She Will Be Saved Through Childbearing

Reexamining an ancient understanding of a difficult text

I recently read a blog in which Pastor Mark Driscoll presented four interpretations of 1 Tim 2:15.1 He provided a summary of said views, neglecting to say that more views exist. In addition, when dealing with such a controversial matter, an full exegesis of the passage and its context may be more helpful to decypher a enigmatic passage than a summary of the prevailing views. In this ROAR, I will give a translation of the extended pericope, exegete the text, and compare an ancient interpretation with some of the modern interpretations of 1 Tim 2:15. A particular ancient interpretation seems to fit the grammar of the original text, the context of roles within the Church, the context of appropriate and inappropriate works, the context of caring for widows, and the context of the value of children throughout the entire Bible.

NOTE: If you have been reading my political posts, then I ask that you please understand that this post deals with a Church issue. This is not an argument in favor of State mandated gender roles.

Translation2

     Therefore first of all. I am urging entreaties prayers petitions and thanksgivings to be made in behalf of all men, in behalf of kings and all of those who are being in authority in order that we may continue spending a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable before God our Savior, who is desiring all men to be saved and to come into knowledge of truth. For God is one, and one is mediator of God and of men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom in behalf of all, the testimony in its appointed time. The testimony for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, (I am speaking the truth I am lying not) a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth.

     Therefore I am desiring the men to pray in every place lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension. And likewise I am desiring women to adorn themselves in a modest manner of dress with modesty and decency, not to adorn themselves in braided hair and gold or in pearls or in expensive clothing, but to adorn themselves through good works which is fitting to women who are making a claim to godliness. A woman must learn in quiet listening in full submission; But I am permitting not a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quiet listening. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman after being deceived fell into transgression; but she will be saved through childbearing, if they might continue in faith and in love and in holiness with self-control. This word is trustworthy.3

Observations

Setting. Paul, the apostle sent under the authority and command of God the Father and God the Son, wrote this letter to Timothy, Paul’s beloved disciple (1:1-2). Paul did not reveal from where he wrote. This may have been assumed knowledge. He could have been in Macedonia while writing the letter (1:3). Paul wrote at a time in which he was free to visit Timothy in Ephesus; thus, he was not in prison at the time (3:14). He probably wrote sometime between his first Roman imprisonment and his martyrdom under Emperor Nero, sometime between AD 62 and 64.4

Timothy was a leader in the church at Ephesus. Timothy apparently wanted to leave Ephesus to rejoin Paul; however, Timothy would have been leaving the Ephesian church in the hands of those who were teaching error (1:3). The false teachers taught doctrines foreign to the gospel, myths, fables, spiritual pedigrees, and possibly an ungrateful rejection of foods and marriage (1:3-4; 4:3, 7). They taught doctrines contrary to godliness (6:3). Timothy was in a position in which he could refute and correct their errors (1:3).

Context. Paul wrote a personal letter. In 3:14, Paul identified his purpose as giving Timothy instruction for how people in the Church should conduct themselves. In relation to this purpose, Paul told Timothy and the men to pray for all people, and the women to do good works and to learn in quiet submission (2:1, 8-12). Praying for all people, even evil rulers like Nero, is conduct that is pleasing to God (2:3). Doing good works, such as rearing children in faith, is conduct that gives a godly testimony (2:10, 15). Learning in quiet submission is conduct giving men proper respect and honor as the first created of God (2:11-14).

In the preceding passage, 1:18-20, Paul entrusted Timothy with commands to endure in the faith, giving examples of those who did not endure. After telling Timothy about handing those examples over to Satan, Paul told Timothy to pray for all people, which would include those who had not endured. The examples help explain why prayer should not include wrath and dissension (2:8). Enduring in the faith as a testimony of salvation also sheds some light on the conditional statement in 2:15, which this study will explain in detail later.

In the following passage, 3:2-7, Paul told Timothy how those worthy of being elders must conduct themselves. Within the description of a worthy elder, it mentions the elder’s household as respecting and obeying his authority. His wife and children are in godly submission. A woman’s learning in submission fits this model household. In addition, the text describes the elder as having a good reputation outside of the congregation. This fits with praying for all people to live in peace.

Structure. Paul used repetition and synonyms in the construction of this passage.4 He used four synonyms for prayer in 2:1. In 2:1-2 and 2:6, Paul repeated the phrase “in behalf of all.” He used the male and female forms of “quiet” (2:2 “peaceful quiet”, 11-12 “quiet listening”). Paul used synonyms for godliness (2:2, 10). He used two synonyms for the verb “to desire” (2:4, 8). Paul repeated the verb “to save” in general and specific contexts (2:4, 15). Paul repeated the words truth and faith together and in separate contexts (2:4, 7, 15; 3:1).

Paul used comparison and contrast to instruct Timothy. In 2:1-7, Paul compared praying for all people to God’s love for all displayed through Christ’s mediation and ransom, and displayed through Paul’s commission as an apostle to all people (not just the Jews). In 2:9-10 he contrasted worldly adornment with godly adornment. Paul compared a woman’s teaching and authority over a man to Eve’s role in the Fall (2:11-14).

The passage progresses based on a hierarchy of importance. The instruction of this passage starts with instruction for Timothy (2:1-7). Paul then gives instruction for the men of Timothy’s congregation (2:8). Afterwards, Paul gives instruction for the women of the congregation (2:9-15). Paul, under God’s authority, urges Timothy to heed his instructions. Timothy, under apostolic authority, must urge the men to pray. The men, under the pastor’s authority, must pray without favoritism. The women, under the authority of men, must be modest, doing good works, and submitting quietly to male leadership.

If the passage has a climax, or pivotal point, it would be his parenthetical claim to truthfulness in 2:7. Paul stressed the truth of his testimony of the Gospel being for all people so that Timothy, the men, and the women would not bring shame on their respective testimonies. Paul put this parenthesis in between his claim of apostolic authority and his claim to be a teacher of all types of people in “faith and truth.” Not only is his testimony of the Gospel true, but it has the implication of being worthy to be taught to all people. The truth of the Gospel is truth to be lived out in godly lives by all Christians as a testimony to all peoples.

Paul used various conjunctions to form lists and to form dependent lines of thought. Paul used “and” in 2:2 to give a sample prayer list of types of ruling authorities, and to give a list of adjectives describing the type of life such prayer makes possible. In 2:3 “and” lists the positive responses of God to such prayer. “And” combines two infinitives in 2:4 to describe God’s desire for all men. In 2:5, Paul used “and” to poetically and cumulatively build up a description of God. Paul used “and” in 2:7 to build a descriptive list of himself, and to build a list describing the content of his teaching to the Gentiles. Verse 2:8 lists two negative attitudes connected by “and” to be avoided in prayer. In 2:9, Paul used “and” to list two positive characteristics with which women should adorn themselves. Paul continued his line of biblical reasoning in 2:14 with an “and.” In 2:15, Paul used “and” to list positive characteristics which must be continued for salvation.

Paul did not use many of the negative conjunctions “but” and “nor.” He used these conjunctions in 2:12-15 to set up contrasts between listening and teaching, Adam and Eve, and possibly an erroneous view of salvation and childbearing.

Paul used several subordinating conjunctions. He used “therefore” twice, first giving an application in 2:1 of how to “fight the good fight,”then giving an application in 2:8 of how men were to reflect God’s love for all people through unbiased prayer. Paul used “in order that” in 2:2 to describe the peaceful results of prayer for all people. Paul used “if” along with a subjunctive and a future indicative to create a “future more possible” clause. In other words, if something happens, something else may happen in the future. In the case of 2:15, if a woman’s children continue in the faith in which they are reared, the woman, demonstrating her own salvation through rearing children in the faith, will likely be saved in the end.

Paul used twelve verbs in the indicative mood, eight infinitives, two subjunctives, five participles, and one imperative. Since there is one imperative, much of the command of these passages comes from implied doctrinal and biblical precedent in Paul’s writing. Paul urges most of these godly behaviors for the sake of the gospel testimony. It is only in 2:12 where Paul gives an outright command. The imperative receives additional force with Paul’s biblical precedent. Many of the indicative verbs express an urging and desire for action. The force of indicative verbal expression in this passage is that of a plea based on the Gospel. Paul urged and desired Timothy and his congregation to do that which is proper, fitting, godly, and good. Some of the infinitives express the proper, fitting, godly, and good actions that Paul desired for the congregation. He desired them “to pray,” “to adorn,” and “to be.” Other infinitives expressed God’s desire for all men “to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” One infinitive described the authoritative position, which Paul forbade women “to be.” The participles show states of being and acting. Rulers are those “being” in authority. Christ acted by “giving” himself as a ransom. Eve’s state of “being” was one of transgression “after being deceived.” The subjunctives suggest the realm of possibility. As has been discussed above, the subjunctive in 2:15 in combination with “if” is a “future more probable” conditional statement. The other subjunctive, being controlled by a present indicative main verb, and being preceded by “in order that,” indicates the purpose of prayer. If Timothy and the men pray, then they may continue to live peacefully in godliness.

Interpretation of Difficulties in 2:11-3:1

Although this passage has been difficult for Westerners since the start of the feminist movement in the 19th Century, Paul’s instructions for women have caused hermeneutical problems since at least the 5th Century.5 Since the 19th Century, Bible translators and commentators have been trying to make the passage more palatable for modern sensibilities.6 Many translations render the subject of 2:15 as being plural even though the verbal reference is singular. Most translations also render the subject of the conditional statement as being “women.” Some translators, and many commentators, suggest that women are preserved, rather than being saved, from birth pains. What does the text say in the context of the rest of I Timothy, the rest of Paul’s writings, and the rest of the Bible?

Continuity of the Message. The explicit teaching for women to submit and learn in silence is not unique in Paul’s writings. In 1 Cor 14:34, Paul, deferring to the Law, told women to keep in silent submission in the congregation. If a wife had a question, she could ask her husband at home. Paul considered it improper for women to speak in an assembly of a congregation for worship. Earlier, in 1 Cor 11:8-9, Paul, referring to Gen 1:27; and 2:7, 22, appealed to the priority of man in creation, and to the purpose for which God created woman. God created man in his image and glory. God created woman in man’s glory for the man. Priority was not Paul’s only argument from Genesis.

Was man not deceived along with his wife? It may be a question of who was the deceiver in each case. The serpent deceived Eve (Gen 3:1-6, 13). Eve taught the man that the fruit was good (Gen 3:6, 12, 17). God cursed Adam for “listening” to his wife and eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:17). Paul differentiated between the serpent’s deception and Eve’s teaching. God did not create Eve to usurp Adam’s role in deciding what tree to eat from for dinner. In other words, a woman should not have authority over men, because she was created for man, and she taught man a fatal error. Submission is part of creation and part of the curse.

Although there is no explicit teaching elsewhere in Paul’s writings concerning salvation through childbirth, he supplied implicit clues to its meaning. In 1 Tim 5, Paul wrote instructions to Timothy concerning the care of widows. Paul instructed the children of widows to learn godliness to care for their family “to make some return to their parents;” in other words, the children, having been reared in the faith by these widows, must put their faith in action. These children, reared in the faith, take care of their mothers. Another clue comes from later in the passage in 5:9-14. In these verses, Paul equates childbearing to a good work that makes a woman worthy of being on the widow’s list. The younger widows do not get on the list, because they have not yet bore children. To be put on the list, they needed to get remarried and bear children. Forbidding marriage and bearing children as sinful acts may have been a false teaching Paul was trying to correct (4:3). In summary, Paul implicitly states that bearing and rearing children are good works, not bad, demonstrating a woman’s salvation in action, and providing a woman’s preservation in her old age (See also Prov 17:6).

Does childbearing save, or demonstrate salvation? If it is salvific, then Paul is contradicting his teaching of salvation by God’s gift of grace through faith, not by works (Eph 2:8-9). Paul is not contradicting himself, but repeating another teaching on salvation. Those who are finally saved will be shown to have been saved through their works (2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1). Even in 1 Tim 4:16, Paul told Timothy to continue practicing and teaching good doctrine to ensure his own salvation and the salvation of others. In relation to 2:15, a woman who bears and rears children in the faith helps to ensure her own salvation and the salvation of her children. It is an application of “working out salvation in fear and trembling” despite already having been made believers (Phil 1:29; 2:12).

These teachings are not unique to Paul. In 1 Pet 3:1-6, Peter told women to submit to their husbands, and to adorn themselves with a quiet spirit for the sake of the Gospel. Peter backed up his teaching with the example from Genesis of Sarah’s submission to Abraham.

What makes childbearing a good work? First, it is obedience to God’s first command in Gen 1:28. Second, children used to be seen as very valuable. In the Bible, childless women were often seen as cursed (Gen 16:2-4; 30:1-2; Lev 20:20-21; 1 Sam 1:5, 11; 2 Sam 6:20-23; Luke 1:25). Hannah, who had been barren, in her song of thanksgiving, equated being given a son with the LORD’s salvation (1 Sam 2:2). Due to the high value of children, childbearing is a good work.

Context of the Passage. If learning in quiet submission is culturally outdated for women, then why is not praying for all people outdated for men? Both instructions find their basis in having a good testimony of the Gospel (2:3-7, 10). Paul’s “therefore I am desiring” statement comes after his exposition of God’s love for all demonstrated through Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. His “likewise” statement links his infinitive command for women to “I am desiring” in 2:8. Women are not to adorn themselves with good works in general, but those that are fitting for godly women (2:10). The following prohibitions and their biblical support suggest not all good works are fitting for women. Childbearing and rearing are good works fitting for women (after all, men can not bear children). Paul, having prohibited women from teaching and having authority over men, allowed women to teach and have authority over their children (2:15).

Customary Meaning. Since God desires all to come to faith and knowledge of the truth, Paul desired women to adorn themselves with good works appropriate for women, demonstrating their salvation through feminine works such as modesty, submission to men, childbearing, and childrearing to ensure their own salvation and that of their children. This is the most natural reading of the problem passage; however, it has never been the most popular reading.

Modern liberals read the text aright, but disagree with it.7 Luke Johnson recognized that the verb in 2:15 referred to salvation through childbirth. Johnson also recognized that the subject of the future indicative was the singular “she.” He recognized that the subject of the subjunctive was “they,” referring to children; Yet, Johnson argued that making salvation dependent on the response of one’s children is unfair. He reinterpreted the “they” to refer to women to avoid being unfair. What makes salvation through childbirth fair in the eyes of a liberal theologian? Johnson did not answer.

Modern conservative interpretations of the passage may agree that women should submit to men; however, they reject childbearing as demonstrating salvation. They want to avoid any possibility of teaching salvation by works. Instead, some interpret the passage as saying that if women continue in faith, they will not have birth-pains.8 This interpretation may avoid teaching salvation by works; yet, it ignores the real-life birth-pains of many devoted women. It also ignores the curse in Gen 3:16, which makes no provision for eliminating the pains of childbirth through continued faith.

John Calvin believed that women must submit to men in the assembly due to God’s good ordering of creation, and due to the curse.9 Calvin also suggested that women were preserved from birth-pains through continued devotion.10 In support of his interpretation, Calvin argued that the indefinite singular “she” at the beginning of 2:15 referred to the plural “they.”11 A singular noun without the definite article may refer to a plural noun; however, there is no noun for “she” in 2:15. For that matter, there is no “they.” Both are inferred from the parsing of the verbs. Calvin was trying to avoid the implication of salvation by works.

One must go to the late 4th and early 5th Centuries to find an interpretation similar to that of this study. John Chrysostom found that even in his own day 1 Tim 2:11-3:1 was hard for people to accept.12 John took the passage at face value. He saw man’s priority and woman’s purpose in creation.13 He saw that the result of Eve’s teaching Adam was sin; therefore, it was not her position to teach.14 Concerning 2:15, John rightly put the emphasis on the subjunctive clause, not on the future indicative clause. “If the children continue in faith” suggested to John that women were to be active not only in bearing children, but rearing them in the faith, teaching them.15 A wicked woman bears and rears wicked children; however, a righteous woman trains up righteous children for the reward of obedience.16 John also was one of the few to argue that 3:1 referred to the preceding statement. John argued that Paul, with his “trustworthy” statement, wanted to remove doubt from the minds of women who may have found childbearing and rearing an unworthy work of salvation (4:3).17

What is the fate of barren women? Women who are barren should not despair. Paul was not giving an exhaustive list of good works. There are many good works that a barren woman can do in a modest and decent manner. Remember that women can disciple younger girls. Remember also that a woman can have spiritual children through evangelism.

John Chrysostom’s view of 1 Tim 2:15, which Driscoll calls the eschatological view, seems to fit the wording of the original text, the context of roles within the Church, the context of appropriate and inappropriate works, the context of caring for widows, and the context of the value of children throughout the entire Bible. Women who bear children, rearing them in the Christian faith, are demonstrating their salvation through a good work. If a woman is ever widowed, her godly children will take care of her, saving her from destitution; thus, salvation through childbirth has a dual meaning, being a work of salvation being brought to completion, and a work of preservation in this life.

_______________

1. http://pastormark.tv/2011/10/25/tough-text-tuesday-1-timothy-2-15

2. Main verbs (indicatives and imperatives) are red. Other verbal forms(infinitives, subjunctives, and participles) are green. Words in italics do not exist in the Greek text, but have been added to make grammatical sense in English. Underlined words are repeated throughout the passage. I translated this passage from UBS Greek NT4th edition.

3. This verse may refer to the preceding verses. The first “trustworthy” saying in 1:15 referred to a following dependent clause. In 4:9 the “trustworthy” saying refers to the preceding independent clause. A dependent clause does not follow the construction in 3:1; therefore, it is possible that 3:1 refers to the preceding independent clause. Trustworthy is underlined because it is the same Greek word as faith.

4. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 372.

5. John Chrysostom, Homily IX. I Timothy ii.11-15, in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon vol. 13 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), 435; Chrysostom admitted that even in his day quiet submission and salvation through childbirth were difficult to accept.

6. Luke Timothy Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 35a of The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 203.

7. Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 202.

8. “Childbearing,” in Pictorial Bible Dictionary, eds. Merrill C. Tenney and Steven Barabas, (Nashville:
The Southwestern Company, 1976)

9. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, vol. 21 of Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 68-69.

10. Ibid., 71.

11. Ibid., 72.

12. Chrysostom, Homily IX., 435; I tend to take a Greek’s word about the Greek language over that of a Renaissance scholar, even one as good as Calvin.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid., 436.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.; As a side note, I came to my position before reading any commentaries. I was surprised to find my only support from John Chrysostom. I am sure there are others, but time limits study.

What’s Wrong With Being a Dead White European Male?

Plato’s Lost Dialogue from Euthephro 23c

Translation: Look at me. I’m white and nerdy.
From Plato Sings Weird Al’s Greatest Hits Vol. 1

Whilst walking through the Agora towards Wall Street, Socrates notices a large group of what seem to be followers of Heraclitus.1

SOCRATES: Please excuse my ignorance of current events, but may I ask why this protest? Why this civil unrest?

OWS BOB: Where have you been, man?! We’re the ninety-nine percent. We’re fighting against the one percent who are oppressing us.

SOCRATES: I assume you mean that you are the majority fighting against a minority oppressor. Is that correct?

OWS BOB: Yeah! You got it man. The rich are going down!

SOCRATES: Do you mean that you intend to send the rich to Hades?

OWS BOB: If Hades existed, we’d send them there. They deserve the deepest pit of Hell!

SOCRATES: Again, I assume that you are equating the one percent to the rich, and that the rich have done something worthy of the wrath of the gods?

OWS BOB: Yeah, they’re rich!

SOCRATES: What have the rich done?

OWS BOB: I don’t get your question?! They’re rich!

SOCRATES: Forgive me if I assume too much, but are you saying that those who have wealth are by virtue of said wealth evil?

OWS BOB: Isn’t that obvious?

SOCRATES: Perhaps I am a fool, but it is not obvious to me. I personally have forsaken wealth, but would not call everyone who has wealth evil. May I ask again, what have the rich done against the ninety-nine percent?

OWS BOB: They built their wealth off of us. They pay us unfair wages! They rip us off at their stores! They get the government to give them our tax dollars to bail them out!

SOCRATES: These are serious allegations. If I may pry more into the subject, might I inquire what a fair wage would be?

OWS BOB: The minimum wage should be twenty dollars per hour.

SOCRATES: I did not ask for a minimum, for even a minimum wage would be unfair to one doing a herculean task, wouldn’t it?

OWS BOB: Umm? Yeah. I guess I mean equal pay for equal work.

SOCRATES: Would you also go as far as to say unequal pay for unequal work?

OWS BOB: No way! That would be unfair!

SOCRATES: So, you would say equal pay for unequal work?

OWS BOB: Of course.

SOCRATES: In other words, if an employer is working less than a hard-working employee, both should be paid the same wage. Is that what you mean?

OWS BOB: Wha… uh… you’re putting words in my mouth man! I don’t mean that at all. Employees should be paid more than employers!

SOCRATES: So, a person’s wages, in your opinion, should not be related to their performance?

OWS BOB: Yeah. It should be equal.

SOCRATES: I don’t think I’m being a good teacher in this instance. Perhaps a story may help. You are obviously passionate about your movement. Let us say that another protestor was not as passionate, and merely sat and watched everyone else protesting. Now let us say that your movement is victorious. In the victory celebration, should the idle protestor be given the same glory as yourself?

OWS BOB: No way! He should be shot man!

SOCRATES: Yet, should not he be given equal glory for unequal work?

OWS BOB: What are you talking about?

SOCRATES: I see my illustration has failed you. You have been arguing for equal pay without respect for the quality or quantity of work done, have you not?

OWS BOB: Yes.

SOCRATES: Would you agree that one can be paid in either money or glory?

OWS BOB: [a faint light glimmers] You know what you sound like? You sound like a dead white European male! You’re just as bad as the one percent!

SOCRATES: Just as I asked what was bad about the rich, I must inquire what is bad about being a dead white European male? After all, I am a dead white European male.

OWS BOB: Huh?! How can you be dead man!

SOCRATES: My writer has a fixation with creative philosophical anachronism.

OWS BOB: Huh?

SOCRATES: Never mind. Is there something inherently wrong with being dead, white, European, male, or any combination of those characteristics? After all, you seem to be a white male of European descent.

OWS BOB: I am, but I reject their oppressive ideologies. They are just as dead as their thinkers. I’d never accept any idea from a dead man!

SOCRATES: So, being dead makes their ideas invalid?

OWS BOB: Yeah… no… I mean… you’re putting words in my mouth again! You’re oppressing me!

SOCRATES: I see I am upsetting you. It is not my intent to upset or oppress you, but to seek the truth. What makes being a dead white European male or his ideas invalid?

OWS BOB: They are oppressive.

SOCRATES: Are all dead white European males and their ideas oppressive?

OWS BOB: Yeah! Down with DWEM’s! Down with DWEM’s! [the crowd starts to repeat the chorus]

SOCRATES: Is not your esteemed Karl Marx a dead white European male?

OWS BOB: Aaaaaagh! [Bob and the crowd, still chanting "Down with DWEMs," start throwing excrement at the deceased philosopher as his ghost fades into the ether.]

_______________

1. Heraclitus believed that fire was the essence of life. When he became sick, he thought that he could extend his life by increasing his body temperature. He did so by being buried up to his neck in cow manure. He died.

Exploratory Committee Findings on the Hunt Candidacy

We, the exploratory committee, find the potential of a Hunt candidacy to be low. We have examined his life, work, and writings. Although, citizen Hunt has many admirable qualities, his documentation, ideology, experience, and certain unsavory actions make a run for office nigh impossible.

Committee Findings on Documentation

Citizen Hunt does not have an official Ohio birth certificate. He has only produced a certificate of live birth. What is more disturbing is the fact that the certificate of live birth was filled out by his own mother. When the committee asked Hunt for proof of citizenship, he replied, “I gave you my certificate of live birth. What else do you want?”

When asked about his mother’s filling out of the certificate, Hunt replied, “My mom worked for the health department under Dr. Starr, the doctor who delivered me. She filled out the certificate, because it was her job. I hope you don’t have a problem with women in the workplace!”

The committee has found no proof that Hunt is from Canada or Mexico. Hunt claims to speak neither French nor Spanish; however, he took Spanish class in high school. Hunt’s lack of proof of United States Citizenship, and his knowledge of Spanish would raise the fears of the average citizen that Hunt is an undocumented worker.

Committee Findings on Ideology

Citizen Hunt holds to outdated political and social ideology. Hunt stubbornly insists that the committee is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad novitatem. Hunt said, “You are slaves to the present, unwilling to learn from the past. Present definitions of justice and rights neither agree with the past, nor agree with common everyday experience in the present.”

Hunt is religious, which in and of itself does not disqualify a candidate; however, his religious views concerning the Sabbath have met with a mixed audience. Seventh Day Adventists believe him to be a Sabbath-breaking heretic, but not a threat, since Hunt would never enact blue laws. Most Catholic and Protestant groups believe him to be a Sabbath breaking heretic. Hunt himself has defended his position claiming, “I keep the Sabbath by resting in Christ, not in any particular day, but everyday. I reserve Sunday for celebrating the rest given by Christ through His death and resurrection.”

The only redeeming factor in citizen Hunt’s religion is his stance on religious freedom. Hunt is against forcing his religion upon anyone by means of government legislation. Hunt has said, “Forced conversion may convert one’s actions and one’s identification in society, but it does not convert the conscience or soul. I prefer evangelism over proselytising.”

Committee Findings on Experience

Citizen Hunt has a dismal record on experience. He has no experience holding a political office. He has little experience in the business world. His experience as an hourly worker is exemplary; however, hourly workers do not make viable candidates. During the past twenty-two years, Hunt has lived under the poverty line. The committee does not think Hunt could raise the necessary funds for a successful candidacy.

Citizen Hunt has little experience in debate. Instead of answering our committees’ questions with short emotional appeals, Hunt either answered with long, drawn-out, in-depth answers, which no one on our committee could understand or follow; or Hunt would answer with a simple, “I don’t know. Give me a little bit of time to mull over the question, and I’ll get back to you in a few days with a long, drawn-out, in-depth answer.”

Committee Findings on Disqualifying Actions

When citizen Hunt has low blood sugar, he makes Rick Perry seem coherent. Hunt exhibits echolalia and often confuses words. When asked about this condition, Hunt replied, “Globle! The speaking of the mouth… in my mouth… the words I… I much speak… to be committed.”

We the committee were shocked when, during our initial fact-finding, we ran across embarrassing photographs on citizen Hunt’s Facebook page. The photographs speak for themselves. Hunt is not a viable candidate.

Going to the People

If citizen Hunt is to ever enter into a political race, he has to have grassroots support. The committee would like people to examine the candidate’s qualities. Anybody finding citizen Hunt a viable candidate should comment below stating for what office Hunt should run.

Christmas Unspecial #52¾

It’s a Wonderful Carol

Plot synopsis: A greedy man is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to change his ways. A few years after his redemption, the greedy man, feeling discouraged over the many trials that come with a redeemed life, is visited by yet another ghost who shows him what a wonderful life he has.

Putting all silliness aside, a combination of Dicken’s Christmas Carol and Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life would be an interesting picture of what many endure in the Christian life. After being redeemed, Christians are not guaranteed success, friends, or anything the world considers comfort. Christians do get discouraged. When discouragement happens, Christians should not be reminded how good they have been, or what contribution they have made to society (as was the case with George Bailey). Rather, Christians must remember who they are in Christ. He is the One who gives us our worth. The One living in us is the One who has overcome the world.

For the first fifty Christmas Un-specials, visit Speculative Faith.

Ebenezer Scrooge: the consumate capitalist, or…

Does another economic system better fit the worldview of the unreformed money miser? During the Christmas season, it is the habit of some to describe capitalists as scrooges; however, an examination of Scrooge’s behavior shows him to be an interventionist at best, and socialist at worst. At the start of Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol, Scrooge has a visit from two representatives from a charity.

“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?”
“Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality”, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

According to Scrooge’s own words, the responsibility of caring for the poor falls on government institutions and unions, not individuals such as himself. Yet, government welfare is a characteristic not of capitalism, but of interventionism and socialism. The institutions of government welfare allowed Scrooge to be greedy and heartless. After all, welfare was not his business, but the business of the State. During the visit of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge receives condemnation for his dependence on socialism.

“Forgive me if I am not justified in what I ask,” said Scrooge, looking intently at the Spirit’s robe, “but I see something strange, and not belonging to yourself, protruding from your skirts. Is it a foot or a claw!”
“It might be a claw, for the flesh there is upon it,” was the Spirit’s sorrowful reply. “Look here.”
From the foldings of its robe, it brought two children; wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.
“Oh, Man! look here. Look, look, down here!” exclaimed the Ghost.
They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.
Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.
“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse! And bide the end!”
“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.
“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”

The spirit condemned Scrooge for neglecting his individual responsibility to care for the poor. After his redemption, Scrooge no longer left welfare in the hands of the government, but gave freely, generously, thankfully, and joyfully from a converted heart.

Addendum: was Henry F. Potter the consumate capitalist?

Although not many liberals will call conservatives “potters,” those of a progressive mindset would identify Frank Capra’s greedy villian as a capitalist; yet, “the richest and meanest man in the county” broke the rules of capitalism. Capitalism is a series of laws against economic force, fraud, theft, and violation of contract. Potter twisted contracts to keep people in his slums, and to try to force the Bailey Savings and Loan out of business. Potter stole $8000 from Uncle Billy. Potter even used the force of the state against his economic foes (calling a congressman and calling the police to do his bidding). Potter, by breaking all the rules of capitalism, proved himself to be anything but a capitalist.

That Which is Right, and Just, and Fair 4

Justice as Fairness (continued)

Distributive Justice

It is easy to understand the concepts of general justice, universal justice, and even particular justice in relation to commerce and remediation; however, the concept of distributive justice is perhaps the hardest to define, describe, and understand. Everyone knows that various things at various times have to be distributed; yet, what makes any distribution right, just, and fair? Our understanding of equality and situation-relevant principles will help to determine fairness in matters of distribution.

A faulty understanding of equality and its relationship to justice will result in both injustice and inequality. One such faulty view is to think that everyone must be made equal. One adhering to said view might read the beginning lines of the Declaration of Independence24, believing them to be prescriptive. After all, if all people are created equal, but none are equal in every aspect, then something is wrong. That wrong of inequality must be righted via compulsory corrective means; however, in order to make people equal, the state must treat people unequally.25 In other words, compulsory Egalitarianism discriminates, limiting the freedoms of those who are different. Progressive taxation is a discriminatory means to equalize income levels. Such taxation discriminates in favor of the poor and against the wealthy. The wealthy in turn have less freedom to use their income within the market resulting in poor economic conditions for all income levels.

It is better to view the beginning lines of the Declaration of Independence as being descriptive, but not exhaustive. The equality described in the context of the document is that of rights. People are equal in their God-given rights before their fellow human beings (treat all people with righteousness and fairness, giving each his or her due).

Another Egalitarian view is to treat everybody equally. This view of equality is very close to the above interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. However, this form of Egalitarianism fails in two respects. First, it is impossible to treat everybody equally. Second, it would be unjust to treat everybody equally. Should a student who answered correctly half of the questions on an exam be given the same grade as a student who got all the answers correct? Should a lazy worker be given the same pay as a hard worker? Should someone at the end of the line be treated the same as the person at the front of the line at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles?

Formal Principle of Justice

Once again Aristotle helps to give definition to the perplexing problems of equality and distribution. His formal principle of justice states, “Treat equals equally. Treat unequals unequally.”26 Injustice occurs whenever someone who is equal to someone else is treated differently than that someone else. Injustice also occurs when someone who is different than someone else is treated the same. This formal principle helps, but does not guarantee justice.27 For example, a supervisor could treat all of her empoyees the same, but treat them poorly. The formal principle of justice needs relevant criteria for equal or unequal treatment. Said criteria have been called the material principles of justice.

Material Principles of Justice

Some criteria are inappropriate in most situations. It would be wrong in most instances to discriminate against someone based on age, sex, race, beauty, wealth, power, and social position.28 What makes a material principle inappropriate is the situation. In most situations, it would be wrong to discriminate based on age, sex, or race; yet, situations do exist in which such discrimination is just. If one is running for a beauty contest, age; sex; and beauty are appropriate material principles for distributing prizes. If a movie director was casting for a film about Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier, then it would be appropriate for the director to hire physically fit black actors. Again, the criteria must match the situation.

Criteria that are appropriate in most situations include “ability, past acheivement, effort, merit, desert, and need.”29 Of these appropriate material principles, social justice advocates uphold need as being the most important criterion. Yet, of all the appropriate material principles, need is the most fluid. Needs change. Needs may also turn into dependancies. Needs may be psychological, physical, or situational. Need is a good criterion for emergency services. Police should respond to a robbery before responding to a jaywalker. An emergency room should treat a gunshot wound victim before treating someone with a common cold. In emergency, time-critical situations, need is a good material principle. In non-emergencies, need is a terrible criterion.

In matters of distribution, treat equals equally and unequals unequally according to criteria relevant to the situation. If distributing pie at Thanksgiving, make sure to divide it such that all who want pie get some. If distributing grades to a class, make sure those grades reflect the performance of each individual student. If distributing medical care, treat severe live-threatening cases before the common cold. Use criteria appropriate to the situation to determine fair treatment in distribution.

Social Justice and Love

Some may be wondering, “Doesn’t the command to love one another require society to alter the market, alter judicial decisions, and alter the distribution of things? Doesn’t society need to contract with the state to enforce such an altering of things?” These questions stem from a confusion of justice and love. The late Ronald Nash described how this confusion, though intended for good, results in evil.

It should be obvious that in some senses, love and justice are closely related. but serious questions about the relationship… can arise in cases when justice is viewed as a necessary trait of government action… It often seems in such cases that evangelical liberals are prone to a confusion of justice and love. By its very nature, the state is an institution of coercion. It must operate through the use of force. Furthermore, if the state is to appear just, it must operate impersonally. Not to act impersonally would be to discriminate among persons. To the extent that governmental regulation and action is relevant to the particular sense of justice, that justice can only be effected through a state which uses force that is dispensed impersonally in accordance with the law. But this analysis of justice conflicts with the nature of love.

Love, by definition, must be given voluntarily; no one can be forced to love whereas the state always must resort to coercion. Moreover, love is always personal in the sense that it is directed at specific individuals. Such discrimination on the part of the state would be a paradigm of injustice. And finally, love should be willing to sacrifice, to go beyond the ordinary moral and legal requirements of a situation. A necessarily coercive state cannot serve as an instrument of love. The state’s required use of force is incompatible with the nature and demands of love. As soon as the coercive state enters the picture, love must leave.

When the Christian statist confuses love with justice, he is doing more than simply urging others in his society to manifest a compassionate love for the needy. He is in effect demanding that the state get out its weapons and force people to fulfill the demands of love… the spectre of the Inquisition is clearly visible in the background.30

In other words, Christians should seek to voluntarily exercise their faith through love, rather than forcing others to care for the poor and needy through government enforced redistribution of wealth. Such forced care actually results in resentment and even hatred of the poor and needy. The poor and needy do not need an impersonal government caring for them and angry tax-payers hating them. Social justice produces such class warfare. Unfortunately, most statists believe the answer to the problem of class warfare is more social justice and less commercial, remedial, and distributive justice. True justice reduces the tension between the haves and have-nots. In touting true justice and true love, Christians must be on the forefront in the marketplace of ideas. If Christians truly want to help the poor and needy, “we must act justly and love mercy and walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:7-9). Our God voluntarily loved the worst of sinners in this way: He sent His Uniquely Begotten One to take the just penalty for their sins. Justice and love are in perfect harmony in the Triune God.

_______________

24. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

25. Nash, Social Justice and the Christian Church, 36.

26. Aristotle, Nichomochean Ethics, 81.

27. Nash, Social Justice and the Christian Church, 33.

28. Ibid, 34.

29. Ibid, 34, 35.

30. Ibid, 76.

That Which is Right, and Just, and Fair 3

Justice as Fairness (continued)

Fairness in Remediation

People expect judges and juries to make fair decisions in regard to civil and criminal matters. In such matters, the innocent are due exhonoration.22 The guilty are due punishment fit for their crimes. If the guilty go unpunished, justice has not been served. Injustice also occurs when the innocent are punished. In order for remedial justice to be fair, it must show no respect to one’s wealth, status, or lineage. In other words, justice must be impartial to be fair.

Social Justice and the Courts

Should the poor and oppressed be given favor in legal proceedings that social justice may occur? In many courts, convicted criminals who are found to be indigent23 do not have to pay fines, and sometimes do not have to serve jail time. Other convicted criminals, who are found to have a bad background (society is to blame), do not have to serve their sentences. Such treatment of criminals is fair in the eyes of those who espouse social justice. Social justice allows certain favorable rich people to buy favorable decisions. Beneficial verdicts are also afforded to the poor in the name of social justice. Yet, as has already been declared, remedial justice is impartial, not respecting the wealth or background of any of the parties involved in the dispute or crime. The rich should not be able to buy a judge or jury’s verdict. Neither should the poor be able to use poverty or a bad background to sway a verdict. Each, irrespective of wealth or background, is responsible for his or her actions according to remedial justice. As in the case of commercial justice, one must interpret relevant passages of the Bible in context. Verses that seem to give judicial favor to the poor and oppressed actually argue for impartial justice.

Impartiality is the focus of scriptures dealing with the poor and the oppressed in a legal setting. Consider Exod 23:6-7, which states, “You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.” If one were to focus on the beginning of the verse, one may come to a social justice understanding of the text; yet, the rest of the passage adds the context of truth. Wealth, bribery, falsified witness, and discrimination is excluded from judicial decisions. A person’s wealth or poverty have nothing to bear upon guilt or innocence.

Deut 24:17-18 reads, “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.” This passage does not argue for special treatment, but for the same treatment. Foreigners and the fatherless deserve the same justice as any Israelite. Israel itself had the status of foreigner and slave in Egypt before God redeemed His people; therefore, the Israelites were to give the justice, which they were denied in Egypt, to foreigners, orphans, and widows in their land. In other words, give justice just as you would prefer justice be given to you. The passage is not just an arguement for impartial justice, but also for kindness, which is often confused with justice. We will address the issue of justice and love in an upcoming ROAR.

Psalm 82:3 reads as follows.

     How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
     Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
     Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

In order to support social justice, one must emphasize the last two lines of the verse, ignoring the first. The first line argues for impartiality in judgment. Partiality is that which is deemed unjust. The weak, the fatherless, the afflicted, and the destitute deserve the same impartial justice as anyone else.

For those who are still unconvinced about the Bible’s support of impartial justice, consider passages dealing with courtroom justice without respect of the socio-economic backgrounds of the respective parties.

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice. -Exod 23:2

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you. -Deut 16:18-20

     He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
are both alike an abomination to the LORD. -Prov 17:15

     It is not good to be partial to the wicked
or to deprive the righteous of justice. -Prov 18:5

     A worthless witness mocks at justice,
and the mouth of the wicked devours iniquity. -Prov 19:28

Rightousness and unrighteousness without regard to wealth or poverty determines guilt or innocence in true and impartial justice. To be partial is to pervert justice. If one is guilty, then let the guilty be punished. If innocent, let the innocent go free. This area of particular justice is easy to understand. In the next ROAR, we will tackle the very tricky and hard to understand subject of distributive justice.

_______________

22. Exhoneration removes guilt and liability in the eyes of the law.

23. Indigent means the inability to provide the necessities of life.