Obadiah's Vision

Obadiah is the shortest book in the Hebrew canon, and the third shortest book in the Bible (after II and III John); and that perhaps accounts for the fact that it is so often ignored. It's a great little book, though, all 21 verses, that deserves a bit more recognition than it usually gets. I think if people recognize the work as being a powerful little discourse on pride, they might find it worth more of their attention. This theme has been recognized before; some of the things Calvin says about the book, for instance, suggest the fruitfulness of reading it in this light. From Calvin's Commentary on Obadiah:

To me it appears probable, that the Prophet reproves the Idumeans, because they became arrogant, as it were, against the will of God, and in opposition to it, when, at the same time, they were confined to the narrow passes of mountains. It is said elsewhere, (Mal. 1: 2,) 'Jacob and Esau, were they not brethren?' "But I have given to you the inheritance promised to your father Abraham; I have transferred the Idumeans to mount Seir." Now it is less bearable, if any one be elated with pride, when his condition is not so honorable. I therefore think that the Idumeans are here condemned because they vaunted so much, and arrogated to themselves more than what was right, when they yet were contemptible, when their condition was mean and obscure, for they dwelt on mount Seir. But others think that the punishment, which was impending over them, is here denounced, "Lo, little have I made thee among the nations", and Jeremiah says, 'and contemptible among men'; he omits the two words, thou and exceedingly; he says only, 'and contemptible among men'. But as to the substance, there is hardly any difference. If then we understand that that nation was proud without reason, the sense is evident, that is, that they, like the giants, carried on war against God, that they vaunted themselves, though confined to the narrow passes of mountains. Though I leave to others their own free opinion, I am yet inclined to the former view, while the latter has been adopted nearly by the consent of all; and that is, that God was resolved forcibly to constrain to order those ferocious men, who, for no reason, and even in opposition to nature, are become insolent.

Seen in this light, the basic course of the prophecy is this. We open with rumors of war (v. 1); and God begins to speak to Edom (Idumea), saying that they will be made small (v. 2). The prophet then points out that the pride of Edom has led to self-deception (v. 3) which will be violently overturned (v. 4-9). The prophecy then goes into greater detail about the particular type of pride of which Edom was guilty (vv. 10ff.) and affirms God's moral providence, which comes with judgment against the proud (vv. 15-16) and salvation for the just (vv. 17ff.). The whole makes a very striking little sermon on pride, and will leave phrases ringing in your head:

For near is the day of the Lord for all the nations!
As you have done, so shall it be done to you,
your deed shall come back upon your own head....

There's more to Obadiah than meets the eye; and the book is worth more attention than it usually gets.

Heresy, Slavery, Natural Law

Jonathan Rowe has an interesting post on the history of religious freedom at "Positive Liberty." In the process, however, he implies some things about Thomistic natural law theory that are not quite right. He says, "The 'old' (Thomist) version of the natural law justified such things as slavery and burning heretics at the stake and knew nothing of the concept that men existed in a 'state of nature' and possessed unalienable natural rights."

Burning heretics at the stake is not justified in Aquinas by appeal to natural law, but difficult as it may be for us to wrap our post-medieval minds around the idea, by appeal to public safety: if any capital punishment is justified, it must certainly be justified for those who, having previously committed themselves to the saving faith, have broken their obligations (e.g., baptismal vows) and promises and are leading the community to eternal damnation, and refuse, after several opportunities, to repent. Aquinas explicitly denies that slavery is justified by natural law, since he holds, as indeed was traditional, that all men are equal by nature; slavery only arises through positive law. It is true that he does allow it to be consistent with natural law if it is imposed by positive law as punishment for crimes, and if it does not violate the slave's rights to food, sleep, marriage (or celibacy), raising of their children, and religious worship (and anything else that pertains to natural law); but it's worth remembering that when we make prisoners do community service we are imposing slavery (servitus) in Aquinas's sense (i.e., forfeiture of the free disposal of one's person as a punishment for a crime or by contract -- Aquinas's term can, but does not always, include hired domestic service). However that may be, natural law was not, and could not, be a justification for slavery, because slaves are not subject by nature.

As to unalienable natural rights, we can set aside 'unalienable' (since it just means 'not able to be transferred') and ask about natural rights, since anything natural in a Thomistic sense would be unalienable. Aquinas does, in fact, hold that we have natural rights; they are things that can reasonably be expected as a matter of justice (for Aquinas 'right' is synonymous with 'just'). When we engage in just action we are rendering someone his or her right. Where he falls short of Jefferson and the like in this regard is not in lacking such a notion but in not developing this in the direction they do. It's also true that natural law theory has no state-of-nature notion; but it's also true that by the time of Jefferson et al. the notion of a 'state of nature' had begun to fall out of favor: Hume, for instance, attacks it as an absurd fiction.

Cooking for Engineers

One of the best cooking sites you can find on the web:

Cooking for Engineers

WAB Homophobia Scale

An interesting homophobia quiz at PBS (HT: ADPR). I ranked a 25, 'high-grade non-homophobic', which is unusually low for a hetersexual male of religiously conservative views (or, indeed, any heterosexual male); but I suspect a lot of it is just that I have a strong aversion to being rude and crude to anyone. And, of course, there's a sense in which any score on a test like this means nothing without context -- comparison to others, etc.

Top 20s for Theologians

Top 20 Essential Paintings for Theologians at "Faith and Theology"; or, to put it another way, Kim Fabricius's list of the Christ-themed paintings (and one sketch) that everyone should be able to recognize. Philistine I am, I only recognized half of them, and, faced with the painting, could have named the painter in only a handful. It would be a hard list to make, and the ones chosen are all great choices; but in any list like this there really should be something by Fra Angelico, either The Last Judgment (which is the usual favorite) or the Transfiguration (which would get my vote). Christ in Limbo, in which, as demons cower in the corner, Christ bursts the door of death to lead the patriarchs and prophets to glory, is pretty cool, too. Friar John the Angelic is the theological painter, and certainly should be on the list.

At the same weblog, there was an interesting post on essential (post-medieval) philosophy for theologians. Hume is rightly on the list, but the work should be either the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion or the Natural History of Religion; likewise, Kant is rightly on the list, but the work should be either the Critique of Practical Reason or (preferably) the Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, which is a beautiful little book. My list would be, in no particular order:

1. Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion
2. J. H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent
3. David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
4. Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone
5. Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
6. Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments
7. Jean-Luc Marion, God without Being
8. Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
9. H. H. Price, Belief
10. S. L. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God
11. Iris Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals
12. Martin Buber, I and Thou
13. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity
14. Edith Stein, Finite and Eternal Being
15. Simone Weil, The Need for Roots
16. Jacques Maritain, Distinguish to Unite (a.k.a. The Degrees of Knowledge)
17. Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought
18. Blaise Pascal, Pensees
19. Pierre Duhem, German Science
20. George Berkeley, Alciphron

Several of these are off the beaten track, but in each case they are either (1) a more accessible and usable alternative to a better known work; or (2) are so much more useful for theologians than the standard philosophical curriculum that they need to be on a list like this.

UPDATE: fixed some typos.

Which Party?

The Globe and Mail has a voter analyzer for the upcoming Canadian election, which is interesting to go through. It is a common fallacy to assume that politics ever carries over perfectly across an international border. There might be general similarities between a Tory in Canada and a Tory in Britain, for instance; but there are going to be some stark differences. And so it is with every other country; each country has its own governing issues, and the political spectrum is generated by those, and not the issues dominant in another country. If you were to propose the elimination of private schools almost anywhere in Canada, to take a fairly small political issue, it would be regarded seriously even by the many who would disagree with the proposal, since in Canada it's not uncommon; if you were to propose it in the United States, most people would look at you as if you were proposing to abolish education, -- it's an extreme proposal. Private schools don't have the same role in the two countries, whatever the other similarities in educational systems. And so it is with many other things. I tend a bit Libertarian and a bit Green in my politics in the U.S.; were I a Canadian there is no question that I would fall squarely in the center of the Conservative party. I'm centrist in the U.S., leaning 'left' on some things and 'right' on others; in Canada I would be solid 'right'. The political spectra are just different. In any case, the analyzer gave me 6 marks for the Conservatives and 1 for the Bloc Quebecois.(HT: NWW)

Various Links of Interest

An interesting paper by Branden Fitelsen on the ID controversy: Some Remarks on the "Intelligent Design" Controversy (PDf; hat-tip: OPP)

A very good paper by Helen Steward on the locution 'could have done otherwise' and Frankfurt-style examples: 'Could have done otherwise', action sentences, and anaphora. She's exactly right; and the fact that she is will turn out, I think, to be a serious problem for people who rely on Frankfurt-style examples to reject PAP.

An essay on St. John of the Cross by Hans Urs von Balthasar

A good discussion of Aquinas's theory of virtue by John O'Meara: Virtues in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas.

George Berkeley's philosophical/economic text, The Querist, can be found online at McMaster University. From the introduction:

I apprehend the same censure on this that I incurred upon another occasion, for meddling out of my profession; though to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, by promoting an honest industry, will, perhaps, be deemed no improper employment for a clergyman who still things himself a member of the commonwealth. As the sum of human happiness is supposed to consist in the goods of mind, body,and fortune, I would fain make my studies of some use to mankind with regard to each of these three particulars, and hope it will not be thought faulty or indecent in any man, of what profession soever, to offer his mite towards improving the manners, health, and prosperity of his fellow-creatures.

Also, the following is a very good webpage on The Analyst controversy: The `Analyst' Controversy. In The Analyst Berkeley sharply criticized mathematicians of the time with regard to the foundations of the calculus (analysis). It is Berkeley in his most polemic mode; its subtitle is "A Discourse to an Infidel Mathematician," and it is an all-out attack on this mathematician (probably Halley) as irrational. As he says:

Whereas then it is supposed, that you apprehend more distinctly, consider more closely, infer more justly, conclude more accurately than other Men, and that you are therefore less religious because more judicious, I shall claim the privilege of a Free-Thinker; and take the Liberty to inquire into the Object, Principles, and Method of Demonstration admitted by the Mathematicians of the present Age, with the same freedom that you presume to treat the Principles and Mysteries of Religion; to the end, that all Men may see what right you have to lead, or what Encouragement others have to follow you. It hath been an old remark that Geometry is an excellent Logic.

It's also brilliant, since Berkeley, who had always had some knack for and interest in mathematics, pounds some genuine problems people at the time faced when it came to giving the calculus a coherent basis. The work stirred up considerable controversy; several mathematicians rose to defend Newton's theory of fluxions, but couldn't always agree on what it was.