Outline of Readings, Discussion Topics: Feb. 24-26, 1998

Be sure to see the ASSIGNMENTS (both informal writing and reading) for Tuesday, March 3!

Readings

Genesis 1.1-2.4
Note the order of creation - compare the first three days with the second three days like so:

Genesis 2.4-3.24

Leviticus 25
[on the overturning of the Biblical proscription against usury in modern times, see Web document on "Capitalism and Protestantism?"
 

Discussion Questions:
1.  Who owns the land in Leviticus 25?
2.  What do these codes suggest about the meaning of "dominion" in Genesis 1:26?
3.  Why must the Israelites follow these codes?

Job 1-2 (chapters); 42.1-6

Discussion Questions:
1.  What is "Satan's" (the accuser) critique of God and Job
2.  How is this critique especially a critique of the prophetic/deuteronomistic understanding of the covenant with God - that good will be rewarded and evil will be punished?
Do you see this critique applying to the justification of the codes prescribed in Leviticus 25?
3.  What is Job's "solution" to the problem, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach) [Catholic Bible/Apocrypha] 25.24

Matthew 5.1-47 (Sermon on the Mount)

Luke 4.14-21

Luke 6.20-49 (Sermon on the Plain) [NOTE: compare the blessings between the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on thePlain]

Discussion Questions:
1.  What differences do you observe between the two sermons?
2.  How do these differences relate to the distinction we have developed between the prophetic and apocalyptic traditions?
3.  If you were Martin Luther King, Jr. - which of these sermons would you more likely appeal to as Biblical support for civil disobedience in the name of seeking equality for those who had been treated unjustly?

Acts 2.1-13; 4.32-5.16

Discussion Questions (Informal Writing for Tuesday, March 3, 1998)
1.  Of the two worldviews we have examined -

the holistic/egalitarian/prophetic , in contrast with
the hierarchical/dualistic/apocalyptic -

which of these seems more at work at this stage of the early Christian communities?

2.  Of the two worldviews we have examined in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures - which seems better suited to responding to environmental issues in our time?

3.  Given the considerable differences we have seen in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures regarding

ontology/metaphysics

epistemology

conceptions of human nature -  are human beings

basically good (free to choose as individuals, capable as individuals of making the wrong choice, but equally capable as individuals of overcoming temptation,  seeking forgiveness and doing good), vs.
basically flawed by Original Sin (incapable of self-rule as a species without disastrous consequences)

logic -  the complementarity/egalitarian logic of the prophetic tradition vs.
the dualistic/hierarchical logic of the apocalyptic tradition

does it seem an easy matter to rely solely on religious beliefs - even religious beliefs "pinned" to a single "Scripture" for moral guidelines?
What do you see as the strengths of such an approach?
What do you see as the difficulties and limits of such an approach - especially in a pluralistic society such as the United States, and in a "global village" in which the fastest growing religion is...Islam?

Reading for Tuesday, March 3, 1998 (in preparation for visit with Prof. Omer Bartov, Rutgers University)
Boss, ch. 6, "Conscience and Moral Development," pp. 185-206.
Omer Bartov, "Industrial Killing: World War I, the Holocaust, and Representation"
Gospel of Matthew, 5:17-20; 22:34-40 (affirmations of Mosaic Law); 23.1-39; 26:57-66; 28:11-15 ("the Jews" as "Christ-killers")
Preliminary discussion questions:
1.  Many American students seem to believe that WWII in part involved an open and public understanding that the United States was in the war to prevent the Holocaust, to "save the Jews".
Is this your understanding of some of the motivation for American involvement?
Is this re-presentation of WWII in fact historically accurate?
Insofar as it is not historically accurate - what does this say about how different countries have reconstructed their memory of the Holocaust?
2.  We have just examined the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures as possible sources of moral authority - an approach to morality which, we have seen, is made problematic by the facts that (a) these texts contain more than one conception of G*d, G*d's relationship with humanity (do we love G*d for G*d's sake - and/or for the sake of reward? Does "religion" mean primarily the prophetic pursuit of social justice, liberation of the oppressed, etc. - and/or the apocalyptic focus on a "spiritual" life leading to a reward in the afterlife? etc.), and so forth (how far, for example, is our acceptance of the economic institutions of interest, land ownership, etc., a reflection of the influence of capitalism - over against clear religious prohibitions against interest, insistence that we are tenants, etc.?), and
(b) these texts must always be interpreted, where the act of interpretation involves pre-existing beliefs of a given "community of interpreters" (so Christians translate ruach as "spirit," while Jewish translations prefer "wind", etc.)
These difficulties are now compounded by a third: how far does "religion" work towards a universally valid ethic - and how far does "religion" (at least under some interpretations) reflect and preserve beliefs about the superiority of one community over another?
A specific version of this question is raised by the issue of anti-Semitism in the Christian Scriptures.  As the readings from Matthew indicate, Jesus, a least as portrayed in Matthew,  affirms Mosaic Law.  At the same time, Matthew is one of the most anti-Jewish of the Gospels.
These and other passages in the Christian Scriptures have historically been used to justify Christian persecution of the Jews - ranging from forced conversions through expulsion, the development of ghettos, and finally, the Holocaust.
It appears that much of the "daily routine" of the Holocaust was carried out by "good Christians" whose religion, especially in its anti-Semitic dimensions, prepared them to cooperate with genocide against the Jews.  There were a number of brave exceptions to this rule - but the Holocaust succeeded in part because the major Christian bodies (both Protestant and Catholic) did not protest.
But there were the brave exceptions - Christian individuals, families, even whole villages, who refused to cooperate, and managed to help protect Jews from deportation and extermination.

Given the role of religion in shaping our ethics - and our moral consciences;
given the ambiguous, but largely anti-Semitic history of Christianity, beginning with specific Scriptures and ending with the Holocaust;
are "religion" and "conscience" sufficient guidelines for ethical behavior?
As you respond to this question, try to justify your response in some measure by referring to one or more of the points Boss makes about conscience in the reading.

Re-Reading Adam and Eve: 2nd Genesis as Ring Structure

Images of Women in the Christian Tradition: from radical equality to erotic chaos agent
Tertulian on women and original sin (197 C.E.)