Links for Monday, January 30, 2012

I have some good links to share:

1.  This article by John Richardson on Newt Gingrich in Esquire is probably the best that I have read so far.  It goes into his human side and also his record as Speaker and thereafter—-both the positives and the negatives.  It is lengthy but it is well worth the read, from beginning to end.

2.  Ezra Klein on the Washington Post’s blog talks about the economies under the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.  Both had recessions and implemented policies that sought to bring us out of that.  But the recessions were due to different factors, and what worked for Reagan may not work today due to our different contexts.  For example, tax cuts may not be the answer, for our taxes are already lower under Obama than they were under Reagan, plus people have a lot of debt to pay off before they can even think of freely spending money that they receive from a tax cut.

3.  Izgad is blogging, with some excellent posts critiquing Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s Kosher Jesus.  See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Advantage of Being an Israelite; Romans 7 and the Temptation of Law

I’m continuing my way through Alan Segal’s Paul the Convert.  A few things stood out to me.

First, I have long wondered: If many Jews believed that Gentiles could become righteous and enter the World to Come without becoming Israelites and keeping the entire Torah—-and, if my impression is correct, Segal does appear to believe that there were many Jews who believed this way, on the basis of references to God-fearers on inscriptions and in literature—-then why was Paul so revolutionary and provoking towards Jews when he said that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to be saved?  And why did many Jews believe that being part of Israel was such an honor, if they did not even think that one had to be an Israelite in order to be saved?

On pages 194-195, Segal tackles this question.  Segal says that, according to Pharisaism, being a part of Israel was a special honor, like the priesthood.  One did not have to be a priest to be righteous, but being a priest was an honor.  And with the honor of being a part of Israel (and being a priest, for that matter) came purity rules.  According to Segal, purity rules separated Jews from Gentiles and hindered social interaction between them (particularly sharing a meal).  But Paul was coming along and saying that Jews and Gentiles could join together into a holy community and could interact with each other—-even going so far as to share meals together.  That, for Pharisaic Judaism, was quite radical.

Second, Segal offers a unique (as far as I can see) perspective on Romans 7, in which Paul appears to struggle with his sinful nature.  According to Segal, Paul is actually struggling against something else in this chapter: his desire to keep the Torah.  For Segal, Paul believes that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised and keep the ritual laws of the Torah in order to be a part of God’s people, and Paul probably doesn’t think that Jews have to do those things, either, for he, as a Jew, does not feel bound by them.  But Paul did make accommodations for the sake of church unity or to be tactful, as when he had Timothy circumcised because Timothy had a Jewish mother.  (Against those who note that Judaism at this time believed in patrilineal rather than matrilineal descent, Segal says that Acts may be getting things wrong, and also that Judaism may be more diverse on this issue than we think.)  For Segal, Paul in Romans 7 is planning to tolerate the observance of Jewish dietary laws among Christians, and even perhaps to keep them himself when he feels that the situation calls for that, but he is afraid that this will make him one who relies on the flesh rather than the Spirit.  He notes that he has a desire to keep God’s law, and so he fears that observing some Jewish rituals will draw him back into the Jewish religion, or a Jewish-Christianity that he believes promotes confidence in fleshly observances rather than the Spirit.  In the end, for Segal, Paul resolves to tolerate Jewish-Christian practice when necessary, while remembering that faith is what is important.

Narrative and Principles

This morning at church, the Pastor Emeritus spoke to us, since our regular pastor and his wife will be in Israel for a couple of weeks.  I enjoyed the pastor’s sermon because it reminded me of a post by Leslie Keeney on valuing the Bible as a narrative, rather than prioritizing principles and discarding the narrative once one arrives at the moral lessons that the stories supposedly teach.

This morning, the pastor derived principles from the stories.  From the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke, the pastor derived the principle of praying and expecting God to answer our prayers according to his timetable, not ours.  From the story of Saul of Tarsus’ conversion and the thorn in the flesh, the pastor derived the lesson of God keeping us humble.  From the story of Esther, the pastor taught us about relying on God (which Esther may have done when she fasted, even though God is not mentioned in the Masoretic Text of the book) and of taking action, as well as God’s preservation of the Jewish people as a nation that glorifies him.

The thing is, I did not feel that the pastor was deriving principles in a manner that discarded the narratives.  Rather, the pastor dived deeply into the stories themselves.  When looking at Saul of Tarsus, he remarked that Saul was sure of himself before Christ appeared to him, but then he was rendered dependent on somebody else on account of his blindness.  The pastor also remarked on how amazing it was that Saul was persecuting Christians one minute, and then the next minute he was proclaiming the very Gospel that he had once persecuted.  I agree that deriving principles from the Bible can be done inappropriately, but I think that it’s good when one can do so while taking the narrative seriously—-by looking at characters, plot, etc.  That way, we feel as if we are living a story with other human beings.