Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Alexandria, Hypatia and the Scandal of Christian Power


Yesterday I watched the documentary Alexandria, hosted by historian Bettany Hughes. It was a beginner’s documentary on the legacy and history of the city, but highly though-provoking and commendable. A word about the presenter and any “agenda” behind the documentary is in order. Hughes who is an Anglican has been in the news for expressing ideas about the masculine bias in the worldwide church and in the practice of the Christian faith through the centuries, and for provocative comments such as “Was God a girl?”, referring to the gender bias that the male writers of the Biblical canon carried in their writings. Though provocative, I have found nothing that is unsettling to a believer. If one understands that the Biblical writings are true but also human- meaning that they were written by human hands, by human minds expressing truth in a human language with human idiom, personality, reflecting an understanding of the time and culture in which the books were written, then it is completely understandable that women were overshadowed by men in the writings. This fact does not make the writings less true or even unfair. God works through his word, and if he intended to communicate to us through his word, then this is that word and no other. But his word itself gives us understanding on the prejudices in our hearts and in the hearts of saints from the beginning of history.

In recent years feminists have attempted to interpret the actions of the church fathers as having been hostile to women, going so far to believe that Mary Magdalene was not in fact caught in adultery. This, I believe, is a mistake, even with the noblest of intentions. Sure, it is a psychologist’s reading of the word, but if you pursue the word as a way to seek truth, and attempt to understand its meaning, this attempt weakens it. Further, an attempt by Christian feminists to create “another gospel” by reading the gospel of Thomas or other non-canonical writings as the “real” gospel or one that is more reflective of the truth, such attempts are ill-advised. Whether one likes it or not, the support for the consistency, dating (they all date from 100 years or more after the apostolic age) and a coherent philosophy, are scant. Even if one blames it all on the council of Nice that more such writings do not remain, the fact is that those positions were a minority view. The canonical writings that have survived have far more reliable credentials, and are our best bet. And, of course, seeing things as a Christian, I believe that God does not need human help to bring his word to pass, so the word that he has given us is in fact the closed canon.

Alexandria was perhaps the greatest attempt in all of human history to build a world of wisdom. The incredible ambition to house every written work and collect every bit of knowledge in one central location is itself a testament to the seeker’s zeal. The city was founded by Alexander the Great- forged after war. This is important to note. For the Greeks, through their classical history, were lovers of wisdom, but were by no means a peace-loving people. Regardless of what their convictions were- whether superstitious, freethinking or anything in between- they were constantly aware of the world around them and thought of it as something to be conquered. Every great city state and statesman believed that the key to sustained prosperity and even the longevity of the immense schools of wisdom lay in the conquest and subjugation of other lands. In the process Greece suffered many tragedies- the burning of Athens, the Athenian debacle at sea in the time of Pericles, and the execution of Socrates were all instances. This process culminated in Alexander, and ultimately in his conquest of Egypt and laid the foundation of Alexandria, a tribute to the master strategist or bloodthirsty warrior, depending on which way you considered him, who founded it.

After its founding, the Greek conquerors and the Egyptian people joined hands to create an fascinating culture, based on Hellenistic philosophy and Egyptian science. When the Romans conquered it, this process continued and became richer from Rome’s resources. After all, Cleopatra reigned from this city. After Rome, Alexandria was the pre-eminent city of its day- and through a different kind of power- the power of learning. The great library was built to house every scroll every written. They had half a million of them at its peak. The city thronged with students from every corner of the Mediterranean world and was vibrant with engineers, scientists and philosophers. When Mark the apostle came to the city, Christianity found a ready following among many, although as was the case in most other cities, Mark was martyred here by intolerant people. Clearly even Alexandrians were not open to every message. However, for centuries Christians and pagans lived alongside each other happily. Christians were among the city’s scientists and philosophers, and eventually occupied prominent positions in the city. Eventually this would mean the desire to control the city and the seduction of political power- which more than any other factor has contributed to decay of the Christian faith in every age and culture.

Among the most prominent of the city’s philosophers in the 5th century was Hypatia, a woman to whom remarkable inventions and mathematical, astronomical and philosophical treatises have been attributed. Christian writers have praised her as being virtuous (she spurned many suitors, wishing to remain ‘pure’) and more learned than the men of the city. Among her students were many Christians. Forged letters in later years have tried to show an anti-Christian bias in her writings, but these have not been proved to have been written by her. There were tensions in the city between Jews and Christians which led to violent confrontations. In the process, political jealousy caused a prominent Bishop to ridicule Hypatia and accused her of being a witch, due to her astronomical inventions and pursuits. A mob murdered her in the most gruesome way imaginable- and yes, these were Christians. My heart sank as I listened to this. When I say that, I mean that I do not care if they were real Christians or nominal Christians. Whatever they were, it was the desire for power that made it happen. Christians often point to the violence unleashed by Alexandria’s city authorities and Jews upon the city’s Christians and try to explain away the mob’s response. Sober-minded Christians of the day such as Scholasticus have rejected such excuses, and insisted that the violence is contrary to Christ’s teachings. Such voices carried the light amid the darkness. This holds a lesson of enormous significance to us.

Bettany Hughes tries to explain this, with pain in her voice, that though Christians had lived with these people for years, the desire to lay down the law and forbid all opposing thoughts, gave way to this behavior. She explains that when Christianity was just one of the voices in the street, things were okay- but when Christians sought to dominate the debate, things got ugly. Can truth triumph through human power and control? If truth is just “one of the voices” out there (as it has always been), will it limit its power? Let’s now think about our own day and age. We live in a democracy, never mind those who call it a sham. Under the circumstances, it is a working democracy with a lot to be desired to reach an ideal state. In principle and under the terms set by the US Constitution, this country was intended to be one in which the people- equal in their rights- could govern themselves.  Regardless of the faith of the founding fathers, this means that Christianity is intended to be just one of the voices out there. The separation of the church and the state is intended too, to safeguard this. This is one of the greatest gifts we could give ourselves, even for truth to triumph.

Often, many of the issues that we champion are ones which we debate based on what is practical rather than what is right. But some of them have proved deeply polarizing, due in no small part to the evangelical and Catholic voters who have pushed for their choice hard, and thereby ended up supporting mainly the Republican party that has endorsed these: pro-life, anti-gay marriage and anti-euthanasia positions.

LGTB rights have occupied center stage in the debates. Christians have mostly opposed same-sex marriage. Over the years, there have been an easing of other LGTB rights such as the right to visitation, adoption, inheritance of property, etc. We have somehow held on to opposing same-sex marriage, while individual states have passed laws allowing for these, and the trajectory looks to further this trend. What do we fear will happen if same-sex marriage were to be legalized nationally? Perhaps a further deterioration of traditional values (slippery slope), an increasingly pleasure-seeking culture, a challenge to Christians who seek to raise kids in sexual modesty? We call it devaluing or redefining marriage. But we have to ask, redefining by whom? By the world, clearly- it does not force us to accept the definition in our own lives. We hear voices speculating that this will lead to polygamy or polyandry, or worse, incestuous relationships. How about child marriage or bestiality? I think the slippery slope argument is valid to an extent, but the prospect of it including bestiality or the abuse of minors through child marriage, is scarce. It may well lead to the legalization of marriages among multiple partners or even incestuous marriages over the age of majority. However, as Christians, is it our business to challenge such laws? Why should we? Can we attempt to save our world though such laws?

In Hypatia’s day it was the desire to impose our laws that led to the destruction of one of the greatest cities of antiquity. It is heresy to expect a pagan to behave or think like a Christian. We have seen that when we seek to control the world in this way we become anti-Christian and that legacy lasts for centuries. Is it our fear that we may end up living in a world that is anti-Christian that lead us to act this way? If so, it may be the best opportunity we have to save ourselves and our kids from being deceived by civil religion. It is becoming increasingly tough to tell apart real Christian faith from American civil religion. Even at the cost of their lives, the early Christians told the Gospel story well. They had the moral authority to condemn the world because they lived for God. They used that moral authority to bear witness to Christ. This loving witness was compelling for the millions who saw their own sins as repulsive and the world’s value system as empty. Unfortunately for us today, people see our value system as hateful, prejudiced, ignorant and obscurantist. And why not? When civil religion takes over, faith in God suffers. Even believers are deceived and seduced by its power.

This brings us to another question/ Should we, like the Amish, seek to distance ourselves from all human laws? Are all human laws wicked? I think not. IJM, Freedom Firm and other such abolitionist organizations have sought the help of the police and other authorities in the countries of their operations to accomplish great things. Also Christians have achieved great moral victories by using the political machinery of their day- in civil rights, racial reconciliation, prevention of cruelty to animals, women’s rights, children’s rights, refugees’ rights, abolishing slave trade and other areas. But these victories have helped people, not constrained them from pursuing happiness or even immoral pleasure- as long as such pursuits did not harm another human being.

Preventing LGTB marriage (or other slippery slope variants), I’m inclined to think, is not the Christian’s business. Yes, I think there is a good case to made in understanding a homosexual relationship as being apart from God’s intentions for us- whether a person has control over their sexual orientation or not, whether we were “born that way” or made that way. But we must point people to the Gospel. The Gospel frees us to pursue God’s kingdom first. The rest is simply not our business, and as Alexandria’s example shows us, is counter-productive.

So what are the kind of laws we should pursue? To my mind, this should only include laws that help, protect or save people: being pro-life is a good example. If we do believe that a human life is sacred we must protect it in the womb, even as we seek to clarify exceptional situations. Such events are aberrations and we must be cautious when defining them. In general Christians must seek to prevent any war from happening. Controlling guns, to my mind, is a good thing as well- regardless of what the founding fathers thought. If we equate their thought with the word of God we would deem their dictates to be unalterable, but this is a big mistake. Civil religion must never replace God’s word to us. Death penalty, to my mind, is another mistake. I know CS Lewis and other big names have advocated this- but I cannot see the justification in sending a soul to hell when it is possible to incarcerate him or her for life, and hopefully offer a chance for redemption. Expanding healthcare coverage to everyone is a fight worth fighting- every Christian I have talked to in the US agrees with me on this topic. It seems to me that the big obstacle to their voting for the candidate who champions this is really the abortion issue. I respect this moral struggle, but at least let’s acknowledge that healthcare is a life issue as much as the right to life.

At a certain level this would seem intuitive- Christians are looking forward to seeing neighbors saved, poverty alleviated, peace maintained and their own lives to burn bright like a candle in the darkness. Instead we have sought to define the darkness as being light by allowing civil religion to hold sway.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Principles from 1 Corinthians and Some Thoughts on the Elections



Principle 1: We are here to glorify God, and the ways to glorify God are: (1) believe in Him and the Lord Jesus Christ- for our salvation, sustenance, sanctification and union with Him in glory; (2) fulfill God’s desire for us by living in a consistent manner to God’s Word; (3) fulfill God’s desire for human beings to know Him by carrying the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

“In him you have been enriched in every way- in all your speaking and in all your knowledge, because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore, you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who called you into fellowship with His son, Jesus Christ our Lord is faithful.”

“Now you are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.”

“For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many so that they may be saved.”

“I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some.”

Principle 2: Christians must rely on God’s power to fulfill his desire, not on earthly powers.

“So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, only God who makes things grow.”

“I resolved to know nothing while I was with you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”

“My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith may not rest on man’s wisdom but on God’s power.”

Principle 3: Even so we must work hard to fulfill God’s desire and trust God to take the work to his planned end. We constrain ourselves, bind ourselves in order to glorify God. However we must expect God’s reward for our work.

“Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly. I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others I myself will not have run in vain.”

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.”

“When the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.”

Principle 4: We must be opportunists because God gives us several opportunities to glorify Him.

“Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone so that they may be saved.”

Principle 5: It is heresy to expect an unbeliever to behave like a believer, but we must admonish and teach those inside the church- and call to repentance our brothers when we feel that their path is not according to God’s Word.

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those inside.”- 1 Corinthians 4:

Some thoughts on the application of the above

 I started writing this down in connection with the debates among Christians going on at this time, during the Presidential elections. As all the others, Christians are also seeking to influence laws, and therefore the outcome of the election; to reflect what we believe is right. We are often told to vote our conscience. Phrased this way, we are asked to vote into office lawmakers who promise to bring to the table bills that will reflect our views on right and wrong.

In recent years this view on right versus wrong have taken on the form of creating more than social contracts but the understanding of personal moral absolutes on the society as a whole. I view marriage as between one man and one woman and therefore I’m urged by social, political and religious leaders to influence laws that would make this not just a personal moral understanding based on the Bible but the only social contract referring to marriage.
On the other hand major victories can be legitimately claimed by believing Christians of the past- in civil rights (Dr. King), abolitionist movements (William Wilberforce), women’s suffrage (Frances Willard), women's rights in the church and society (Katharine Bushnell, Elizabeth Andrew- especially in their effective investigation of rape, neglect and abuse of Indian women by British soldiers during the Raj), so-called Christian feminism (Josephine Butler), animal rights (Wilberforce again), environmental stewardship (John Muir). In our time modern abolitionists at International Justice Mission, Freedom Firm and other organizations have led this fight in the name of Christ, and thousands of slaves have been rescued. These victories have been achieved in full observance of the political and legal structures in place in the countries in which they have been accomplished. While some have involved working with victims of injustice directly, others have involved tireless political campaigning on a grand scale. In every way, these efforts glorify God, according to definition in the above paragraphs: by trusting God, living Christianly (in a personal sense) and by making the Gospel compelling to those outside by the power of God.

This brings us to the question. Which of our current issues on the political front (not the ones in which we are working directly with victims of injustice or unbelievers) are making the Gospel look compelling?


  •          Gay marriage
  •          Abortion
  •          Death penalty
  •          Euthanasia
  •          Right to bear arms

It has become clear to most Christians that many of us, even in the church, are not believers of the Gospel of Christ, but believers of civil religion- be it American, European, Indian or Chinese. And thus the goals of the country have become enmeshed with some of the goals of the Gospel.

We are pro-life. Human life has sanctity. Do we have the right to end it, whether at conception or at any other time?

We believe in the union of one man and one woman. By insisting that the society endorse this in its laws explicitly, are we creating a compelling case for the Gospel? What if the definition of marriage is changed to include polygamy or polyandry? Even then, should we oppose it as Christians in the political sphere? Certainly we know that we should oppose it in our personal lives, but is it our business to enshrine it as the sole union in human law for everyone, even against their wishes? How about an age limit for marriage? Should we take that away? I think most people understand that puberty, financial responsibility, education, worldly knowledge, etc are prerequisites to start a family, and on those bases we have agreed on an “age of majority.” This is a constraint based on practical matters, not a restriction based on a different understanding of right and wrong.

What if this “slippery slope” impacts our liberty to choose heterosexual monogamous marriages to be upheld as being the only legitimate marriages in our churches? This may be scoffed at as even a remote possibility by unbelievers, but we know that countries have trod roughshod over our religious liberty in the past by more despotic government systems and this continues to be the case today in countries like China. How then can believers cope? To prevent this from happening, should believers attempt to influence laws that restrict unbelievers to behave differently than us?

Historically, when the state has acted against Christians, we have resorted to loving civil disobedience that has compelled unbelievers to see the power of the Gospel. Avoiding this pain is neither compelling nor even effective as a defense against worldly values.

Laws that are unjust towards people are fair game for Christians to fight. We cannot drop out of these fights. The Amish people sought to divorce themselves from the government. They pay their taxes and do not take advantage of the laws permitting religious institutions to be tax-free. But they do not avail of the Government’s healthcare provisions. They pay what is owed to Caesar but are under no illusions that Caesar (while appointed by God) behaves at all like God desires. They also do not purchase insurance but help each other pay for medical bills. This seems attractive to me- a church seeking to take no advantage of the state is also free from the diktats of the state. While our decrying of the President’s mandate for religious institutions (not churches) to pay for mandatory birth control is right because it is an infringement of our liberty, we must also be cognizant of the fact that we have already roped in the government into the functioning of these institutions by accepting funding from them. This is to be sure a dilemma. The funding is important to ensure that the people we serve get good treatment at our hospitals, education at our schools and other services that we provide. We must negotiate this carefully.

The Amish not only dropped out of the government but also out of society, and this clearly is an indictment against them, according to our definition of glorifying God. Their isolation of themselves, dropping out of education after Grade 8, disengagement with society, are all examples of the church going the other extreme. It is no surprise that among the victories mentioned earlier, the key figures have been Christians who have engaged society and the government, and do not include any Amish that I know of.

In my mind “voting our conscience” is clearly a value to abide by- but as it has been interpreted differently, I would add to this the value of “voting in a manner that would make the Gospel compelling.” If our efforts are geared towards anything other than this, we are wasting our time. And most of our efforts in the past decades have been a clear waste of time. We have poured time and resources into fights that have distracted from many "life" issues. While our pro-life stance (in the case of abortion) has been right, our definition of being pro-life has been narrow- we have mostly forgotten about our duty to extend a cup of cold water to those in need. We have missed golden opportunities to glorify God in our headlong rush to build walls between ourselves and the world by enacting laws that alienate unbelievers from the Gospel, and cause us to judge those outside the church.

Friday, October 26, 2012

The End of Knowledge

I've been reading 1 Corinthians over the past several weeks. The Corinthians seem to have been a mixed bag of Christians- the rich and poor, Jews and Gentiles, wise and simple-minded (weak brothers), many spiritually gifted with charisma and full of contention on several topics (which leaders to follow, questioning apostolic authority, lawsuits among believers, misinterpretation of liberty- especially on sexual topics, engaging the idolatrous culture around them and even within themselves.

It is painfully clear that Paul is exercising restraint and showing forbearance even as he pens reproof for these actions, and demonstrating a rich theology that is stunningly clear in its application in our world. He frequently undermines the reliance on human wisdom that many Corinthians seem to have come to prize above all else, and even while appealing to people who exult in their liberty to show concern to the weaker brothers, he points his guns at this idol of wisdom. "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know, but the man who loves God is known by God" In the second chapter he has mentioned that the rulers of this age with their wisdom could not comprehend God's plans, and however simple-minded Christians may seem, they are able to understand by the help of the Holy Spirit the wisdom of God.

He shares with the Corinthians that he has become "all things to all men, that by all possible means he might save some", and as a reward, he will share in the blessings of the Gospel. This is the one goal for his witness, because as he says "when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest." Again, while admonishing the Corinthians on how they must put the Gospel and its witness first in engaging the unbelievers, he says, "I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, that they may be saved."

When talking about their coming together as a church, he urges each believer to wait for each other when partaking in the communal meal that was the Lord's Supper in his day. This was in response to the confusion and selfishness the people exhibited in this sacrament, in which they went ahead to eat without waiting for anyone else as he says, "One remains hungry, another gets drunk."

He talks about spiritual gifts, of which the Corinthians seemed to have an abundance, but urges them that they must consider every member as complementary and indispensable, like the parts of a body. If one part suffers every parts suffers with it. If one part is honored every part rejoices with it. He likens the church to a body in which the parts that seem to be weaker are indispensable, the parts that we think are less honorable, we treat with special honor (for some reason I keep thinking of applying deodorant when I read this!), the parts that are unpresentable we treat with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. I keep thinking of the disabled ministry in our church called STARS, one of my favorite ministries in the church. One of my favorite services is when the Stars come together to lead worship- they are assisted by their ministry leaders.

This section culminates with 1 Cor 13, arguably the most famous chapter in this book, if not the Bible itself. As this chapter unfolds, removing layer and layer of mystery and allowing us to marvel at greater mysteries, it says"Where there is knowledge it will pass away." Paul means that it will pass away as we transition from here to eternity. But how does knowledge pass away? Does it mean that we will know nothing in heaven? Does seeing God face to face mean that it will be the end of knowledge? It seems to me that loving God is the end of all knowledge. We search for extraterrestrial life on other planets, for the answer to everything in the smallest supposed building blocks of the universe, study the human psyche to understand why we behave the way we do, look for clues in our history to understand why we believe what we do... all of that for one and onle one end, to know God, whether we believe it or not. I think this is why earlier Paul remarks, "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know, but the man who loves God is known by God"- because loving God seems to be a special kind of knowledge.

If we see God clearly, not a poor reflection as in a mirror, but face to face; if we know God, not as we know now (partially), but fully- even as we are fully known, then the knowledge of what we think are lofty concepts like jet propulsion, sending rovers to Mars and mapping the human genome, will seem small. When we think of these small things as ends in and of themselves, we are like kids playing with legos in a magnificent cathedral- having no eyes for the beauty of the cathedral, but content to build simple structures with our legos.

Friday, March 30, 2012

A Boat Beneath A Sunny Sky

In 1984 I was in fourth grade- Dad bought me a copy of Alice and Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. It ended with this acrostic poem, then my favorite and now a strange if evocative one, that gives the name 'Alice Pleasance Liddell' when expanded. Alice was one of the three siblings to whom the story was originally told by Carroll.




A boat beneath a sunny sky,
Lingering onward dreamily
In an evening of July-

Children three that nestle near,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Pleased a simple tale to hear-

Long has paled that sunny sky:
Echoes fade and memories die.
Autumn frosts have slain July.

Still she haunts me, phantomwise,
Alice moving under skies
Never seen by waking eyes.

Children yet, the tale to hear,
Eager eye and willing ear,
Lovingly shall nestle near.

In a Wonderland they lie,
Dreaming as the days go by,
Dreaming as the summers die:

Ever drifting down the stream--
Lingering in the golden gleam--
Life, what is it but a dream?