Review: Solomon Among the Postmoderns

SAP is Peter Leithart's attempt to see Solomonic wisdom among postmodern philosophers, but also to take a Solomonic "stance" against their conclusions. The outcome is a bit of a challenging read, but one worth the effort. I say challenging because Leithart is one of those writers who expects you to jump into the conversation he wants to have, rather than introducing you to one already taking place.

He begins by offering a different translation of Ecclesiastes 1:2 than with which most of us are familiar. Solomon didn't say that everything is meaningless and he didn't say it about everything that exists. Instead, 'under the sun' is a phrase of time (the present) and what is translated meaningless should be translated mist or vapor. Leithart says that Solomon believed that everything is fleeting at this present time. You can't shape the wind; you can't shepherd vapor. This, he says, is directly in opposition to the modern project of controlling everything.

Leithart begins with the Renaissance. The Renaissance, a return to classical art and literature, replaced God with humans at the center of creation and appreciated all the diversity of humanity. However, in the wake of the Reformation, the Renaissance helps set the stage for modernity: the human project to control the world, to shepherd the wind, Solomon might say. "We" became different from "They." Freedom, control, and progress became the new trinity. And yet the promise of modernity never materialized. Quantam physics. Violence. Death. Leithart says that postmodernism had three movements against modernity: unmasking, inverting, and instensifying.

Leithart gives three contexts for these movements. First, the elusive word. Postmodernism says that the boundaries modernity sets up between private/public, us/them, religion/politics all fade away. All is vapor. It's not so much that postmoderns are relativists, but that they are perspectivalists. Everyone has a perspective and there are no foundations to stand on. We all have limited, partial knowledge. There is always a way to frame history; never a grand story that is told from the grand perspective; always an element of persuasion in speech; never something outside the text. And Solomon agrees: We don't know the future; we all die. And yet, Solomon believes in God and points to the future where God will reign.

Second, the decentered self. Humans change and as a result identity changes. Descartes, however, wanted to find something that wouldn't, that couldn't, change. And so was born the human as a thinking thing. The human as the soul. The human as immaterial. But doesn't this make identity even more unstable? The human being--who is undoubtedly flesh--is now schizoid. Separate. Along comes John Locke who believes consciousness constitutes identity, but, as Joseph Butler points out, this becomes a constant dying and reforming of the self. Consciousness is never the same; it's always changing. Finally, David Hume believes that all identity is simply perception. This also fleshes out sociologically where people become disconnected from their families, cities, relations. They lose their story. Postmodernity intensifies this problem with urban developments, immigration, and reinvented celebrities. Who are we? Who we're told to be by the myriad of people who live around us. The changing self. Fat people now thin. Redesigned bodies and faces. If modernity said the self was changing, postmodernity through plastic surgery and liquid communities ramps the change up to hyperspeed. We're always playing roles. (I wonder, has anyone heard from Paris Hilton? And, if yes, from which one?) And Solomon agrees: All is vapor and that includes the self. We pass away. We fail bodily. The postmodern emerges with the hope of narrative identity! A helpful and valuable idea, but the postmodern is obsessed with death. And stories too often die with people. Never fear, Augustine (a Solomonic thinker) is here! For Christian identity is not in oneself, but in God, Father, Son, and Spirit.

Finally, Leithart turns to power. Oppressors always have power and in spite of modernity's promise for freedom, it only controlled all the more: There is always a threat to be seen; markets are always manipulated. And yet...economics are complex. Too complex for people. People are complex. Even Foucault, who sought to free forms of knowledge from science, is making a modern move even in his critique of it. Karl Marx, who saw economics in everything, never saw, and never will see, his utopia realized. Even those who see postmodernism as emerging as an unstoppable force are the intellectually elite of Europe and America. Religious fanaticism marches on. Responsible religion marches on. Postmodernity inverts the power of modernism and finds it just as caught up in its tracks. The desire to listen to the voiceless is enacted by cries of shut-up! (Did anyone else see the Gay Marriage episode on Dr Phil?) In other words, there is always, always, always power at play. Does Solomon agree? Yes. The poor are beaten down. The oppressed are silenced. A man who saves his city against foreign powers is forgotten (Ecclesiastes 9:14-16). And yet Solomon does not despair. There is always power, yes. But there is a Power greater, fairer, and better than all.

So, if SAP is Leithart's stance, formed by Solomon, among the postmoderns, then what is it? Simply this: Eat, drink, and be merry. But don't forget that Solomon built the temple and that eating, drinking, and being merry is connected with the promise of the temple (Deut 14:26). Eat, drink, be merry; be of faith, joy, and worship. Work hard and enjoy your work because your days are given by God. Enjoy being a human, even though humans are vapor, because...well, because God.

Women in Ministry

I am asked for my opinion on women in ministry from time to time. Just this morning I was asked and thought I would relay my thoughts on this subject here.

This is a great question and one that very smart and committed Christians disagree about, whether they are men or women. Up front, I am for people teaching and preaching who are gifted to do so. I don't care if they are men or women. If they are gifted by God, then they should do it. That doesn't address what the Bible says, though, and I always want my beliefs to line up with Scripture. So, here's the longer answer as to why I support women teaching. Please feel free to disagree, ask questions, and dialog further.

First, we see women in leadership and teaching roles in the New Testament. Priscilla helps to instruct Apollos (Acts 18:26), a man who worked at planting churches. Phoebe is a deacon (servant) of the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). Junias is mentioned as an apostle (Romans 16:8).

Second, Acts 2:17 and 1 Corinthians 11:5 have women prophesying (speaking God's words). Acts is the fulfillment of Joel's vision from the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians has odd instructions about how to pray and prophesy, saying that women should have their heads covered, but it has them prophesying, nonetheless.

Third, two passages seem to teach that women should not lead or preach in churches. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 says that if women have questions, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. This seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? I don't think so. First, read 1 Corinthians 11:5 where women are speaking in church! So, what's going on here? The word for women that Paul uses could also mean 'wife,' which it likely does since Paul is speaking about asking their husbands. Paul wants the people to prophesy in turn so that people can think about what is said (verse 29) and so that not everyone is speaking up at once (verses 30-31). Paul wants there to be order in worship. So, think about it like this: Men and women have been prophesying to each other all through the service (11:5). At one point a man stands up to prophesy in his turn. His wife, having questions about what he said, starts questioning him right away, interrupting him. Paul says, "If a wife has a question, ask it at home." It's not a matter of women never speaking in church, but keeping order in worship services.

The other passage is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Paul gives instructions to men and then to women. Men shouldn't be angry in worship and dispute and fight with one another. Women shouldn't impress with their hair and clothes, but with their lives. Also, women should learn, submitting to what is taught them. How do we understand this? First, remember that Paul is writing to Timothy, reminding Timothy that he is the teacher. This is important because lots of women in Ephesus were teachers in other temples of false gods and idols. When they became Christians, they would naturally teach and be in authority because of their gifts, but they still needed to learn and not be in authority. They didn't know enough to teach yet, so Paul says he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority. You can also translate this, "I am not permitting...", which implies that this advice would only be temporary. Would Paul have permitted women to teach once they had been sufficiently grounded in God's interaction with the Jews and the story of Jesus? I think so.

The Search to Belong by Joe Myers Part 2

Myers' book, The Search to Belong, emphasizes that all four spaces are necessary for groups and individuals to have healthy community. He says that the people trying to facilitate belonging need to become enviromentalists. You create environments so community can happen.

Here's an example. At our church, we created time between services called "Coffee Mingle." It's exactly how it sounds. It creates a good sense of place and belonging for people ending one service or starting the next. When we don't have it (the 5th Sunday of the month), people don't know what to do. They've lost that environment.

Myers' call is for people helping other to belong to help them learn how to navigate and live in all four spaces. Teach people how to be Christians not only in private, but in public, social, and personal ways. Let people belong in the ways they want to, without compromising their discipleship. Figure out how to disciple in public space and social space.