those living in NT times. We might, alternatively, take the time references seriously, and conclude that Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, and all the rest were wrong. Christianity bursts into the Greco-Roman world full of apocalyptic vim, but it soon sovers up, and (like every fervent religious movement?) becomes routinized, regularized, bourgeois, Catholic. That option has the virtue of taking the NT at face value. It has the vice of implying that all the NT writers – Jesus included -are liars.

There is another apotion: The apostles mean what they say when they say the end is near; John means that the events of the Apocalypse are going to happen soon. And they did happen. That has the virtue of taking the time references seriously, but seems ot have the vice of forcing us to fudge everything else. I think not, and this is where our discussion of the OT background of Revelation comes helpfully inot play. When the Lamb opens the sixth seal, the sun goes black, the moon turns red, and stars are shaken from the firmament (Revelation 6:12-17). The universe collapisng? Not if we read Revelation within the imaginitive framework of the OT. Heavenly lights rule the sky and earthly times (Gen. 1:14-16) and symbolize rulers (cf. Isaiah 13-14). The sixth seal describes the “eclips” of political powers, the “fall” of kings and princes from their “high places.” The poison springs and rivers from from the temple, the well-watered place that is supposed to supply living water for Israel. To say that the springs of the alnd are poisoned is to say tha the temple produces somehting deadly rather than something healthful and life-giving. And to say that is just to say what Jesus has already said: “This house shall be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.”

At no point does this line of interpretation move from “literal” to “mere figure.” A universe really does collaps when the sixth seal is opened — not the celestial universe, but a political one. The temple really does poison people. The imagery is, always, literal-figurative, nourishment to the metonymic imagination and typological encouragement to faithful discipleship.

Once again, Leithart encourages us to read Revelation just as we would the rest of scripture. That we take the imagery and the time markers seriously. I like that.

Does all that applies to King David also apply to the Civil Magistrate of Romans 13?

By James

On March 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism

Is the authority of King David of the same as the authority of the magistrate? I argue that their authority is not exactly the same. There are similarities but there is a qualitative difference between the two. My argument in “The Genesis of Authority” was that all authority is derived from God. I wish to add to that; there are different degrees of the authority, which God grants. This helps us avoid a simple transfer of descriptions of Davidic authority to descriptions of magisterial authority.

Let us start by identifying one of the basic similarities. Both King David and the civil authorities of Romans 13 are servants of God. God gives both the sword to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. This is evident in Psalm 101 concerning King David and it is evident in Romans 13 concerning the civil magistrate.

What is the difference? Time and place are not the only difference. David ruled over Israel. This or that magistrate rules over Winnipeg. Rather, David has a special role as a Prince of God. David is a centralizing figure. He has a monopoly on the practice of justice in the land of Israel. We can gather this from 1 Samuel 8. There, Samuel warns against the dangers of centralizing power in a king. Similarly in the actions of David: There is an expectation that eventually all Israel will serve him because he is the Lord’s Anointed.

He is not like Barak or Ehud or Gideon, whom God raised up for a short time. God does not intend to centralize the land of Israel through these judges, merely to rid the land of oppressors and restore proper justice. God has established a dynasty through David. David has a monopoly over justice in Israel and Judah Israel and Judah owe him allegiance because God has personally selected him for the task of ruling over his people. It is only because God sanctions the breaking of the kingdom that the Davidic throne may no longer reign over Israel.

Jesus has fulfilled the role that David had. There are others who had a similar role ot David. Solomon is an example. Nebudchadnezzar is an example and so is Cyrus. Even Moses has a similar role. Christ, however has fulfilled that role or we might say, God has given Christ the role these emporers and kings once had. That much is clear from Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. Christ has replaced these Emporers and Kings as the King to whom all must give service.

In fact, the role of the civil authorities has a much closer relation to the role of the judges of the book of Judges or even the elders that are set up in Exodus 18. They are still “sacral,” in that God ordained their service, but they are not the “centralizing” figures of David or Moses. They do not have monopolies on justice.

David and your average civil magistrate, not only have a quantitative, but also a qualitative distinction in authority. Though both are servants of God, Jesus Christ fulfills David’s role. David’s line has a monopoly over justice in Israel; a monopoly, which Jeroboam is eventually allowed to question. Even then David’s line has a monopoly over the people of Judah and Benjamin. I don’t have an answer to the precise practical difference that makes, but generally, I would understand David’s power as monopolistic while the power of the civil magistrate is not so.

The Genesis of Authority

By James

On March 22, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism, Uncategorized

We ignore it but God’s gift of authority is the only reliable explanation for authority in society. The source of authority is not nature. Authority comes from God. Authority comes from above, not from below. People when they vote or when they acclaim, recognize authority rather than investing anybody with authority.

This doesn’t mean that there are no hierarchies in nature for men will naturally fall into an order. Man will instinctively recognize various powers or abilities that are evident in other men, but this is not what I mean by authority. Hierarchies that proceed from nature are real, but they are not the grounds for exercising authority. It is not evil to recognize these hierarchies either. We should seek expertise and leadership from men with great capabilities. But expertise and leadership are of a different nature than authority or rule.

The Meaning of Authority

I am using authority in a very technical sense. Authority is the right to give judgment. To give judgment is to discern between good and evil. By their invested authority men may also punish others. Authority is not expertise. Experts give advise, but they may not give judgment. Only those invested with authority may give a command or a decree.

If we use the word authority in this sense, we can see that all authority belongs to God. “Vengeance is mine:” God says this several times in the Bible. He says it both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is demonstrating that the taking of human life, the punishment of any crime, belongs to him. He shares that with mankind by grace.

The gift of Authority

Man does not by nature have the authority to discern between good and evil. God must invest man with this authority. This can already be demonstrated in Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve may not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree is a gift from God that is not theirs yet. Knowledge of good and evil is not found in the nature that they have been given. The knowledge of good and evil is the same thing that Solomon asks from God in the book of 1 Kings. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree they took authority for themselves that had not yet been given by God. They took upon themselves the discernment of good and evil. Whereas, God should have been the one to give that gift.

The Selection of Authorities

And God does give that gift. He gives that gift to Moses, who makes judgments among the people of Israel, and Moses gives that gift to men among the people of Israel.

Everything in scripture points to God investing authority in individuals, not in all individuals. God chooses Moses, various judges, such as Ehud and Gideon, Kings, such as Saul and David, and prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel.

God’s does not limit his selection of civil servants to Israel. Through the prophet Elisha, he anoints King Hazael. We know this from the book of 2nd kings. God gives visions to King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel which demonstrate that God has given Nebudchadnezzar his place as king over the nations. In the book of Isaiah, God claims that he has delegated similar power to the Assyrians and to Cyrus, king of the Persians.

God’s gift of authority is not limited to the time of the Old Testament. In Romans 13, God claims that he has given the same authority to the civil magistrate. We can argue from the 5th commandment that God has given such an authority to parents as well, which is an authority that demands obedience from young children as we know from Ephesians 6. The civil magistrate’s authority does not come from the people and the parents’ authority does not come from a biological relation. Both the parent’s authority and the civil magistrate’s authority continues to exist in the New Testament, but now under the authority of Christ.

The authority of the Individual

Does this mean that there is no room for private, or vigilante, justice? Is every individual invested with authority? In the New Testament, there is an argument for this. Every Christian has the anointing of Christ. However, this does not give every Christian the right to decree punishments over their fellow man, except in their entrance into heaven, where they will reign with Christ. The Christian also exercises this judgment when he comes before God in prayer but he does not decree punishments in prayer. However, the individual Christian does not bear the sword. That belongs to the civil authorities. They have the right to decree life or death and that authority comes from God to specific individuals. We see that in Romans 13.

There is an institution in scripture, which, arguably, is a type of vigilanteism. In the scripture, we see an institution called “the avenger of blood,” which exists alongside the judges and elders that God has established. This seems to be a family institution. This is suggestive. The aggrieved family has authority to invest one of their own with the authority to chase after the man, but that is balanced by the fact that God has established places where the killer may seek justice from the civil magistrate. The authority of the civil magistrate and the “avenger of blood” are in balance with one another.

We need to begin by discerning the fact that this is not actually vigilante justice. God has declared at the time of Noah. That if man sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. The “avenger of blood” is an institution that developed out of this gift. The “avenger of blood,” though a familial institution, was publicly recognized. More importantly, God recognized it.

The Limits of Authority

All authority comes from God. I would argue that this is the teaching of scripture. The simple fact that we hear the truth that Christ has all authority and power, that God is the one to whom vengeance belongs, proves where the authority of fathers, mothers, judges, and pastors comes from. But this does not necessitate blind obedience to such authority. Neither, does it protect authority from all criticism or from losing their authority. In the end, however, it will be God that takes away their authority. He gave authority and he has the right to take it away. It is possible that he will do that through other authorities here on earth.

1. How do we determine whom God gives authority? One way is to accept traditional rights and responsibilities in our society. We need to recognize God’s hand in history in setting up our historical institutions. Of course, that should not give these institutions any comfort, particularly in today’s world. These institutions are exercising God’s authority very poorly. Another way is the acclamation of the people. The acclamation of the people is not a source of a leader’s authority, but a proof of it.

2. How do we guard against the abuse of such authority? The author of their authority guards against abuse for their authority is bound up in God’s authority. Paul tells us that they are servants of God. This is because any authority, all authority, on earth is bound to obey Jesus Christ and to exercise authority in his name.

3. How do we resist an abusive authority? One way is through exercising our own authority in the sphere that God has given us. If civil authorities directly interfere with our sphere, we may resist. Nullification is a biblical principle. As one who is invested with authority, you may reject a law if it is not within the calling of those who are in authority over you.

God may raise up a leader as he raised up Jeroboam and Jehu. Those are not exemplary men, but God did raise them up against legitimate kings. Jehu, of course, had the direct word of God to kill the king. We have the full word of God today, therefore we do not look for direct visions from God in order to discern whether we may destroy a governing authority. Jeroboam set up an alternate legal system, which would have been legitimate if he hadn’t set up an alternate cult as well. God calls us to do this with wisdom always seeking for peace, rather than revolution.

Another way is through persuasion. We can convince the king to look to God rather than man for the way forward. We should seek to speak the truth to the king humbly and winsomely.

4. May we kill the king (understanding “the king” here as any tyrannical civil governor)? Only in extraordinary circumstances. Which extraordinary circumstances? I don’t know; because it’s a very difficult question. David did not kill Saul because he knew that it was in the hands of God to take away the office he had given the king.

Many questions remain but it is good to know that the one who has all authority and power is good, just and merciful. Therefore, as we figure out how best to exercise our authority, we can hope and trust in him.

Do I not Hate Those who Hate You

By James

On March 17, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church

In Psalm 139, David proclaims his hatred for those who hate God. May we sing that? Now that Christ has come among us and told us, “You shall love your enemies?” For those who argue for the “singing of the Psalms,” these types of psalms, known as Imprecatory Psalms, often come up. Should we sing these Psalms as well? In the Psalms, David seems to express a different spirit than the one Jesus has in the New Testament. I argue that we should sing these songs.

These songs look to God to provide vengeance.They allow the Christian to look to God’s justice for dealing with oppression and evil. We can think of the Boko Haram and ISIS. We look at them with pity and desire their salvation. At the same time, we are angry at the magnitude of their wickedness. We desire that God will rescue those who suffer under their hand.

With that in mind, here are a couple of things to keep in mind when you run across such a verse whether in your readings or when you are singing in church.

First, remember to read carefully. In Psalm 139, David specifies the types of people he hates. He hates God’s enemies. In Matthew 5, Jesus asks those who are listening to love their enemies. These are not God’s enemies. They are your enemies. David is praying in his role as a servant of God. Your enemy might not be God’s enemy.
In Matthew 23, Jesus calls down “woes” upon the Pharisees and Scribes, who have perverted God’s law. His anger at the Pharisees is coupled with a desire for their salvation. At the end of Matthew 23, he says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Remember that vengeance belongs to God. God wants us to release our desire for personal vengeance so that we “love our enemies.” We do this by relying on God for vengeance. Some Christians deal with a great amount of suffering. Men oppress and attack them in a way that Christians in the west have a hard time imagining. God gives them a way to seek vengeance in the words of this Psalm. God responds to such a prayer in two ways: by breaking them on the rock or crushing them under the rock. The rock is Christ. God saves you when he breaks you on the rock. If God crushes you under the rock, you are lost.
Finally, we need to understand David’s hate. It is possible that his hatred for the extreme violence and evil committed by his enemies exists alongside a pity for their fate before God. This fate is one that they have chosen, but it is a pitiable one.

These are meant to be helpful comments to give us confidence in singing the Psalms before God. These are prayers that God has given us in order to teach us how to pray. We should learn how to pray from them.

Old Teachers and Moral Formation.

By James

On February 6, 2018

In education

Why read old books? I don’t think the primary answer is knowledge of the past or knowledge of history. I believe that the primary answer is that old books form us morally. In order to explore this question, we begin by exploring the assumption here; that the purpose of reading old books is moral formation. We continue by addressing how that helps us answer the question, “Why read old books?” My goal here is not to merely encourage the reading of old books, but to provide a way through which to judge the effectiveness of old books. I am for reading old books, but I want to back up a little bit and look at the reading of old books within the purpose of education as a whole.

Before I go into some specifics, I should mention that this is not true of all old books. Many old books can be read for insight into how people thought in the past, but there is an old corpus that we read for the purpose of moral formation. That is to say, the books we should read are also the books that are valuable for developing wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to discern the path of excellence. There are many old books out there that do not contain any such wisdom.

If you ask your students to read certain books, my argument is that the first question to ask is, “Will these books instill virtue into my students?” Certainly, other aspects are important. Will these books give my students insight into history, into the story of civilizations? We might ask, “will these books place my students; give them a place in the conversation, in the history of civilization?” These are good questions to keep in mind, but moral formation should still be at the center of how we choose old books.

This moral formation, is of course, deeply connected to these other questions. It is only through understanding one’s place in history, that one is able to practice ethics in a responsible manner. Even though certain aspects of ethics are eternal, their particularity depends on practice. In Presbyterian language, there is a “general equity” (the central principles of justice and mercy), which is applied through reason to many different places and times. This helps to explain why literature other than scripture is also helpful for moral formation. The thoughts of theologians, philosophers, and artists give us wisdom in making choices.

My central case for an education centered around moral formation comes from the New Testament. There Jesus says these words: “A student will be like his teacher.” Jesus is the great teacher and he wants his disciples to become like him. It is the same with Christians today. Christians are called to look to Jesus as their ultimate teacher and learn virtue from him.

Jesus’ argument applies to all student-teacher relationships. A student learns from a teacher through imitation as much as through lectures. He sees the teacher’s love for his subject. He sees the academic integrity of the teacher. By analogy, we can see that a parent is a type of teacher; and no-one doubts that children imitate their parents. Parents use teachers in order to supplement their lack; so that their children can learn from many counselors.

An old book, on the other hand, represents a very old teacher. Teachers give young peoples books in order to supplement their own lack; a lack because the book represents a mind that is distinct from the teacher. The book supplements what the living, breathing teacher is providing. The goal is that the student would learn from the author of the book, not just facts, but a moral vision; a way to see the world that can be amalgamated into the thought of the young man or woman. If we want our children to have good teachers, we need to give them good books.

Why is it so important to see old books as moral formation? Not only does this inform the way teachers teach, but it informs the way we choose literature for young people to read. The modern textbook, with some exceptions, is not great for moral formation. One helpful category for selection is Charlotte Mason’s argument for “living books.” These are books that exemplify an excitement and a love by the author for what he is teaching.

Why are old books especially helpful for this? A selection of old books are helpful in that these book are the ones our fathers valued the most. They are the sources of our fathers’ moral formation and therefore in some sense the sources of our moral formation. This also ties into what we mentioned earlier: that moral formation also consists in connecting one to his place in history and his place in the conversation that carries on between thinkers in history. These reasons for reading old books should be subsidiary to the center of education; instilling virtue. Old books also carry us to a different place in history so we can learn to interact with those who think very differently from ourselves. These benefits help the student as he grows in wisdom and knowledge.

This doesn’t mean that the student may not critique. Rather he engages with the author so that through the engagement the author will form his mind. If a book fails in engaging the mind in a way that instills virtue that book is no longer valuable to the reader.

When we answer the question, “Why read old books?” with “for moral formation.” It changes the dynamic of the conversation. Though other reasons for reading old books are valuable, such as historical insight or engaging with a mind from a distant era, they do not get at the center of what education is about. I would argue that if we are to argue for reading old books, we must begin with a demonstration of how they encourage virtue in young people.

Deuteronomy is Relevant! But How?

By James

On February 1, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Hermeneutics

My title today is misleading. I don’t have the full answer to the relevancy of Deuteronomy for today’s world. However, if you believe that scripture is the word of God, Deuteronomy is relevant. Christ commands that we disciple the nations in Matthew 28. The natural follow-up question is, “How?” The Bible has its own answer to this question. The Bible tells us the story of one nation that God discipled through Moses and through the prophets. That nation was Israel and Deuteronomy gives us the details of what God taught her.

Unfortunately, this realization doesn’t automatically give one the ability to apply the law recorded in Deuteronomy to modern communities. Many mistakes are made and many mistakes have been made. When we recognize the applicability of Deuteronomy to modernity it is wise to read widely in the past, in order to understand the history of Christian reflection on economics and political philosophy. We must also take stock of Christian theology. God the Son took on flesh and died on the cross between the time of Moses and our own time. That changed everything.

I want to take this opportunity to point out some assumptions we must be critical of in applying Deuteronomy to our modern context.

1. Don’t forget about Christ: It is easy to get excited about the equity and the wisdom that is evident in the law of Moses. But, Christ changed everything. In particular, Christ changed the nature of our relationship to God, to one another and even to land in general.

2. Don’t forget about the church: Moses is speaking to the church of God, which God organized as a nation at that time. The church is the new nation of God. We must apply Deuteronomy to the church before we apply to a nation.

3. Don’t forget about context: The people of God lived at a certain time in history. There were different expectations in terms of how a nation functioned at that time. God started to disciple his people within a cultural context. Jesus teaches us in Matthew 19 that Moses created some laws to allow for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus cites laws concerning divorce and notes that God’s desire is for the holiness of marriage. However, because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, God, through Moses, gives an exception at that time. The applicability of Deuteronomic laws remains true. The principle here might be that we need to be patient with the hard-hearted on certain issues today, but the permissiveness in Deuteronomy is not an automatic excuse for permissiveness in the church today.

4. Don’t forget about basic economics: Teachings about the poor, or anything else, in Deuteronomy are not necessarily about your favorite public policy. Neither should one cherry-pick in defending church polity. Understand Deuteronomy’s message as a whole before applying it to particular issues.

5. Don’t forget about political science. We have learned a great deal over the past two hundred years about how the exercise of political freedom is beneficial for all involved. Deuteronomy has the desire for freedom at its heart, freedom from slavery, freedom to do good without coercion.

6. Deuteronomy is not a civil code: The fact is, a lot of Deuteronomy is sermonic, not what we would expect in a civil code of law. It is not a list of laws that the Israelites were to enforce in their society through coercion. The Israelites are called to enforce many of these laws, but not all of them. Details of proper punishment are given to the Israelite people. However, many laws do not detail a punishment for infractions other than the fact that God will come in judgment on his people. These laws function as teaching more than as a civil code. If Deuteronomy is not a civil code (even though it contains elements of a civil code), then it is better to describe Deuteronomy as teaching.

Hope and Simple Pleasures

By James

On January 12, 2018

In Lord of the Rings

It is easy to say that the thing that brings Frodo and Sam to the end of their journey is “Hope.” But there is something deeper going on. If Tolkien had simply gone to write a story about how hope brought his heroes through to the end of their journey, he would be one among many writers. What makes the hope of his characters interesting is the character of that hope. We might say that the interest lies in the particularity of that hope. The hobbits are hoping for something that is concrete. There is a vision that moves Frodo and Sam (Later only Sam) and works in them the possibility of destroying the ring.

Frodo and Sam have what some have called “a vision of the good.” They have an idea of what goodness looks like. It is the desire for the restoration of that goodness to Middle Earth which gives them the fortitude to accomplish their task. This is particularly evident in Sam. Through the approach to the land of Mordor, Sam’s mind continues to turn back to Hobbiton. He looks back to the happiness that is evident in that land. His mind is set on the beauty of that order. Sam would not express it in that way, but unconsciously his mind looks backward to Hobbiton so that he can move forward in the hope that he might return to that place.

Ultimately, his vision of the good is Hobbiton and the many happinesses that are involved in living in that land. What is interesting here is that it is the simple pleasures that excite his vision. Sam and Frodo remember the food, the strawberries, the beer and the pipeweed. They remember the laughter and the friendship with fellow hobbits. It is not a vision of final victory over Sauron, but a desire for a return to the happiness of a decidedly mundane and middle-class life that keeps hope alive in Sam. And in Frodo as well (although it is Sam who keeps this alive in Frodo).

In Chapter III of Book 6, Tolkien emphasizes how important this is. Sam and Frodo are at the foot of Mt. Doom and Sam’s mind is drawn back, not to Hobbiton, but a small, but delicious rabbit that they enjoyed just outside of the land of Mordor. It was a reminder of the joys of Hobbiton. Sam asks if Frodo remembers that rabbit stew.

Frodo responds, “No I am afraid not. At least, I know that such things happened, but I cannot see them. No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or stars are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.”

Frodo’s inability to remember simple pleasure (along with the heaviness of the ring) impede his desire to continue. He needs Sam, his memories, and his hope, in order to cajole him into continuing his quest. Sam holds to those simple pleasures and that keeps his hope alive to the very end.

Now imagine if it were different. Imagine if grand pleasures informed their vision of the good. Imagine if they moments of great victory moved them. What if they loved glory? What if they desired most the praise of men, most of all? Those are the things that fly away first in the pit of despair. The simple pleasures of food, of fellowship, are much closer. They will be the last to go. But if Sam had despises these simple pleasures, what then?

This may be the reason that Hobbits are so special, that they are so resistant to the ring. They do not love grand pleasures. They love simple pleasures. That not only enables them to resist the ring, but it allows them to accomplish the greatest deeds of the 3rd age.