Biblical Justice is Restorative Justice (Prt 1)

We Christians spend a lot of time talking about justice and working toward justice.  Yet, if I were to ask most westerners what “justice” in the Biblical sense meant I imagine many might reflect our societies’ picture of criminal justice or perhaps just limit it to someone who gets their just desserts.  Such a portrait of justice will look like fire and brimstone and vengeful-retribution against the guilty.  Not only is this wrong, but I think it is important we get this right if we are going to be a community that works toward peace not least of all through justice. 

            The retributive model of justice that the US holds (as-well-as that imposed on Biblical text) actually comes from the Greco-Roman justice. This justice is represented by the Justitia statue.  It is a statue of a woman who while blindfolded holds the balancing scales of justice in one hand and a sword in the other.  She is supposed to represent an objective ruler who does not judge based on fear or favor, but rather seeks to weigh evidence thereby justly taking sides and using the authority of the sword to retributively give someone the due punishment for their offense.

            Why would we let someone detached from the situation decide our fate you may ask (well you should have), because we have exchanged actual care for the victims with a new centerpiece.  As Howard Zehr points out, the ideology supporting criminal justice believes that crime is a violation of the State and its laws (the new centerpiece) and that violation creates guilt. Subsequently, justice demands that the state determine who is guilty and then impose painful punishment so that they get what they deserve.[1]  Zehr says this in turn creates three main questions for dealing with crime:

1.      What laws have been broken?

2.      Who did it?

3.      What do they deserve?[2]

This is an inflexible system that we believe offenders must go through so that justice can be determined and served through inflicting pain as punishment. 

Now this is not to say that criminal justice is useless and we do not need it.  Zehr also makes the point (although I don’t remember where), when no one wants to be honest and truth need be brought to light criminal justice is very good at getting to the bottom of the issue. While it perhaps should not be the central form of justice, legal professionals who know how to do this are needed and helpful.  But, this should never be allowed to create focus more concerned with “rules” that have been broken than people involved.

Before looking at Biblical justice it first helps to understand Biblical laws.  We tend to reduce the laws to a lot of static “Thou shalt nots” that God uses for earning salvation and maximizing his authority and making his followers moral superiors over everyone else. To add to the problem, these laws are also inconsistent throughout its development in the Pentateuch, so God’s static laws seem untrustworthy. What gives?

I believe Jesus summed it up when he said God made the Sabbath for humankind not humankind for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).  This applies to all of the laws because the laws were always meant to stand in service of creation and not the other way around.  To utilize Terence Fretheim’s work, the law was a gracious gift that intersects with lives being lived in the Biblical stories and thus each law is meeting specific creational and human needs, namely life (Deut. 6:24).[3]  It is precisely because of this that the law can never be a static thing, but it must be as dynamic as the organic life it supports and serves, meaning that it is always open-ended.

What does the law’s open-ended development through the Bible mean?  In its simplest terms, as people change so do their circumstances and their needs. Subsequently, it becomes a testimony of unrest in the law for it to be flexible enough for continual revision so to “link law with life in new times and in new places.”[4]  From the Christian standpoint Jesus both revises and improves on Jewish law every time he says “you have heard it said… But I say…” (See Matthew 5-6 or 19:7-8) or pay attention to all the times Jesus violates purity codes for the sake of mercy.

So, I am going to end this part with this, if Biblical laws are standing in support of people (not for lording over one another) then justice seeks to make it right when they have been broken.  When the law that serves the person has been broken the central violation is of a person not just some law.

[1] Howard Zehr. The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Intercourse, PA: Good Books 2002), 21.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 149.

[4] ibid, 153.

Christians and Gun Control

Guns need a license to bear Chuck Norris

I recently heard (or read) a lady say that she would like to hear more Christian voices on the topic of gun control. Apparently after searching online for Christian views on gun control it only yielded voices of those who want to protect their rights to own weapons. Since I was already planning on making some of my upcoming posts about restorative-justice, I thought gun control might actually be a great intro to that series, though they may not seem congruent at first. Nevertheless, here it goes. 

If we are honest about the Christian gun control view that this search revealed we are actually seeing the Republican political stance to protect the American Amendments which is not inherently a discussion on “Christian” views toward gun control.  Before I offer any critiques on the political conservatives, however, I would like to point out that I do agree with part of their argument. 

As most of this debate has stemmed from the US’s mass shootings, one evident aspect in many of these cases is that the situations have less to do with weapons of choice and more to do with mental health and our lack of healthcare towards it. Most of our mass shootings were committed by mentally ill people so to only focus on guns misses the deeper problem and I could not agree more. Now I have yet to see many Republicans go beyond using it as an argumentative tool (for keeping weapons) and actually work toward or even propose ideas to better our mental healthcare, but as far as I am concerned peoples and communities with a vested interest need not wait for them.

 

With that said the other popular argument from Republicans for keeping weapons is centered on the misnomer that the only way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is to make sure the “good guy” has a gun.  Aside from the fact that they just reduced many mentally ill from the first part of their argument to that of a wild-west villain, now they are personal arbiters of who the good vs bad gunslingers are. 

My critique is that neither part of the argument is based on the interest of needs (though many will try and say it is) so much as just keeping weapons available in major part for financial gain. It is nearly a $15 billion dollar industry that American citizens contribute a large percentage to.[1]  Of course the average citizen is convinced they will have personal security and hold all the cards during moments of surprise, but I’m not sure they understand how surprise tactics work. You will almost never be in total control of the situation even with weapon in hand.  My bigger point is when people see mass shootings they are understandably struck by fear and the reflexive action is toward self-protection. But, guns seem like the logical response because, I think, we just don’t know what else to do.  We are caught in the binary (either/or) trap of kill or be killed.

Perhaps we do not know what else to do simply because it is never encouraged or brought to our attention that we can practice other responses.  My logic is this, if somebody wants to be good at war, or mirror the offensive action of a shooter in an equally devastating manner, then you put in a lot of time, energy and money into becoming good weapon owners.  Case and point, US military has a $601 billion budget[2] and puts in lots of time, training and expertise into violating privacy and making war.  It is more than they do for hunger ($167.5 billion dollar problem)[3] and it shows. We have sustained a war for the last 14 years and there are still unfed people in the US. 

Christians, however, are not called to vengeance or violence (Rom.12:14-21), that is the beast’s job (Rev. 13:5-7), but we are called to make shalom (Matt, 5:9).  We should invest a large amount of time and energy into learning how to do that.  Wendell Berry made a similar point when he suggested this: “What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness… And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.”[4]   Therefore, it is up to those who see past illusions of wealth to create rhythms and investments that actually build something of worth.

What does that look like? As I said before, it is a vision of building shalom and also creating sanctuary, so it will look like faithfulness with what does matter: you, me, the other and creation.  Whether guns are legal, the real question is will owning one contribute to this? I don’t believe Christians can say yes.  Certainly we will have to consider responses to unintended brazen attacks especially when we take killing responses off the table (and I will propose more concrete ideas in a coming post about it). Nevertheless, this decision will be best formed by each community. If you want to search out for yourself what can be done, look up all the work that has been done in the areas of conflict transformation and de-escalation, strategic peacebuilding and restorative justice, just to name a few.  

It still stands that the Church is to be a people who clothe ourselves in compassion, kindness, gentleness and patience (Col. 3:12) and realize no one is disposable.  We carry the responsibility to create healthy communities with seriousness. This is a community that:

1. Actively pursues peace processes amid initial conflict (not only after escalation);

2. Invests in the development of others now (not arming up for when our failure takes its toll);

3. Creates broad social plans that reinforce community (within the social, educational, business, judicial, medical and so on).

We will also need to address areas of discontent of those who have existed on the fringes of communities and require their voice back.  From my standpoint gun ownership at best must be reserved  for those who just like shooting at targets or who hunt out of pure necessity. This certainly is not good Republican thinking, or Democratic thinking, or American thinking, but it is the thinking of someone who wants to follow Jesus.  

[1] Catey Hill 10 Things the gun industry won’t tell you Retrieved From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you-2014-03-07

[2] Gould &Bender  http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-us-military-spends-its-billions-2015-8

[3] CFAP. Hunger in America Retrieved From https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2011/10/05/10504/hunger-in-america/

[4] Wendell Berry. Thoughts in the Presence of Fear Retrieved From https://orionmagazine.org/article/thoughts-in-the-presence-of-fear/

Anxiety, Panic Attacks & Suffering Well

I recently heard a quote by Carl Jung saying that neurosis is caused by the avoidance of legitimate suffering and he is right.  For those who don’t know neurosis is a mental disorder that appears from stress. It can come out as depression, anxiety, o.c.d. or hypochondria because for some reason one’s ability to cope with stress is damaged.  As I personally have dealt with anxiety/panic disorder for most of my life, and for many years have been debilitated by it, this got me thinking.  I don’t suffer well and I’ll bet neither does most of my culture, which may be clear in the rise of neurosis cases.

At the core of our consumer mentality are a people who prescribe for themselves “happiness” as a distraction from the things we cannot control.  This is not meant to tear down genuine happiness, but when we ignore everything else for the sake of self-fulfilled pleasure it creates more problems.  Look at what thrives; lots of distractions in the form of entertainment, social media, food, drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and listening to health & wealth televangelists and/or positive thinking gurus. Then we hold this as the high-ideal for happiness, but it’s all shallow and vapid at best.

As a side note, I believe it has also crossed over into how we comfort one another when somebody is genuinely hurting from depression, grief, relational issues and so forth.  We go right for the comfort/hope without addressing the damage. Distractive words of cheer and happiness are offered far quicker than helpful notes of truth, solidarity and a willingness to allow them to go, and ourselves to go with them, into the pain and tears.  We need to be allowed to feel the pain and the loss before we can adequately accept it and transform it into something healthier.  So, despite common belief it is okay to say it is not okay.  That is not a lack of faith.  

  

            As for anxiety and panic attacks, the reality is (like grief, conflict, and most discomforts out of our control) avoidance and quick-fixes only make it worse and stop us from moving forward.  When we can begin to enter into the situations that trigger such panic-ridden thoughts and feelings (and may I recommend small steps, don’t set-up for failure) we can finally begin to face it and suffer well. We let those thoughts and feelings come and pass, and they do pass.  More to the amazement is when they diminish and not because you have found a new distraction, but because you stopped avoiding the component of fear and created a new pattern where the scary “what if” thoughts no longer hold the power. 

With this said, over the years I have heard a lot of fellow Christians dwell on the fear aspect of it and say that fear is not from God so it is the Devil tormenting you and by your faith God will deliver you from this.  Let me say I do believe that fear is not from God and I do believe that God is the best person to be a part of your overcoming process and I believe this is not the way things are supposed to be. But, blaming the Devil alone only detracts from the fact that it is we (in the moment when our brain triggers a false “fight or flight” feeling from stress) take the bait and run from it. In neurosis our part in it is evident and what is worse is no real threat is at hand.

However, as you work through this in a healthy manner of accepting the feelings, lack of control and continuing forward, I cannot help but think you will also develop the God-given tools to face legitimate suffering and even one’s own finiteness.  The good news is God also has no intention of our staying in such a place either but only asks that we be willing to confront its existence by accepting the anguish because from that place he can bring a new beginning (Lk. 1:78-79).  So in retrospect God will deliver us, but it will not be from it so much as through it. 

Predestined for Freewill Prt. 2

Well it only took a couple of weeks, but I finally got around to finishing the last part to this.  So rather than looking at many scriptures, I want to focus on the most common rebuttal (from Christians) to my freewill case and that comes at the expense of Romans 9.  This chapter is usually pivotal in the Calvinistic argument.  However, I believe if we can see that it cannot be read deterministically it will show that we will also need to give fresh interpretations to other “seemingly” deterministic verses.  This is especially true given that each Biblical book carries its own genre, themes and outworking of its issues.    

With that said when the average person arrives at deterministic resolutions for this chapter I am not entirely surprised because the imagery the text creates can feel like an outworking of the deterministic language Western philosophy has interjected into our social thought.  We will naturally then give it a straightforward modern reading, but there is a good possibility Paul was not thinking in such philosophical terms (in fact I’m convinced of it).  I will go further and say most first-century Jews were probably not entertaining the Stoic’s philosophical ideas (deterministic or otherwise) except to challenge it. Nevertheless, here is the bulk of this contentious chapter to see what I mean:

Romans 9

Rom. 9:9, For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written.“I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20. On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21. Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22. What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23. And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24. even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (NRSV).

Well, this would seem to complicate the persuasion of my last post, except that Romans 8:29 shows Paul saying salvation is for everyone.  So did Paul contradict himself?  The simple answer is no, but here’s why. 

            Divine-determinism might be the case if Romans 9 was Paul directly responding to a question about individual salvation (specifically how God chooses who he is going to save or not save), but he is not.  He is actually answering the question did God make a blunder by “choosing” Israel as his people (Rom. 9:6)?  Paul is helping the Jewish sect of his Roman audience come to a better understanding of their identity since he just lamented over the Jewish rejection of the Messiah (9:1-3) and had already made the points that Israel had failed her task, yet God’s promised faithfulness was not reliant on Jewish nationality or obedience to the Torah (Rom. 2-3).  Salvation was inclusive for all nations on the basis of faith (Rom. 3-4), so where does that leave the Jews to whom adoption, covenants, giving of the law and promises had belonged (Rom. 9:1-5)?  Suddenly we have moved from questions of determinism to more difficult and dangerous questions which have been used to justify the spread anti-Semitism. 

            However, contrary to misinterpretations Paul does in fact affirm God’s choosing the Jews and that Jesus is both Israel’s Messiah and the pinnacle of God’s promises (Note that the veracity of the Messiah depends on the Jews having been chosen in the first place). To add to this picture, Tom Wright says:

The whole letter (Romans) is about the way God is fulfilling his ancient promises in and through Jesus, and what this will mean in practice… The Messiah is from the Jewish people ‘according to the flesh’ in his flesh-and-blood identity. But he is also the Lord of all: the incarnate God who claims the allegiance of people of every race and nation. That is the point of tension, the fault line which Paul’s argument will now straddle. The Jews really are the people of the Messiah, but they are that ‘according to the flesh’. The Messiah really does belong to them, but only in the ‘fleshly’ sense; and he also belongs to the whole world as its rightful Lord.[1]

 It takes Paul every bit of chapters 9, 10 and 11 to draw this out, thus chapter 9 is only the beginning of that answer (also meaning that I will not be answering it in full).  I will attempt to offer a sound and succinct explanation of chapter 9 though. 

Setting Interpretive Scenes

We must go into it knowing a couple of things: first, no matter what nation God chose for the task of defeating evil (Rom. 10:4) he could only select a group of people who were (themselves) part of the problem (Rom. 3:23).  So “moral-champion” was not a criterion for God’s selective process (in fact a manipulative backstabbing guy like Jacob proves this, Gen. 27). 

Second, when Paul says God loved Jacob but hated Esau that was hyperbolic language meaning to prefer one over the other.  In this case it was to prefer to continue down One Jewish bloodline over the other (as they were both Isaac’s children). Perhaps Jacob had a tenacity that Esau did not, but whatever the reason it was because God had everybody’s interest at heart in how to continue forward.  Moreover, this forward progression is for the eventuality of the Messiah who will, as Paul suggests, carry the faithfulness of an entire nation all by himself. 

            Now, let’s talk about potters and their clay.  Most people take the potter/clay reference to mean that God is the potter and we are lifeless lumps of clay just here to be molded into whatever God decides.   Yet, all it takes is watching a potter working with clay to see that the potter spends just as much time responding to what the clay is doing as the clay does to what the potter is doing.  Paul’s point is similar here.  He is referencing the Hebrew Scriptures that critiqued Israel’s behavior (Isa. 29:16; 45:9).  To quote Wright again, these prophets “tell of a stage in Israel’s history when God was struggling with a rebellious Israel, like a potter working with clay that simply wouldn’t go into the right shape.  The image of potter and clay was not designed to speak in general terms about human beings as lifeless lumps of clay… it was designed speak very specifically about God’s purpose in choosing and calling Israel and what would happen if Israel, like a lump of clay, failed to respond to the gentle moulding of his hands.”[2] 

            This meaning that God was going to have to move forward in some way, but the question was would it be with his original plan or would it mean throwing out the misshapen clay?  As Jeremiah suggests, and Paul reiterates, God can and will reshape the clay (Jeremiah 18:1-6), but it will take wilderness/exile to do it.  More to Paul’s point, God will be faithful to his original plan even when humans are not.  Hence the Exodus 33 reference when Pharaoh (the anti-creational force) opposes God’s choosing Israel for the vocational task of moving creation forward even in the face of opposition (and even when the rebellion came from Israel herself making golden calves) God will still move forward. This is also the point behind Paul’s contentious “what if” questions (Rom. 9:22-24).  They are hypothetical, but aim to make the point that it is God’s right and his choice to choose who he wants to choose. He drastically shows it by calling the Gentiles to share as full and equal members in this.  Now both Jew and Gentile are to be vessels of mercy in the sense that we are agents of mercy rather than mere receivers of it.[3]

Now Pull it Together

In conclusion, Paul will reinforce this as he continues with his use of Hosea and Isaiah to show that even while they were not acting as “God’s beloved people” God promised he would bring them through times of judgment and yet again call them “his people” (9:25-29).  Once more God’s faithfulness is the focal point in Paul’s thinking. 

            Now that we are completely off track of determinism (and for good reason) we can see that Paul needs to be allowed to speak for Paul and Romans 9 stands at a far distance from our contemporary debates.  By the end, the theological doctrine gleaned is not that God has orchestrated a predetermined creation, but rather that God is always faithful to his promises to the Jews, the Gentiles and to all of creation.  Any failure in God’s thwarted work thus only belongs to unfaithful agents responsible in helping to carry it forward (i.e. us). Yet, God thankfully does not give up, but makes a way to carry it all forward.   Notice the correlation between an exiled Israel and our Messiah exiled to the cross.  Now we too can enter into the exile of the cross (Matt. 16:24) in faithful response to our Potter who responds gently and faithfully to us.

[1] N.T. Wright. Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 2 (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press 2004), 5.

[2] Ibid, 13.

[3] Ibid, 16.

Predestined for Free Will

I want to confront the idea of divine-determinism.  This topic recently arose among friends of mine and it got me thinking about how I might articulate why I disagree with determinism and if it provokes dialogue or rebuttal, well that is also welcome.      

  

Before continuing, however, know that I am fully aware of the neuroscience-world’s discovery that determinism and freewill may be moot points because we do not make decisions like we think we do, or possibly at all (That’s right, my wife is so wrong about me).  While I fully believe they have shown us to be severely restrained by our genetics, neurons, physical limitations and emotional baggage, I have trouble believing that we can definitively prove we are completely incapable of choice and moral responsibility. The fact that we can distinguishably desire right and feel wronged and consciously influence situations one way or another seems to point to something deeper happening, but right now I am presupposing this not proving it (See Malcolm Jeeves Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods or Bill Newsome’s work at www.testoffaith.com for more on this topic). 

    

TULIP… No, not the flower

One of Christianity’s main advocates for divine-determinism was John Calvin who believed God was micromanaging/orchestrating everything good and bad. This can be seen in his “five point” T.U.L.I.P. doctrine:

1. Total Depravity (Humanity is so sinful that we are incapable of desiring, thinking, doing, or being good. Only God’s will can accomplish that. Hmm not sure this is consistent with the Atheists, Buddhists, or other non-Christians who have an intrinsic desire for good, but it might be might be more arguable if you give up the next doctrine);

2. Unconditional Election (God elects those of his own choosing for good and salvation while others are created for evil and hell. Wow that sounds more like a demented tormentor than a God who loves his creation);

3. Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for the elect.  Was Jesus aware of this in Jn. 3:16-17?);

4. Irresistible Grace (Those elected cannot resist God’s grace as it irresistibly/forcefully draws only them to himself.  Didn’t Jafar try something similar in Aladdin? That didn’t turn out well);

5. Perseverance of the Saints (You cannot lose your salvation, also known as once saved always saved.  Honestly I wish this one was true, but unfortunately I cannot scripturally defend it).

Despite my snarky attitude against Calvin’s heresies, my bigger point is that his view did not stem from a right understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence, but rather Calvin might be guilty of proof-texting the Bible (that is, isolating verses out of context that seemingly offer an absolute resolution to what are complex issues.      

God is out of Control

Before looking at the seemingly “deterministic” scriptures (in the next post), it must first be said that deterministic thinking in which God preplans good alongside pain, evil and suffering to somehow show off his glory paints a picture of God that is incompatible with good, love and God’s other character-revelations in scripture.  God entered into our pain, evil and suffering and through it decisively defeated it and inaugurated the vanquishing process of those things, but it was not what he intended for any of us.[1]  So, am I saying that God is not in total control of the situation?  In point of fact I am!  This can be seen throughout the Bible from God’s response to the fall, to the prophets and on to the Messiah.

Sin

First, the very fact that God is not happy about Adam and Eve’s disobedience leads me to think he did not plan it (Gen.3:11-19).  It is as simple as that.  How could he be that angry toward them or Sodom and Gomorrah (or any other sinner) for behaving the way he created them to?

Prophets

Second, the prophets consistently come with words of warning for the people to turn from their wickedness so that calamity and exile does not occur (like Jonah and Nineveh or any of the pre-exilic prophets).  God has seemingly taken the risk of relinquishing control and giving us choice and freedom, but as moral agents we are participants in God’s creative activity which has the same potential for good as it does for evil. 

This could not be any clearer than in Jeremiah.  He constructs many “if” and “if not” statements revealing an undetermined/open future. Much of dialogue between God and Jeremiah indicates that there are actions that are good and lead to life, but there are also ways that are harmful toward creation and carry weighty consequences that God does not wish for Israel or their enemies (Jer. 12:14-17; 17:24-27; 21:8-10; 22:1-5; 38:17-18).  As Terence Fretheim puts it:

the people are given choices that will shape their future, which in turn will shape the future of all other creatures as-well-as the future of God (God will do different things depending on what the creatures do)…  God “plants” the people, but it is they who take root, grow and bring forth fruit (Jer. 12:2).  What creatures “grow up into” and the fruit they bear makes a difference both for themselves and for their world, for good or for ill… pleasant portion or a desolate wilderness (12:10).[2]

If this is the way the way in which the Creator relates to his creatures within the world, then determinism and micromanaging is not the “system” God set forth.

            Jesus

            Last to this are Jesus and even his followers.  If we are to actually believe that Jesus is the visible image of God (Col. 1:15) and God’s determinism is the governing factor, then those who talked about Jesus got him wrong.  Jesus’ language should have been different.  For example, instead of saying that God sent him so that whoever believes in him can have eternal life, he should have said those who I am irresistible to (or some similar clause) will have eternal life, but  because the Father did not make everyone for good purposes it is not all inclusive (Jn. 3:15-17). 

Then Paul could have avoided those embarrassing statements such as “we” (in a general sense) are God’s workmanship created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and that those who God foreknew (which is everyone who had the potential of being born) he chosen to become like Christ. And Peter could have gotten it right and said that God wishes for some (instead of no one) to parish (2 Pet. 3:9) and apparently a lot considering the salvation road is narrow and the destructive path is wide (Matt. 7:13).  So also, it makes little sense for us to love our enemies and pray for those who curse us (Matt. 5:45) or even pray for anyone at all because the course is set and it cannot deviate (Gen. 10:12-14; Phil. 1:19; Eph. 6:18).

The point is Jesus never made people’s salvation about predetermined-election. Read each Gospel in its entirety and it is clear that God had good news for everyone, those elected were chosen to bear the responsibility of the other nations knowing that good news, but were never sole recipients of it (Isa. 49:6).  More importantly, God’s love and relational essence with his creation is evident, but determinism only opposes such a God. It is, however, consistent with preprogrammed machines.  (Stay tuned for prt. 2)  

           

[1] I cringe at the thought that any parent has ever been told the loss of their child was because of God’s “love” and/or greater plan.  Not your sick child, not the Sandy Hook massacre, not one act of terrorism, not the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atrocity, not the earthquake of Haiti was God’s “greater” plan at work.  Pain and loss was never part of God’s plan. It was the result of a broken creation and the creation’s enslavement to sin (1 Jn. 5:19-20).   It doesn’t mean that we are not more inclined to listen to God and become teachable in vulnerable situations. It also does not mean that God won’t bring good out of bad, but it was not planned for the greater purpose. God’s plan has always worked toward life and good and when bad comes apart from his will. What’s more is he rarely delivers us from it, but actually delivers us through it, even when death is the final result.

           

[2] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 172.

Quote of the Week

This week’s quote comes from a prominent Rabbi and while this work of his was published sixty years ago I feel it still resonates with the Church’s situation: 

“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.” –Abraham Joshua Heschel God in Search of Man (p. 3)

If the church is to move and work toward a new future, I can't help but feel like it will have to begin with the setting aside of discrimination complexes and doing some housekeeping in the form of reflective truth telling.

Be Fed

Van Gogh's Worn Out

I have not had the chance to sit down and write lately (due to some of the minor inconveniences of life) and I am not sure when in the next month or two I am going to.  However, until I can get back to writing I thought I might post quotes periodically for all you contemplative junkies out there, and also so I can feel like I am doing something.  So, to kick it off here is something from Rohr that is nothing short of profound:   

"Only love can know love, only mercy can know mercy, only the endless mystery I am to myself is ready for God’s Infinite Mystery.

When I can stand in mystery (not knowing and not needing to know and being dazzled by such freedom), when I don’t need to split, to hate, to dismiss, to compartmentalize what I cannot explain or understand, when I can radically accept that “I am what I am what I am,” then I am beginning to stand in divine freedom (Galatians 5:1).

We do not know how to stand there on our own. Someone Else needs to sustain us in such a deep and spacious place. This is what the saints mean by our emptiness, our poverty and our nothingness. They are not being negative or self-effacing, but just utterly honest about their inner experience.

God alone can sustain me in knowing and accepting that I am not a saint, not at all perfect, not very loving at all—and in that very recognition I can fall into the perfect love of God."   -Richard Rohr

Disgusted by a Good Samaritan

Ferdinand Hodler's Good Samaritan

So in the name of “full disclosure” I personally was not disgusted by a Good Samaritan, but I think somebody else was. We tend to think that Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan was a story of how to treat others kindly (as good as that may be) as if the Samaritan is our role model, but Jesus wasn’t actually answering the question of how to treat others kindly.  He was answering the question “who is my neighbor?” and he goes about answering it in a radically significant way.

Anatomy of Disgust

There is an aspect in the science of human behavior to help us understand what Jesus was doing especially since the stigma he exposes is ever-present.  Though the psychology of disgust was not a developed theory in first-century Palestine, Jesus managed to addresses it very well. Richard Beck actually presents this idea in his book Unclean in relation to other sayings and parables Jesus infuriated others with, but it also applies to the Samaritan. Beck’s definition of disgust is that it is a psychological boundary that marks objects, ideas, or persons as exterior, alien and therefore unclean.[1]

            He helps us to understand this idea through something called the “Dixie Cup” test.  The test is to imagine being asked to spit into a Dixie cup and then asked to drink the spit.  How would that make you feel?  Most people are automatically disgusted by the thought of drinking their own spit even though it was not so bothersome when it was saliva in their mouth, but as soon as it is outside one’s mouth it gets a new name and the feeling of uncleanness and disgust arise.[2]  We might have similar feelings occur when we find a hair in our food or are asked to consume a foreign dish containing bugs or worms, both healthy alternatives to processed foods, yet some become disgusted.

The expulsive aspect of disgust, however, does not begin and end with oral issues or food but extends itself to the stimuli of gore, deformity, hygiene as-well-as sociomoral disgusts like moral offenses and particular social groups.  Some of these boundaries can become problematic and worrisome. “Whenever disgust regulates our experience of holiness or purity we will find this expulsive element… The worry, obviously, comes when people are the object of expulsion, when social groups (religious or political) seek purity by purging themselves through social scapegoating.”[3]

The Parable

With this in mind, Jesus then tells the “Good Samaritan” story to a Jewish lawyer who wants to know who he should consider his neighbor.  Jesus tells about a man who had been robbed, beaten up and left for dead on the road (Lk. 10:25-37).  As he tells about the Jewish Priest and Levite purposely avoiding the man in the road, this lawyer would have probably made excuses for them.  He identified with them and knew the Jewish law and vows they were bound to as it was considered unclean to touch someone who might be dead… or pagan.  However, when the Samaritan passed by and stopped to help, much racist tension would have probably arisen within the lawyer because the two groups had a long-standing feud and disgust toward one another.  Now the lawyer has put himself in the place of the man in the road.  His thought process might have look liked him seeing the Samaritan as a dirty, long-nosed, sub-human, pagan that has no business breathing the same air as him let alone touching him, even if it was to save his life. This was an unacceptable gesture.  Suddenly, this Jewish lawyer has to face the idea that this ethnic group he and his country-men are at odds with is his neighbor. This social class his religious leaders had taught him were unclean he is now commanded to love. 

However, this would not have only been limited to the Jewish lawyer, but would have crossed the sensitive boundaries of disgust for most of Jesus’ listeners who thought of Samaritans as unclean and alien.  The previous goal was to set them on the outside marginalizing them, not call them neighbor and interact with them on a personal level.  A scandal for sure!   

When we answer this question in our personal spheres we might be disgusted to think that we too have Samaritans Jesus is calling our neighbor and are worthy of our love. Common tensions to consider might be U.S. citizens and illegal Mexicans, blacks and police, or even right-winged Evangelicals and the LGBTQ community.  Outside the US it could be Israel and Palestine, Russia and Ukraine and on it goes. Or, perhaps it’s less radical than these and it is a person you are critical of or a person who disagrees with you. The point is that we should walk away from the Good Samaritan asking ourselves what Samaritans have we drawn boundaries of disgust with?  Then consciously remove those boundaries because they are our neighbor.   

[1] Richard Beck. Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books 2011), 2.

[2] Ibid, 1.

[3] Ibid, 16.

Is God’s Creation Incomplete?

I am writing this as overflow from a very dense essay I have been researching for which deals with the idea that Creation is an ongoing process… and well, it seemed “mind-blowing” enough to make a brief blog post about. The simple construct goes like this: God is Creator; He never ceases to be Creator and therefore is still in the mode of creating (now I have to prove it).  I do believe this stands central to all that God does throughout the Bible both in the Hebrew Scriptures and NT.

Continuous Creation

Before I jump into that, however, I find there are generally two common views about God’s act of creating.  The first view is that God completed a creative activity in Gen. 1-2 and then transitioned to being Lord over it.  Yet, after the creation quickly goes south (Gen. 3-11) God begins salvation-mode as the alternative to the creative plan (Gen.12). 

The second view, to some extent, agrees with the first, but has critiqued the idea that Gen. 1-2 shows creation as complete and static. It is centered on the Hebrew verb bārā (found through Gen. 1-2; Ps. 104:30 and so on) which they contest should be translated as “ongoing creation” but in the sense that after God made it, he sustains it and is always holding it together.  

            Perhaps both get it a little right, but both are missing a possible bigger picture.  Terrence Fretheim is helpful in grappling critically with these views.  He points out that the second premise is right about the contested verb as it does in fact suggest a continuous act of creation.  Yet, it claims too much to say that God is sustaining it in such a way that if he were to stop then creation would return back to primordial chaos.  There are texts within scripture that point to God’s establishing “the basic and dynamic infrastructure” of the cosmos which is divinely promised to continue (Gen. 8:22; 9:8-17; Jer. 31:35-37; 32:17-26).[1]

We might then reason that since God was not so happy about the whole human-fall thing if he was being a micromanager with tight control then the incidents of Gen.3-11 would not have been able to happen.  In this sense the first premise is correct in believing that the initial stages of creation (e.g. ordering and establishing natural laws and function to the cosmos) were “complete” and self-sustaining, though God is sustaining it in a much broader sense.  

            However, to say that the creation narrative results in a “finished product” is just as misleading.  Again the second premise is right to argue that the Hebraic verb does connote “ongoing creation” but it cannot be limited to preservation. Fretheim, too, claims the verb “refers to the development of the creation through time and space and to the emergence of genuinely new realities in an increasingly complex world.  God’s continuing work is both preserving and innovative.”[2]  It should come as no surprise that God never ceases to keep the relationship as creation’s Creator given that he makes many promises to do a “new thing” and it will surpass all expectations (Isa. 42:9; 43:18-19; 48:6; 49:19-21; Jer. 31:22).  In this God will always continue to create afresh (over and over again) not only providing for needs, but continuing creative activity so to enable “the becoming of the creation,” as Fretheim termed it.[3] That is to say, God’s action of salvation within the created order (as discussed in those scriptures)  envisages a new and fully flourished creation.  Humanity is thus in process of becoming and has been invited to play a crucial role in the creative activity.  As a side-note this reveals many implications about creation’s future being open, not predetermined.                                       

Salvation Is Creation?         

Nevertheless, to claim creation is ongoing also claims that salvation is not God’s act of abandoning the cosmos and extracting humans from creation (as the first premise believed) and that has raised many questions about how to define salvation. 

The most common question is: does salvation mean redemption or is salvation synonymous with creation?  I believe we can define salvation and redemption as a creative activity (or a type of creation), but we cannot say salvation and creation are synonymous.  This means salvation is an act of creation, but creation is not always an act of salvation. Creation occurs in Genesis 1-2 in a way that is obviously not salvific or redemptive.  Therefore, salvation/redemption does not stand in contradiction with creation, but is both a creative act and stands in service of current creation.[4]   As Fretheim says, “the redemptive work of God is a special dimension of God’s more comprehensive activity as Creator... God’s redemption is a means to a new creation, and salvation will be the key characteristic of the new reality.”[5]

            So, if I can make any attempt to clarify, it is within the present creation that God is creating the new humanity, the new heaven and the new earth.  We are travelers in process of becoming new people in a new reality without death and (as I said before) we are invited to participate with the one who always seeks to relate to us as our Creator, but as His fellow creators in the process.  We believe it has yet to reach the fullness it will upon Christ’s return and that suggests that Creation is still an ongoing work until it reaches both the telos and sustained pinnacle of life  (Rev. 21:1-5).  This should change how we talk about and understand creation. 

[1] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 7.

[2] Ibid, 7.

[3] Ibid, 8.

[4] Ibid 11.

[5] Ibid, 12-13.

Dissident Reflections: Authentic Witness (PRT 8 of 8)

In this chapter Augsburger deals with how those who want bear witness to God’s kingdom might consider a more authentic approach.  Many have experienced the church’s relentless agenda to evangelize (be a witness of) the Christian faith (either in personal attempts or in reception thereof).  Yet, I think it is safe to say that the Western church has degraded, at least in some sense, what it means to be a so-called “witness”.  Two things stand at the forefront of what I am talking about.  

   

Jesus For Sale

First, through fine salesmanship the church has mastered capitalism by making Jesus intelligible, palatable and thereby sellable to everyone.  At its “best” it looks like Christian-apologetics and evangelism-tracks, and at its worst it looks like “health, wealth and prosperity”.[1] The first feeds the arrogant tendency to always correct others, breath superiority or sum Jesus up on a post-card, while the second feeds the narcissism that perpetually asks, what’s in it for me?    

However, can we really say Jesus is a commodity for mass consumption?  Absolutely… not!  If we are to be honest with others this is not a shallow endeavor and should never be presented that way.  To encounter Jesus is to first come face-to-face with the darkest parts of ourselves, the world and admit everything is not alright.  Only when we face such despair and the reality of an “end” can we see the need for new life and hear a message of hope that makes sense.  

Yet, Jesus as a message of hope will always look like naïveté and foolishness to those who believe they are independent or in control (hence the reason for its more frequent acceptance among those living outside of social and economic comforts). It easier to distract ourselves from the reality of our imminent end than it is to permit ourselves to feel and express the fear and pain of its constant presence.  Yet it is precisely in God’s embrace of this end (on the cross) that the new could finally begin. 

As a side note, confronting people with the Ten Commandments to show them how flawed they are does not do what well-meaning Christians think it does either. The Law usually only means something to those who already believe it or are scared by its condemning prospect in which case you are only selling “get out of hell” assurance and not a life with God that reconciles creation through us. Nevertheless, confrontational evangelism is not helpful for many and tends to push them away from God. 

Talk… If You Must

The second point is (and this wholly ties in with the first) people are turned off by the hypocrisy… and rightly so!  When there is nothing to authenticate our witness people will not have very much reason to listen. Anything we have to say may be words with content, but they have no visible context.

I think the remedy to this was said most clearly by Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words.”[2]  We must exemplify what we believe and yet we seem perfectly comfortable acting in ways that are opposite of love, patience, gentleness, kindness and so on towards one another (Gal. 5:22-23).  We can only authenticate our message with actions of congruency “when the content spoken and the context experienced validate each other… therefore the authentic witness is not the charismatic personality of an individual, nor the perfection of a particular life; it is the presence of a community of witnesses who verify, validate and authenticate their life together.”[3]

Moreover, this is a shared task and it begins with faithful presence, concern and service with each other. It has been said that this was probably Jesus’ fail-safe mechanism within the Gospel in that the only ones to be trusted with the “Great Commission” were the ones who epitomized love for God and love for neighbor in their daily life.[4]  We would do well to take notice of how Jesus sequences his instruction to the disciples.  Upon entering a city, when received in hospitality, eat with them (identifying in solidarity), then offer compassion, service and aid, (agape-love) and then lastly speak a verbal witness so to reinforce the living witness (God’s kingdom has come near you) (Lk. 10:8-9).[5]

At the same time, if we wait until we are good enough to bear sufficient witness we may never get around to it, as Augsburger also points out.  Certainly God works through us despite us as the truth itself is much more life-giving than the flawed ones who carry it.

But it does not diminish the point that “authentic witnesses practice the way of humble and authentic service as embodiment, and in time they give their faith voice and name, Jesus’s name. The spiritual practice of authentic witness finds its center in the life lived more than the word given.”[6]  This is something that should be prevalent in our daily rhythms of life, but it takes accepting that the problem exists before we can adequately address it. 

The End of My Series

This is actually not the last chapter of the book, but it is as far as I wanted to go with it.  Obviously there is much more to it all than I covered, but if anything I hope it conveyed some areas within the Christian life that we should be willing to question, challenge and grow in.  If we are really behaving like Jesus did, does and taught us to it requires a dissent from the current state of things so to attest to God’s subversive rule. 

Nevertheless, I must conclude that Augsburger does not disappoint and it is certainly worth the read for anyone seriously considering communal spirituality and discipleship in a way that reflects the Gospel… but that is just my opinion.  

[1] Apologetics is a field that was formed for the sole purpose of attacking the Enlightenment and proving our rightness by defending God and making him comprehensible.  Well I am pretty sure God does not need us to defend him, but he does want us to live in relationship with him and each other. That relationship looks like respect, love and humility that is given its content by God’s grace.

[2] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 171.

[3] Ibid, 176, 179.

[4] Ibid, 177.

[5] Ibid, 183-184.

[6] Ibid, 186-187.

Dissident Reflections: Concrete Service

(Augsburger prt 7) For this chapter, instead summarizing/reflecting-on its ideas I just want to leave a quote from it that I think sums-up what service should be. It is perhaps above all a condition of the heart that produces service, whether necessary-service and voluntary-service, rather than someone who strives to do good things just because they are supposed to (which most often leads to burn-out or turns into resentful efforts).

Service that is necessary—required, owed, obligated, contracted—may be offered with genuineness, concern, compassion, and thoroughness.  Or it can be done grudgingly, of necessity under duress.  One does what has to be done.

Service that is voluntary falls into a completely different category.  It arises out of unbidden concern, undemanded interest, unowed compassion.  This is the service that comes close to being the actions of love.  It is offered by free choice because of the nature of the servant.  One does what one sees as needed. 

Most service is mixed, with necessary and voluntary aspects occurring together.  Perhaps one serves because it is a career—a chosen course—and for a salary does what is necessary, fulfilling all requirements. But when one goes beyond what is expected, the service becomes voluntary; when one gives without self-centered motivation, the caregiving becomes an act of freedom; when one transcends what is expected or required, one serves joyfully, freely, out of the exuberant excess called love.  Service moves from the quid pro quo of “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” to the practice of benevolence and sacrifice in meeting others’ needs. 

Spirituality meets service as it calls one to go the second mile, to offer the second act of caring, to reach out without asking, “But what’s in it for me?” Spirituality is the voluntary element in serving another that links persons with loving concern; spirituality is the voluntary connection of social interest, fellow-feeling, and mutual aid…

…Spirituality and service are sometimes viewed as direct opposites.  Spirituality is believed to be detached from tasks of life, the concrete acts of caregiving, the mundane, the routine, the earthly, the material; the spiritual reaches toward transcendent, the ineffable, the heavenly… Spirituality in a tripolar key does not divide the heavenly from the earthly, the sacred from the profane. All can be viewed as service when service is defined as work done in voluntary, caring relationship.[1]    

Do you agree… disagree?  Think about it.

[1] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 156-157.

Dissident Reflections: Resolute Nonviolence

(Augsurger prt 6) I was hesitant to write anything on this chapter not because I disagree with nonviolence, but because I have already spent much time writing about it in essays, on my blog (see here here and here) and have recently been addressing it on other theological forums…

So, what changed my mind?  Well first, it is a quick opportunity to put out there why I stand here (I have yet to do this in any of my arguments against it).  Second, while Augsburger’s overall case for resolute nonviolence is not all that dissimilar from my own (though he is much more gracious and gentle than I tend to be toward those who just don’t see it… I’m working on it) he offers a helpful set of nonviolent affirmations that all Christians should, at least, consider.  Whether you believe in “just war” or “nonviolence” if you are committed to Christ then I promise it will not be a waste of your pondering-time. And if you are just a curious reader then perhaps this is an opportunity to see that instances like the Crusades or Protestant-Catholics wars were antithetical to Christ.

Why I Advocate Nonviolence

While I grew up in a Christian home, I did not grow up in a home that was anti-war (I think my parents did question it at some point, but they were encouraged to view it as a necessary evil).  In fact I come from a long line of military and war-veterans and at one point thought of it as my own future career opportunity.  So, this was something I would later come to on my own through various experiences and understanding the Bible for myself.[1]

As a result I realized I could no longer reconcile things like war and violence with what Jesus taught.  My position is actually as simple as that, but I will elaborate anyway.  Jesus spent a lot of time rejecting, what Walter Wink summed up as, the “system of domination”.[2]  This was what the entire cosmos had become in Jesus’ eyes and he regularly spoke against it. This is obvious when he commands us to be non-retaliatory and to love one’s enemies (Mat. 5:43-48), he claims to have come to fulfill God’s promise to release the captives, heal the blind and to let the oppressed go free (Lk. 4:18-21), he suggested that lording power over each other was pagan behavior and not God’s desire (Lk. 22:24-26), he claims that neither he nor his followers belong to this dominating-world and are hated by it (Jn. 17:14, 16) and he insists that all who follow him would commit to his ways (Jn. 14:23-24).

Assuming this is true, I want to make the statement that all acts of violence (no matter how justified) are intrinsically acts of domination. The only end-result violence can seek is to leverage power in the same domination system Jesus condemned.  To use Augsburger’s notion here, when we commit an act of violence we have placed faith in that domination system. The commitment to answer in violence is obedience to that domination system.  Any allegiance to the values that the domination system holds are inherently the same affirmations that we find in the superiority of a gender, culture, color, economic status and/or hemisphere position (i.e. North vs. South).[3]   However, when our commitment and allegiance is to “Jesus as Lord” we cannot simultaneously  take Jesus’ side and continue in the way of domination.  It then only made sense that the way of the cross pointed to nonviolence and always worked toward reconciliation even when it costs us.

With this said, I do know from personal experience that no matter how sound my position may seem (in my mind) it becomes a target for endless counter-arguments.  So, my point is that my espousing this rarely changes hearts, and it receives lots of criticism and lots of “well what would you do if…” questions, and there are times when living it out feels ineffectual. But, I do not do it because it is popular, or because I am trying to make less of evil (I take it very seriously) or because it is guaranteed to work-out perfectly in every scenario.  Rather, I commit to nonviolence because it is my act of faithfulness/commitment to the God that is revealed in Jesus. I believe it is as much a political statement as it is a religious confession to say that Jesus is Lord and the rulers of the world/domination system are not.  Now, while my initial thoughts about this were not this developed, these words do embody the feelings and confusion I couldn’t get past when reading about Christ.  While there is much more that could be said about this (and I will address in future posts on restorative justice and so on) this is the basis of it

Spirituality of Nonviolence

As stated before, whether you agree with Augsburger’s affirmations of nonviolence they should at least make you think very seriously about Christ’s radical way and its broader implications for his followers:

·         Love for God and love for neighbor are two aspects of the same love.  Jesus was wholly faithful to God and truly faithful to fellow humanity. We live out his love.

·         No one for whom Christ died can be to us an enemy.  If Christ already suffered the death penalty for a person who has committed a capital offense, how can I reenact it without invalidating all Christ offered and suffered?  We carry out his mission.

·         No one is expendable or disposable.  No one is absolutely or inapproachably incapable of loving; no one is absolutely or unapproachably incapable of being loved. All persons are within the love of Christ.  We join him in his work of love.

·         We do not fear or avoid conflict.  We refuse to believe the lie that violence is the answer to conflict.  We believe in peacemaking. 

·         To love God, our neighbor, our enemy and ourselves requires persistent, relentless commitment to the way of Jesus.[4]

                                                              References

[1] More to my surprise was that I could not find very many other Christians who agreed with nonviolence.  That is until I was writing a paper my first semester in college, on a similar topic, and while doing research came across the Anabaptists (at which point I had a “where you been all my life” moment).  After digging deeper I now know there have been many Christian thinkers who drew the same conclusion (the majority of the early Christians, Leo Tolstoy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, N.T. Wright, Walter Brueggemann, Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton and most of the Franciscan Order, MLK Jr., Greg Boyd, Dallas Willard, Richard Foster and many more)  but much of the way of nonviolence and alternative solutions has been paved by a long Anabaptist tradition and their insightful work of uncalculated love and reconciliatory-justice that should be learned from.

[2] David Augsburger Dissident Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press 2006), 138.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 143-144.