The Law (Torah)

I was mulling on this again, as I preached on Romans 7 recently. Some very helpful chat with Mrs L…

What is the Law to us Christians? (And what do we even mean when we say, ‘the Law’? – that’s a big question that turns on some technical points and also on the big sweep of redemptive history.)

Are we bound by its commandments?
No

Is it a spur to holiness?
Not profitably so

Is it a measure or guide?
Perhaps

So can we read it with profit, and if so, what profit?
Good question!

Think about Galatians 5, on the fruit of the Spirit (the good life, as it were). “Against such things there is no law”. In other words, what does the Law have to do with our ethics now? It has nothing to do with measuring or defining the good, Spirit-filled life. As Colossians 2 says of the Torah (or what sounds like at least part of Torah), “such things have the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.

But can we only say ‘we don’t need the Law for our ethics now, thanks’ because it has already had such a tremendous influence, direct and indirect, on Western culture for hundreds of years? Is it indeed the case that the Law is OK as a guide to secular national life, but not for Christian ethics?

Of course, since New Testament ethics is hardly radically opposed to Torah in many areas we will find an amazing similarity between the Spirit-filled life and the Law. But is that because both come, as it were, independently from the same source, rather than one being a development or part-adoption of the other.

Hey, I almost sound like a Lutheran or Dispensationalist in those musings!

Counsel of despair?

Occasionally The Economist and I think alike. Just a few weeks after I began to mull over in conversations again the idea of legalising most drugs [including at the recent NTI residential – how good is that, a theological and ministry training conference where we can talk about hard drugs, watch The Devil Wears Prada, enthuse over the doctrine of the Trinity, marvel at Calvin’s biog and seriously debilitating ailments, slip around in the snow and shed tears of joy at our salvation!?] there was a big editorial making the case. 

First, the liberal principle. 

Second, the major economic and public order benefits to producer countries. 

Third, the reduced power of organised crime (along with reduction in risk of contamination or poor quality product) in richer, user countries. 

Fourth, the tax receipts coming from the trade rather than the billions spent on enforcement, which has not, despite the financial and human costs, altered the overall amount of Andean cocaine produced nor prevented drug taking in Britain from rising dramatically over the past few decades, nor…

Of course there are major questions about public good, morality and the role of the law (and the state) in restricting access to certain things. But although this might sound like a counsel of despair, it may be that whatever the moral evil in this case [which may not be sooooo great, if properly handled, in moderation, etc], the practicalities of enforcement are SO awkward that the law simply should not go there. Consider personal nastiness, a moral evil, responsible for plenty of suffering (small and large, short- and long-term) the world over; yet no government tries to ban it in law! [Of course, some of the ways in which interpersonal nastiness is expressed are banned in law… but not all!]

Of course, a major question regarding legalization is amnesty for past crimes of drug smugglers. But is it possible that breaking the power of the organised gangs by reducing their income and their dark monopoly on a economically and socially important substance would make it easier to catch up with the leaders?

What is going on?

In the world, and in my head...

Another old bit of paper swept away at the moving of a bookcase amid general shedding of bumph was some thoughts I had during the Cambridge Papers discussion of Colin Chapman’s response to Islamism and Islamic terrorism. Mostly fairly ignorant questions, they deserve some thought, and probably some attempts at answering by good, old-fashioned research one day!

What do all these ‘moderate Muslims’ [to use the categories of others, for a moment] want? We can distinguish bombers, we can spot those who call for violence, we can distinguish those who push for rigorous application of sharia… but what do ‘moderates’ want? And why should we [whoever they are] build bridges with them? 

What is their political goal, and to what extent does it involve gaining coercive powers over non-believers? [This really seems like the $64,000 question. Having read some very interesting essays on Islamic theology of law recently by meaty scholars such as Noth, Becker, Morony and Edelby I feel slightly closer to understanding this, at least in theory!]

Are there any Christians who want to capture the state? And what do they want to do with it?

How do postmillennial reconstructionists fit with Islam? What about postmillennialims in general?

Should the question of Islamism spur us to try to understand what the church’s relation to organised idolatries and false (eschatological) communities is? See Peter Leithart’s wonderfully provocative essay, Mirror of Christendom, on this.

Suffering victors… Muslims tend to measure triumph by expressions of power (as Colin Chapman pointed out, anger at the Crusades was fuelled by the fact they they lost so many battles to the barbarian Franks) but Christians don’t have to do that. Islam misses victory-in-suffering, but we have because our Lord has it. We don’t need to vindicate ourselves now, but Muslims do. [Or is that not quite accurate?]

Muslims have a good understanding of how to rule: Christians don’t. We know how to be in a minority, and how to be oppressed quietly, but they don’t! 

A similar sentiment was expressed by the Syrian John bar Penkaye in the 8th century…

He promotes a particular view of the past which seems to say that Christians are better off if they are ruled by non-Christians, that Christians are ruined by peace and quiet and by the interference of Christian rulers in Church affairs. (p.16)

Michael G. Morony, ‘History and Identity in the Syrian Churches’, in J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg & T.M. van Lint, eds, Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East Since the Rise of Islam (Leuven: Peeters, 2005) pp.1-33.