An Anecdote

OK, guys. On Friday nights, my wife and I often go out to the local Brewpub with friends. No big deal. Today, my daughter and her fiancé come in, earlier than I expect, and join us. No big deal. Another couple joins us too. No big deal. At the end of a pleasant meal, we divide the check, and I'm caught a bit short, because I hadn't expected the kids to come, and of course, daddy covers. No big deal. I apologize to my friends, collect the cash, and put the credit card in the holder. The waitress comes, and I pass the holder back to her. No card. Big deal!

My friends had seen me put the card in the holder, so its a mystery. We look under the table, around on the floor. I tear my wallet apart. My wife tears my wallet apart. No card. Now ordinarily, this is a problem, but something you work through. But this is also the card that I've used to guarantee the caterer at the reception for my daughter's wedding, a mere eight days (and 198 guests) hence. And I'm computing in my head, is there enough time to cancel the card, and get a new one. To explain to the caterer what the deal is, and to get everything sorted out. My chest is a bit tight at this point, as you can imagine!

About five minutes pass, as we lift the table, and generally make a scene of ourselves, figuring out trajectories, etc. Another waiter stops by, and suggests that sometimes the holders wear out, and the card falls through the pocket, into the holder itself. I check. Hallelujah! It's there. I am amazed, breathless, and thankful. What an evening!

Peace

The Goals of Debate

Why do people participate in venues like this? Why do I write? Why do you read? Why do we enter into conversations through comments?

It seems to me to be too cynical to view blogs as interactive art: seductive, but ephemeral. No, I think we participate because we hope to learn, but even more to teach. We hope to be entertained, but even more to entertain. We seek community, but perhaps even more to establish our individuality. But we can become destructive when we get frustrated. Then we seek to sow confusion rather than knowledge, anger rather than entertainment, and to tear down others when we cannot build up ourselves. If I can't get what I want, then at least I can keep you from getting what you want!

Incivility is a consequence of frustration. Where does this frustration come from? I doubt there is a single cause, but it seems to me that a sense of powerlessness to meet our particular goals in debate is often a primary cause.

For example, we might enter a discussion hoping to convince the other participants of the rightness of a position we are strongly committed to. But the other participants come with their own experiences, their own prior beliefs, their own bound commitments. It may be the case that no matter how well informed our arguments are, or how artfully we've constructed them, no matter how passionately, how eloquently we argue, the other guy is not going to be budged. It is often at this point that we get frustrated. We realize that our goal—convincing the other guy—is not achievable, even in principle. What happens next is often not pretty. But does it need to be inevitable?

Tolerance matters. It is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to hope that our arguments will prevail; it is unreasonable to assume that when they don't, it is due to some character flaw in our opponents. It is often suggested by members of the left that intolerance is a characteristic of the right, and vice versa. Let me suggest instead that tolerance is a characteristic of maturity, and that immaturity correlates with both extremism and youth. The passing of youth is inevitable, but the passing from immaturity to maturity is not. Good examples, from both allies and opponents can help form maturity. We should aspire to be good examples.

I think we need to learn to accept secondary goals. If we cannot convince, then perhaps we can inform. Understanding isn't the same as agreement, but achieving understanding is rare enough and valuable enough to be a worthy goal in its own right. But there is a two way obligation here—if you want to be understood, you should be willing to understand the other guy's position too. You can understand without agreement, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. I understand your position, but I do not agree with it. Let us be at peace.

And I think that while we do well to understand differences, we do better when we acknowledge those things that hold in common: our humanity, our integrity, and our willingness to engage constructively with one another.

Peace

Civility

I know that I'm a new kid on this block, but I've been around a few others. The truth is, public proclamation coupled with anonymity has been with us since the first graffiti (likely the equivalent of "Ogg smells!") appeared on a cave wall, and set the standard form and content of this sort of discourse.

When I was about ten years old, I saw a bit of doggerel in an outhouse:

Those who write on shithouse walls, roll their shit in little balls. Those who read these words of wit, eat those little balls of shit.

I had no problem finding this again via Google, exactly as I remembered it. It must have been all the rage in the mid-60s. It does speak a truth, though, that still applies. And what is the internet, but the world's most visible outhouse wall? As the preacher said:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has already been, in the ages before us.

Are we doomed? Must the rising tide of incivility drown us in moronic invective, bad speling, and ALL CAPS? Yeah, probably so. But there are things we can do to encourage civility, to reclaim our little corner of the world for passionate discourse with civility. It's not easy, but I do have a few concrete recommendations.

• You can't advance the cause of civility by incivility. It seems obvious enough, but how many times have you seen someone try to shut up an obnoxious antagonist by insulting them? Usually their antagonist reciprocates, sometimes they just go away. But either way, the venue is brutalized.
• The hair-trigger on Alexander Hamilton's dueling pistols didn't work out so well for him. Having a hair-trigger isn't going to work out any better for you. Be slow to take insult. If things are getting heated, slow down. Delay your next post, and let everyone cool down a bit. Be explicit in giving your opponent time to reconsider, and perhaps amend or withdraw his words.
• Admit it when you're wrong. It won't kill you, and it won't diminish your authority in debate. We all know folks who believe themselves to be always right on every question. Think about them for a bit. Yeah. Do you want to be that person?
• Be eager to support today's opponent. Treat him with consideration and respect. Surprise him with consideration and respect. You must might find that he's tomorrow's friend.

I'd be happy to consider any additional suggestions to this little list. I suspect that there will be occasion to return to this topic from time to time, even in a venue whose very name is “peace.”

Peace

Metanoia

Over on Kirby's blog, in response to a question by Emmy Bea, I noted Luther's dissatisfaction with Jerome's translation of the Greek word μετάνοια as penance, and to my surprise (but great pleasure), these remarks met with jh's approbation. Moreover, his note contained some additional remarks on the meaning of μετάνοια, and as I'd had some similar thoughts, I'd like to develop this a bit further, to three distinct ends:

1. I believe the question of how to properly understand the concept of μετάνοια, as Paul intended, is important.
2. The issue of how best to translate μετάνοια is illustrative of the difficulties translators face, and why the hope for a “perfect” translation is misguided.
3. I see in this a good opportunity to develop the faith/works discussion, in a way that I hope is less bound by a priori stereotypes, and which I hope will make the Lutheran position more comprehensible to people with a Catholic mindset. Please note that I'm merely hoping to explain, not to win any arguments.

Μετάνοια

So let's recall the starting point. In Romans 2:1ff, Paul is talking about divine judgment, the consequences of sin, and he touches on the transformative effect of God's love. Let me mash up a bit of English NRSV and Greek:

Romans 2:4b Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to μετάνοια?

Jerome's choice of translating μετάνοια as penance was unfortunate, and Luther's choice of repentance was better, but it does not feel perfect. I believe that the imperfection is in that both Jerome and Luther translated μετάνοια in terms of the consequences of the transformation, rather than in terms of the nature of the transformation, and I believe Paul was talking more about the nature of the transformation.

According to BDAG, the base meaning is “primarily a change of mind,” and suggested translational phrases are “repentance, turning about, conversion.” It is worth noting that the roots are μετά + νοῦς. “Meta” is a proposition, the translation of which is always tricky and beset with language specific idioms, whereas “nous” refers to “mind, intellect, understanding, way of thinking, attitude” etc.

jh raised up phrases like, “turning toward,” “seeking understanding and love,” and even the analogy of lovers making up after a spat. I think these truly are at the heart of the matter.

The classic Lutheran understanding of sin is separation from God. What does God want? He wants relationship. He wants his love for us to be mirrored in our love for him and one another. To place this in terms of jh's suggestions, in sin, we have turned away from God. His kindness is meant to turn us back. This is indeed the making up of lovers after a spat, where the lovers are God and us.

Is this really all there is? Does God really require nothing more of us when we fail than that we return to him? In a word, yes. But to stop with that one word is immature.

It is in understanding the steps that a mature Christian makes after turning back towards God that Luther's word choice and Jerome's come into play.

A mature Christian will acknowledge the reality of their actions, that they were in fact the actor, and that God did not intend for them to act this way. They will acknowledge the consequences of their actions. They will feel regret. This is where Luther's choice of repentance hits the nail on the head. Maybe not quite the nail that Paul intended, but on the head, nevertheless.

The second thing a mature Christian will do is to take responsibility for their actions, and this means that they will do what they can to repair the brokenness that they have brought into God's creation. Often, our actions have injured others, and an appropriate step is to make restitution to that person—to make them whole. This is where Jerome not only swung at the wrong nail, he missed it. The focus on penance is a focus on punishment, not restoration of either the sinner or the injured. And as this came to be interpreted, it had the effect of transferred the restitution from the injured party to the church, so that the consequences of sinful acts remained uncorrected, the brokenness unrepaired.

Translation

It simply isn't possible to fit a discussion like that above into a single word choice, yet translators do not have the luxury of interposing explanatory paragraphs into the midst of their translations. Even the standard mechanism of footnotes is inadequate for even a brief discussion along the lines that I've given above. Such discussions are necessarily relegated to commentaries, or perhaps to translator's notes. Translators have to pick a word, or at most a short phrase, recognizing that their choices will tend to miss some of the nuances of the original, perhaps emphasizing this part a bit more, and that part a bit less. They have to trust that their work will not stand alone, but will be supported by others.

It is worth reflecting here on the specific kind of choice involved. Will a translator try for a translation in which there is a tight correspondence between the words in their original, and the words in their translation? If so, simply using the word “change” would have been an excellent choice.

Or does the translator allow themselves word choices that draw the reader further down the theological path that they believed that the author intended? This is the kind of choice that both Luther and Jerome made in wrestling with Romans 2:4. It is a reasonable thing to do.

Or does the translator allow themselves greater freedom, and forsake a word-for-word translation in favor of a freer translation, which they hope will nevertheless come closer to the author's original intent? Here, “change of heart,” rather than a more literal “change” or “change of mind” might have been suitable. The Message is a good exemplar of a translation that is made in this style.

I practice, no translation is going to follow a pure strategy. All translations will make choices that favor literal readings in some places, and sense readings in other. I believe it is important to understand the translation philosophy of whatever English-language bible you have, and very useful to look at multiple translations which follow different strategies in doing deeper Bible studies.

But I think that it is both wrong and unhelpful to say that one strategy is right and another is wrong. All of these strategies are trying to convey the original, they just do so with different priorities regarding the tradeoffs that must be met. If you want a book that fully conveys all the nuances of the original, you have to read the original.

Faith vs. Works

The debate over faith vs. works has resulted in much oversimplification of the Lutheran side, and perhaps of the Catholic side as well. The Lutheran side is often reduced to "salvation by grace through faith," or "sola fides, sola gratia, solus Christus." [Lutherans, by the way, do not affirm "sola scriptura," although some Protestants do, and this leads to confusion.] Often, the Lutherans themselves have done the reduction. But the notion that Lutherans don't value or understand works is incorrect, they've simply transferred the point in their theology to which works are attached, and thereby transposed the Catholic understanding of the causative relationship between works and salvation.

In the Lutheran view, our works don't save us, and can't save us. Only God working on and through us can save us.

But once are saved, how then do we live? What is the nature of Christian life? What are its obligations? How do we respond to this great gift that God has given us?

The gift that we are given is the gift we must return: love. And the remarkable thing about this is that giving love does not diminish our store of love, it increases it. It is only by hoarding this treasure that we risk losing it. It is in living a Christian life that we should find good works, not as a means of salvation, but as a joyful response to salvation. And mature Lutherans can read James with appreciation, nod our heads, and agree: if you claim you have faith, but you're not moved to share God's love for all of us with your fellow man, and you're not moved to ease the pain and suffering of the world, then what sort of faith do you have? We are not saved by knowledge of doctrine, as even the devil has a knowledge of history and of the nature of God. We are saved by grace through faith, and in particular by a faith that transforms us.

And I think in this, there is actually very little difference between the Lutheran and Catholic positions as regards the sort of life that Christians should lead. The disagreement is really just this: are we saved because of our good works, or do we do good works because we're saved? Either way, we have both salvation and good works. I believe that much would be gained by consciously embracing our agreements, instead of just obsessing over our disagreements.

Peace

What Song?

A text message from my daughter, who will be married in 2 1/2 weeks, “What song for the daddy daughter dance?”

I don't know.

I've spent a good part of the afternoon looking. Most love-ish songs are inappropriate: let's jump in the sack, or I'm going to pine away now that you're gone. I like almost everything, except country. She likes almost everything, especially country. And I don't do maudlin, although that's the best way to describe my feelings during this afternoon's exercise.

Here are my current thoughts:

• Turn! Turn! Turn!, The Byrds.
• La Chanson de Claudine, Mason Williams.
• Walk Away Renée, The Four Seasons.

I like the songs, none of them seem quite right. I've looked at a few websites, and was a bit surprised to find “Landslide.” I love the song, but doubt the appropriateness. My daughter told me a few days ago that “Butterfly Kisses” is popular, which to me is an argument against. And it violates the maudlin stipulation.

It's enough to make me think that writing the checks is going to be the easy part.

Anyway, serious suggestions would be gratefully received.

Peace

Fifty-five

There are two kinds of drivers in this country: people who admit that they speed, and liars. This is a perfect model for a fallen humanity:

• When we learn to drive, we're taught that we should "drive the limit," as if the boundary between legality and illegality, the very nexus of temptation, is the safest place to be.
• We all know that we're safest, and will get to where we're going the quickest, if we're all going the same speed, so the traffic flows. We all know that the intended purpose of the speed limit sign is to establish a common and sensible convention for what that speed should be. Yet unless limited by traffic, it is a rare road where the average speed is less than five over. The temptation to go just a bit faster than the people around you is always present, as is shame at the thought that we might be the slowest person on the road.
• The moment we see a police car, we all engage in the quiet hypocrisy of slowing down, and trying to look innocent. The police aren't fooled, they're just looking for even bolder (or younger, or blacker) sinners. We're ashamed if we don't sin, and even more ashamed if we get caught! And, of course, when the policeman tires of the hunt and decides to go home, he does so at a speed that would instantly earn him a ticket from himself, if he was anyone else.

For my part, I'd prefer to just set the cruise control at the speed limit, and not worry about whether or not there's a policeman three tickets behind this month's quota waiting around the turn. On four lane roads in the country, this is actually a feasible strategy. And when I do it, almost invariably, I pick up a tail of followers, all happy enough to be "legal," so long as they're not in the lead.

Try this on westbound I-80/94, heading into the city on a Friday evening, though, and you'll get killed. And this isn't hyperbole for "some nasty truckers are going to honk their horn at you." It's a euphemism—your death is going to inconvenience the local fire department.

So we make laws for our own protection, knowing that we are going to break them. We see crosses along side of the road, and know that there are parents or spouses who grieve over the lost, but we can't read the names because we're going by too fast. And we think we can save ourselves.

Peace

City Life, Country Life

One of the deepest divisions in contemporary America is that between urban and rural society. There is really no getting around this: the typical life experiences associated with these two subcultures are quite different, and people from one subculture often look at people from the other with incomprehension, or even hostility.

It is not my purpose here to summarize the differences between the two, but I do want to set out a minor prescription for improving understanding, and to explore one particular issue where these two subcultures are at odds with one another.

My prescription is simple: people should spend a significant amount of time living the life of the other subculture. Here I do not mean playing the tourist, but instead trying to find a way to truly live within the other community long enough to understand and be influenced by its values. I recognize that this is not an easy prescription, and I don't have any great ideas how to implement it generally, I just know that my life has provided me this opportunity, and with it a valuable perspective.

I should be clear here, that although I identify more strongly with the urban side of this divide, I think it is more common for rural folks to have some experience of city ways than conversely.

The issue I want to address is guns.

From an urban perspective, guns bring death. The urban experience involves a fair amount of potential friction each day, but also help fairly close at hand. The problem is that potential friction can become real friction fairly quickly, and that guns act on much shorter time scales than police response.

From the rural perspective, guns are part of the culture. They can be a means to obtaining food, as well as a significant and satisfying challenge to master. Guns can be a basis for friendly competition (as is often witnessed by road markers). Also, in an area where family is often near, but other help is often far away, guns can be a significant contributor to both perceived and real security.

We tend to approach matters as if the law for one must be the law for all. In general, I agree with this precept, but misapplication of this principle in the case of guns is making life more difficult. We would all be better served with stronger gun control in urban areas, and more flexibility in rural areas. And indeed the law is still the same for all, for each can chose to live in one environment or the other. This is not a issue where we should be counting votes, but instead we should be showing proper consideration to one another, and to the real differences between city and country life, rather than trying to impose an artificial uniformity that serves neither well.

Peace