Dearest Facebook Friend,
I am excitedly delighted you have chosen to be my friend on FB. I just wanted to take a moment to acquaint you with some of the niceties I prefer in Facebookland.
1. My personal FB wall is my virtual living room. Feel free to come in, have some coffee and comment and share-all people and ideas are welcome here. I am “friends” with each person because I have a genuine affection for them – this includes you. Thank you, again.
2. It is very easy to misread intent in a “text only” format. Please let your remarks be respectful and overtly kind-even in disagreement. Also, please look for the best intentions in others’ remarks. (You don’t have to agree with one another, but actual arguments make me horridly embarrassed, and I wind up deleting everything instead.)
3. I am friends with children on my facebook, so please mind your manners & do not post foul language or inappropriate content. (I’lI have no choice but to remove it. I once had to remove one which was a sweet compliment.. but..uh..oops.)
4. Facebookland is a wonderful place of ideas, pictures, moments, funny ideas, serious ideas and more. These ideas will vary wildly. If you have any statuses which I don’t like, I will exercise the option to not read it and post on it out of respect for you to run your own wall any way you wish. You may feel free to do so with mine as well. I will not be offended, I promise. ♥
5. I do share quite a bit of my life and situations in my living room, but I promise to do my best to not air gripes, grievances and dirty laundry on my page.
I suspect you don’t want to hear my negative remarks about my children, husband, etc. In my own living room, if I started slamming my husband or others who are in the room (the FB living room is immense) you would get very uncomfortable and want to leave.
Impersonal people (like the guy behind the Starbucks counter-though they are usually very nice) are kinda fair game.. hehehe. If I believe my words will harm a specific individual, then I will not post them. If I offend, please let me know, but do so privately.
Lovingly,
Your Facebook Friend, Me
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sola Scriptura/Soli Scriptura
The following is a short summary from a Logic Chapter. In it I simply outline the thought differences between what has too broadly been called:
Faith + Works v/s Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
There is a misconception that there is no place for tradition in Protestant Thought.
There is also a misconception that there is no true and valuable place for works in Protestant thought. However, Faithful Protestants believe "Faith without works is dead." as much as their Roman Catholic friends. How Protestants feel about the role of works is best defined through Ephesians 2:8-10.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Now, on to the Comparison - all is meant kindly. Anyone who knows me knows I never intend to offend.
*iff - if and only if
: : means ... is equivalent to...
I am not a Catholic. I am a Protestant. To be very specific, I am someone who believes in Christ and the theology of the church fathers as stated in the Nicene Creed who follows the Reformed tradition. Now, how in the world did I manage to decide on so specific a statement? I mean, that’s quite an elevator speech. Can you imagine?
“So, tell me about yourself.”
“I am a thirty-eight year old mother of three who had ten years in sales and marketing, homeschooled for eight years, married, and follow the reformed traditions of the Christian church after having been a “new-ager,” and now am completing a religious studies BA at a Catholic university.”
Are you exhausted? Me, too. How in the world did I come to such a belief system? It was through a lot of reading and a lot of logic. There were assumptions to be sure and wandering through the mire of ideas and constructions was dizzying. In each situation, a complete detail of ideas and they do or do not work together is a start. Then, once these can be established, they can be examined against one another. It starts with a number of small steps which each then lead to more involved steps, definitions and hopefully an understanding if not a conclusion.
Reformed Theology is commonly known for what is called the “Cries of the Reformation”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. This means: Scriptura Alone [preaching] Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone to the Glory of God Alone.
The very first cry of “Sola Scriptura” is at the heart of all subsequent theology. According to the reformers, scripture alone determines orthodoxy in the Christian church. This is the first and main point of contention between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the reformers (TR). Scripture alone or scripture plus tradition? The answer appears to be, “yes.”
Logically, this is instantly a Tautology. It is not satisfying in any way to the inquirer, but it is valid nonetheless. According to www.britannica.com, the statement “cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.”
So, proper Christian theology is scripture & tradition and not scripture & tradition.
Or, Christian theology is Scripture plus tradition and not plus tradition.
In conversations and readings on both sides of the argument, I have found the difficulty lies in the definition of the meaning of Sola Scriptura and in the meaning of tradition. My RC friends state that simply by its own words, sola scriptura is self-referentially absurd. They assert that one cannot declare all to be revealed in scripture alone when scripture alone doesn’t even declare which books are scripture; only tradition has settled which books are in the canon.
My R friends respond by saying that such a definition is purposefully obtuse because the reformers themselves do not deny tradition, merely that all tradition must be consistent with scripture alone on not only with other tradition.
S: Scripture C: Canon T: Tradition O: Orthodoxy
So, my RC friends assert that what is true is:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ C
My R friends however, believe the following:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ S iff T : : ~(~S)
Ultimately the issue is what defines tradition? Which traditions are consistent with scripture? Which traditions conflict with scripture? If they conflict with scripture or seem a poor extrapolation of scripture (an eisegesis) then should the ideas be held because of their instance by the RCC or should they be rejected because they conflict with the plain reading of scripture?
So, who and what determine tradition? According to the RCC, tradition is based on the continuing revelation to the Magisterium (the collection of the pope and bishops). So now there is a new term which is R: Revelation. To keep the definitions fair, the RCC states that there is no new revelation insofar as an addition to the canon of scripture.
“God has reveled himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant forever. The son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 73
Here both sides agree.
S → R
S
R
But, in CCC 66, the RCC declares, “Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” How does Christian faith grasp full significance? “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.” CCC 2051
Let’s call the saving truths equivalent with O, orthodoxy. And M: Magisterium
O iff M
What my R friends assert is that the Magisterium has declared dogmas which are not consistent with Holy Scripture. If they are correct, then the following would be true.
O iff S
S : : ~M (at least some of the time)
[so] O : : ~M
Therefore, the next question (at the assumption that all tradition must be consistent with scripture) is for one to examine if the Magisterium is consistent or inconsistent with scripture.
Back again – Sola Scriptura?
My hope is to begin with these simple elements and move them forward. As a visual learner, I’m extremely tempted to cover the wall with paper and just begin using the elements and rules to make a greater determination. But at the end of the day, the one learned is that usually the best I can hope for is consistency in the argument. The things of God become mystery at some point.
Faith + Works v/s Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
There is a misconception that there is no place for tradition in Protestant Thought.
There is also a misconception that there is no true and valuable place for works in Protestant thought. However, Faithful Protestants believe "Faith without works is dead." as much as their Roman Catholic friends. How Protestants feel about the role of works is best defined through Ephesians 2:8-10.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Now, on to the Comparison - all is meant kindly. Anyone who knows me knows I never intend to offend.
*iff - if and only if
: : means ... is equivalent to...
I am not a Catholic. I am a Protestant. To be very specific, I am someone who believes in Christ and the theology of the church fathers as stated in the Nicene Creed who follows the Reformed tradition. Now, how in the world did I manage to decide on so specific a statement? I mean, that’s quite an elevator speech. Can you imagine?
“So, tell me about yourself.”
“I am a thirty-eight year old mother of three who had ten years in sales and marketing, homeschooled for eight years, married, and follow the reformed traditions of the Christian church after having been a “new-ager,” and now am completing a religious studies BA at a Catholic university.”
Are you exhausted? Me, too. How in the world did I come to such a belief system? It was through a lot of reading and a lot of logic. There were assumptions to be sure and wandering through the mire of ideas and constructions was dizzying. In each situation, a complete detail of ideas and they do or do not work together is a start. Then, once these can be established, they can be examined against one another. It starts with a number of small steps which each then lead to more involved steps, definitions and hopefully an understanding if not a conclusion.
Reformed Theology is commonly known for what is called the “Cries of the Reformation”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. This means: Scriptura Alone [preaching] Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone to the Glory of God Alone.
The very first cry of “Sola Scriptura” is at the heart of all subsequent theology. According to the reformers, scripture alone determines orthodoxy in the Christian church. This is the first and main point of contention between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the reformers (TR). Scripture alone or scripture plus tradition? The answer appears to be, “yes.”
Logically, this is instantly a Tautology. It is not satisfying in any way to the inquirer, but it is valid nonetheless. According to www.britannica.com, the statement “cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.”
So, proper Christian theology is scripture & tradition and not scripture & tradition.
Or, Christian theology is Scripture plus tradition and not plus tradition.
In conversations and readings on both sides of the argument, I have found the difficulty lies in the definition of the meaning of Sola Scriptura and in the meaning of tradition. My RC friends state that simply by its own words, sola scriptura is self-referentially absurd. They assert that one cannot declare all to be revealed in scripture alone when scripture alone doesn’t even declare which books are scripture; only tradition has settled which books are in the canon.
My R friends respond by saying that such a definition is purposefully obtuse because the reformers themselves do not deny tradition, merely that all tradition must be consistent with scripture alone on not only with other tradition.
S: Scripture C: Canon T: Tradition O: Orthodoxy
So, my RC friends assert that what is true is:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ C
My R friends however, believe the following:
C : : T ∙ S
O : : T ∙ S iff T : : ~(~S)
Ultimately the issue is what defines tradition? Which traditions are consistent with scripture? Which traditions conflict with scripture? If they conflict with scripture or seem a poor extrapolation of scripture (an eisegesis) then should the ideas be held because of their instance by the RCC or should they be rejected because they conflict with the plain reading of scripture?
So, who and what determine tradition? According to the RCC, tradition is based on the continuing revelation to the Magisterium (the collection of the pope and bishops). So now there is a new term which is R: Revelation. To keep the definitions fair, the RCC states that there is no new revelation insofar as an addition to the canon of scripture.
“God has reveled himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant forever. The son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 73
Here both sides agree.
S → R
S
R
But, in CCC 66, the RCC declares, “Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” How does Christian faith grasp full significance? “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.” CCC 2051
Let’s call the saving truths equivalent with O, orthodoxy. And M: Magisterium
O iff M
What my R friends assert is that the Magisterium has declared dogmas which are not consistent with Holy Scripture. If they are correct, then the following would be true.
O iff S
S : : ~M (at least some of the time)
[so] O : : ~M
Therefore, the next question (at the assumption that all tradition must be consistent with scripture) is for one to examine if the Magisterium is consistent or inconsistent with scripture.
Back again – Sola Scriptura?
My hope is to begin with these simple elements and move them forward. As a visual learner, I’m extremely tempted to cover the wall with paper and just begin using the elements and rules to make a greater determination. But at the end of the day, the one learned is that usually the best I can hope for is consistency in the argument. The things of God become mystery at some point.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Art: Biblical Economics - Response Paper
[This is a response to Lauren F. Winner's article "The Art Patron" from "For the Beauty of the Church" Baker Books 2010 - available by clicking the title above.]
Biblical Economics: What Does God Value
What is Economics? Is it about interest rates, percentages, buying and selling? No, it isn’t any of those things. It is about behavior. At its core, it is a philosophy of human action. Personally, I get the most use out of the Subjective Theory of Value which states: Value is subjective.1 Perceived importance, value and meaning by the individual is what drives buying and selling. Commercials exist to make the consumer discontent and desire their product. This is done by assigning to it a value. In my sales training through Xerox (considered one of the best) value comes from three things: Time, Image, and Money. But, these things are in the secular realm. Some of them are, indeed, considerations of the Christian, but ultimately, to the Christian, the question is: “What does God value?” The first rule of Economics still applies, but the measure is the subjectivity of God, himself as revealed in His scriptures.
I was genuinely excited to read Lauren F. Winner’s article “The Art Patron”. I love art. I have quite a bit in my home. Some of it I’ve purchased and some of it I’ve created. To me, art has value. I was anxious to study about those of us who purchase art and how it relates to the church, faith, and whatever the article would say that I hadn’t yet considered.
It didn’t take very long, however, for me to become irritated. Not at Ms. Winner, but at another young lady who served as a catalyst for much of the rest of the article. Ms. Winner had purchased a nine-hundred dollar paper cutting which expressed the myriad of feelings surrounding her conversion from Judaism to Christianity. The young lady came up after a lecture and posed a question, “How in terms of Christian ethics can you justify spending that money on art when there are poor people to be fed?”
This question, to me, illustrates some of the unfortunate attitudes in Christendom about money, responsibility, and the Biblical mandates to help the poor. Yes, absolutely, all of the scriptures exhort those who have to aid those who do not. What seems to happen is that in these exhortations, the idea comes across that money is bad, that the rich are bad, and that the “haves” owe what they have to the “have-nots”. I would, and have in the past, argued that this is not what scripture says. God is not against money itself. Having and spending money is not, in itself, a sin. This is true whether or not poor people still exist.
So, I’m going address money first. Does God value money? No, of course not. Money is often considered a blessing and something with which to bless others. It is a tool. God values hearts. Money can be used in a way which honors God and it can be used in a way which does not honor God.
“But wait!” cries the dissenter. “What about the passage in Acts 4:32 where everyone sold everything they had and shared everything? And what about Ananias and Sapphira?” Those are two very good points and I’d be delighted to answer them. In the passage in Acts, all of the members of that group who sold all of their possessions, elected to do so. They were not commanded (that we know of) by the Apostles to do that. In fact, Paul says the Christian is to give from his heart and not from a sense of compulsion and that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor. 2:9-7)
This leads right to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) They didn’t give all they owned and they were struck dead by the Holy Spirit. If this isn’t enough evidence, then what is? A little redactive criticism and some reading of the text paints a different reason for their demise. The couple sold some (not all) of their land and promised all of the money from the sale to the church. When each of them appeared before Peter, each of them lied. The appearance of giving so generously was their ultimate goal. They were more concerned with appearances of goodness and their hearts were more concerned with money itself. This was their true sin. The lesson in this text is that no one can really ever lie to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will always know. the lesson is not about private ownership of property being, in itself, a sin. God values hearts. Christians are to submit to God’s subjectivity of value.
To be fair, the other comments by the young lady work to address the heart issue. My own offense on behalf of the author was not that a conversation about spending money was occurring; it was the tone of the inquiry. Ms. Winner relays in her article:
“She said she was disturbed by my willingness to spend that much money on a piece of art. I think that she felt I was too glib and flippant in narrating that purchase, that I hadn’t demonstrated any awareness of the privilege entailed in dropping the equivalent of two months’ rent on a piece of art.”
The young woman is not merely having an insightful conversation; she is making an accusation. While this addresses the heart issue of such a purchase, it assumes a violation of ethics in the loaded question. Ms. Winner spends the next few pages justifying her spending the money by explaining how she scrimped and saved for it; how she valued the privilege of being a patron of art. But, I propose that even if Ms. Winner did not have to scrimp for it, she is easily already justified in its ownership as long as the neither the money nor the art are objects of worship, that is to say: idols.
The next issue to tackle is: “Does God value art?” If Christians are to discover what God values, then these questions about specific areas must be investigated. This is where I really started to enjoy the article. Up until this point, I just felt sorry for Ms. Winner for having been put in this position. Now, however, I felt she was making a case for the second half of the Biblical Economics question: Does God value Art?
Ms. Winner “goes there” and I am very glad for it. As she told the story of growing up and what she valued and associated with growing up, I could identify with her having a different image of being a grown up than many. A major component was acquiring art. Like her, I grew up in a home with all different kinds of art and real collectables from all over the world. I grew up with my grandmother who, with my grandfather’s military career had seen Japan, Germany and many other places. We had great books. We had music (and the Harvard music dictionary). There were temple rubbings from India, petit point needlework from across the Iron Curtain, and on and on. When my father, brother and I moved to Ft. Kent, Maine, I was able to claim a watercolor of the steps in Jerusalem with all the faithful on their knees praying each step. I painted on my wallpaper with acrylics all the time.
In relation to art and a value to it, Ms. Winner goes to the source: the scriptures. Specifically, she goes to the Jewish Talmud. I absolutely love the examples she gives in using art to beautify and celebrate the things of God. By things in this case, she means the tools and props and locations of the act of worshipping God. All things God related are purposefully made beautiful because it honors God to have the best – the “first fruits”. (Lev. 2:12)
Now, I’m not satisfied with only this answer to the young woman at the beginning of the article. Ultimately, truly, the young woman’s question was one of money and obligation with that money. Part of the education this woman needed was that art is of value to God. Beautiful things only exist because they were first created by the Creator.
I posted the question about the value of art to God on my Facebook. I received some wonderful answers and one of the most intriguing was that when the Israelites were being punished, God removed their soldiers and their artisans. Both protection and beauty were denied to the people. (2 Kings 24:10-16)
I agree with the author that many in Christendom don’t have a value for art. (In some cases, I just don’t like their art: lots of mauve and fake flowers. Not my taste, really.) I blame John Calvin and other later reformers who felt that any image was idolatry and that to be pure, they must deny themselves this very gift. My mother-in-law was in the sanctuary of a Baptist church nearby and noted that if she didn’t already know she was in a church, she wouldn’t know she was in a church. Being a Presbyterian herself, she didn’t expect lavish decorations, just something of honor, she felt.
As I respond to each point in the article, I find that Ms. Winner is going in much the same direction as my own wandering mind: the décor at various churches. I’ve moved a great deal in my childhood and my adult life. I’ve seen many places of Christian worship (and others). Some were beautified with their woodwork such as the Second Congregationalist Church in Massachusetts where my daughter was baptized. It had those little boxes built in to the pews from the times when each one was for a specific family. The First Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in Fayetteville, Arkansas (where my grandmother lived) was originally one of the cornerstone buildings of the University of Arkansas. It has gorgeous dark woodwork and stained glass. I played handbells, clarinet and sang in that church. I was baptized in that church and both of my grandparents were buried by that church. It has become my personal ideal.
I’m also reminded as I write this of the trend now of “dressing down” at church. Now, neither this nor a plain sanctuary are sins at all. Just, I remember how I had beautiful special church-only dresses. In Tom Sawyer, his church clothes were referred to as his “other clothes” and Mark Twain even hints that Tom may have only had two outfits. But dressing in one’s best for church, for worship is also part of beauty. As a seamstress, I consider clothing as art. Whenever I cook, I consider food to be edible art. I consider home decoration, music, theatre, so many things as art. (I really do!)
As the author starts to wrap up her ideas, the unfortunate concept of art used for ill purposes… it sadly must be addressed. Suffice it to say, any art which promotes suffering and cruelty or glamorizes egregious sin is sinful.
In one more defense of art, I’d like to say something the author referenced about her papercutting. It is its own language. Art can say what words cannot. Her papercutting expressed the flood of the inexpressible in her life. On my own wall is a blind-contour drawing I made in response to Elie Weisel’s book “Night”. The drawing is of my great-grandfather who was taken away by the Nazi SS and also of his wife’s family (my great-grandmother and her brothers and sisters). I drew it in response to their experiences when faced with evil.
But also, on my walls are expressions of pure joy. I have a favorite painter and his name is David Schluss. He is Israeli; his work is done with his fingers, is cubist inspired and is of big, fat, happy, dancing people. The colors are so very bright. Almost all the paintings in my home are bright because I love life. When people are in my home, I want them to enjoy the Joie de Vivre for just a few hours at least. I want their hearts to be adorned like my walls. God made their hearts, and He also wants them to be beautiful places.
ENDNOTES:
1. 1-Subjective Theory of Value-The idea that an object's value is not inherent, and is instead worth more to different people based on how much they desire or need the object. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subjective-theory-of-value.asp#axzz1QEDnxUrK
Monday, June 13, 2011
First Do No Harm - When Live Saving Becomes Life Taking: Execution Medicine
Wednesday, January 26, 2011, AP Legal Affairs Writer Andrew Welsh-Huggins released a story picked up by Yahoo News which made public a drug company’s regret that one of their products has been selected as part of a cocktail to end the life of death-row inmates in Oklahoma and as the only product in Ohio. The manufacturer has no control over who their end users will be and therefore cannot control its use for a harmful purpose. (para.7) This article raises a very volatile ethical and philosophical question: What should be the response and action of a medicine manufacturer when the very drug created to help the living is used instead to create death? This situation not only violates the Hippocratic Oath, but also the position of the Catholic Church on the dignity of life. With an ongoing national conversation of the unintended harmful consequences of medicines, treatments and even vaccinations2, a medical company dealing with the use of their product to purposefully inflict harm must be dealt with.
The drug in question is Pentobarbitol by Lundbeck, Inc. Pentobarbitol (trade name Nembutol) is already in use by Oklahoma Department of Corrections to cause unconsciousness in combination with Vecuronium Bromide which stops respirations and Potassium Chloride which stops the heart. (2008, Oklahoma Correction) Both institutions previously used Pentothal (sodium thiopental) manufactured by Hospira, but has had to make a change as Hospira has chosen to cease production due to its use by correctional facilities on death row inmates. (2011, Hospira News Release)
According to their website, Lundbeck, Inc. has an official tagline of: “One Purpose. One Promise. Fulfilling unmet medical needs. Improving Lives.” Their medicines treat rare and devastating diseases such as Huntington’s, treatment resistant complex partial seizures and others. Pentobarbitol’s specific use as outlined in the prescribing information is:
NEMBUTAL® (pentobarbital sodium injection, USP) is indicated for use as a sedative, a hypnotic for short-term treatment of insomnia, preanaesthetic and as an anticonvulsant in the emergency control of certain acute convulsive episodes, such as those associated with status epilepticus, cholera, eclampsia, meningitis, tetanus and toxic reactions to strychnine or local anesthetics. (Lundbeck 2010) Also, according to the prescribing information in the Physician’s Desk Reference of 2007, the official indications for sodium pentobarbital (trade name of Nembutal) are “as a sedative, … a hypnotic for the short-term treatment of insomnia … Preanesthetics … and [emergency] anticonvulsants…” (p 2470)
Lundbeck wrote letters to both Oklahoma and Ohio expressing its displeasure at the practice, but the letters are private and Lundbeck’s actual language is not known. At the date of publication of the article, both states denied having yet seen the correspondence. (Welsh-Huggins para.5) Interestingly, no notice of the topic can be found on Lundbeck’s official website; even in the press release section.
The moral situation in which Lundbeck finds itself is this: does it cease to manufacture the medicine specifically to prevent its use? Or, does it denounce the practice of using it to take lives and continue to provide it to those who are in need of it? The official statements by Lundbeck as expressed in Welsh-Huggin’s article seem to give their current answer to this question.
"This goes against everything we’re in business to do. (para.3) …
We like to develop and make available therapies that improve people’s lives. That’s the focus of our business. (para.4) …
While we cannot control how our products are administered, it is our intent that our products be used in a safe and appropriate manner and encourage use consistent with the label. (para.8)"So for now, Lundbeck will continue to produce Pentobarbital while publicly opposing its use for executions in Oklahoma and Ohio.
It appears that Lundbeck became involved because of a different decision made by Hospira. A January 31, 2011 article by Reginald Fields of Cleveland.com stated that “Ohio finds itself in this position [of changing medicine and manufacturers] after Hospira Inc., of Lake Forest, Ill., the country’s only maker of sodium pentobarbital, announced it would no longer make the drug in protest over it being used for lethal injections.” (para.26) This obviously states that Hospira made its decision based on the moral crisis in which it found itself.
In the Welsh-Huggins 2011 article, the paragraph addressing Hospira read “That drug’s [sodium pentobarbital] sole U.S. manufacturer … deplored the drug’s use in executions and also asked states not to use it, to no avail. The company announced last week it was discontinuing the product.” (para.11) While not stated outright, one could assume that Hospira was ceasing production in protest. However, a CBS news article of only a month prior reported Hospira with a different situation than a moral one. “But Hospira Inc. … said Thursday new batches of the drug could be available ‘in the first quarter’ of next year. They blamed the shortage on problems with its raw material providers.” (Freeman, para.4)
So which is it; moral or business? It can easily be both. Hospira can both deplore the use of their medicine for a purpose so deviant to the call of medicine and choose to continue production for those who need it. It finally appears in Hospira’s official statement that the latter is the case. Eventually, it was a legal threat that caused them to close their doors on sodium pentobarbital.
Hospira had intended to produce Pentothal at its Italian plant. In the last month, we've had ongoing dialogue with the Italian authorities concerning the use of Pentothal in capital punishment procedures in the United States – a use Hospira has never condoned. Italy's intent is that we control the product all the way to the ultimate end user to prevent use in capital punishment. These discussions and internal deliberation, as well as conversations with wholesalers - the primary distributors of the product to customers - led us to believe we could not prevent the drug from being diverted to departments of corrections for use in capital punishment procedures.
"Based on this understanding, we cannot take the risk that we will be held liable by the Italian authorities if the product is diverted for use in capital punishment. Exposing our employees or facilities to liability is not a risk we are prepared to take. Given the issues surrounding the product, including the government's requirements and challenges bringing the drug back to market, Hospira has decided to exit the market. We regret that issues outside of our control forced Hospira's decision to exit the market, and that our many hospital customers who use the drug for its well-established medical benefits will not be able to obtain the product from Hospira."
(Hospira, January 2011)
So, it appears that Hospira would have preferred to continue to provide its product to those who needed it in a medically necessary use, but legal situations backed them into a corner. Since they could not control the use of others and were not willing to risk their business or their employees’ livelihoods, production ceased.
The only remedy available to this dilemma is this: to eliminate the death penalty. It has long been known that lethal injection is the most humane way of putting a prisoner to death which puts every drug manufacturer in the potentiality of this moral crisis. (Brauchli, para.2) Drugs in state executions are also sed in the euthanasia of pets during their suffering. (Brauchli, para.7) But, death row inmates aren’t suffering pets. They are humans. They are people. They are individuals and while their crimes may have been heinous, removing their lives does not undo their action. Removing their lives is not always necessary. If the laws were such that lethal injection or any capital punishment were used only in provable extremes where life in prison could not protect the public from the offender, or the offender from himself, it would be in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching (Zalot, Guerin, pp141)
What is obvious is that neither company desired or condoned the use of what they had created for such a purpose. However, what may also be gleaned is that they counted the lives they saved as important. They could not stop legal authorities from using their medicines as instruments of death, but they could still promote them as instruments of life to many of the suffering while speaking out to decry the use by states for lethal injection.
1. “First Do No Harm” is a slight mistranslation in the “common knowledge” of western culture as the “Hippocratic Oath.” However, the original from the “Hippocratic Corpus” does explicitly state, “The physician … must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm.”
2. As the mother of a child on the autism spectrum with multiple co-morbid conditions including autoimmune, this “national conversation” is of great personal interest. The use of a medicine purposefully causing death seems unconscionable.
References
Adams, Francis (transl.) The Internet classics archive. Hippocrates: Of the epidemics, Book 1, Section II, 5. , retrieved February 4, 2010 from "http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.1.i.html".
Brauchli, Christopher R., October 27, 2005, Humane Execution, originally published on humanraceandothersports.com, retrieved on February 4, 2011 from http://www.polisource.com/editorials/brauchli-2005-10-27-num150.shtml
Fields, Reginald, January 31, 2011. Ohio sticking with new drug for executions despite manufacturer’s
request not to use it., www.Cleveland.com, retrieved February 1, 2011 from
http://blog.cleveland.com/open_impact/print.html?entry=/2011/01/ohio_sticking_with_new_drugs_fo.html
Freeman, David W (December 17, 2010), Pentobarbital, Euthanasia Drug, Used in Oklahoma Execution: Was It Inhumane?, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20025977-1031704.html
LaGow, Bette (Eds.) (2007). Physicians Desk Reference 2007 (61st ed.). Mondvale, NJ: Thomson PDR
Lundbeck (2010) Nembutal CII Sodium Solution retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.lundbeckinc.com/usa/products/cns/nembutal/default.asp
Office of Communications (January 26, 2011) Ohio Changes Lethal Injection Drug, Ohio Department
of Rehabiitation and correction: News Release, retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/press/press393.htm
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (July 2008), Death Row, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/deathrow.htm
First Do No Harm - 7
Welsh-Huggins, Andrew, (Jan 26, 2011), APNewsBreak: Sedative maker deplores execution use, Yahoo
News, retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_execution_drug_shortage
January 21, 2011, News Release: Hospira Statement Regarding Pentothal (Sodium thiopental) Market
Exit, News & Media/Press Relations, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from
http://phx.corporate- ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1518610&highlight=
Zalot, Josef D., Buevin, Benedict, OSB, (2008) Catholic Ethics in Today’s World, Anselm Academic
The drug in question is Pentobarbitol by Lundbeck, Inc. Pentobarbitol (trade name Nembutol) is already in use by Oklahoma Department of Corrections to cause unconsciousness in combination with Vecuronium Bromide which stops respirations and Potassium Chloride which stops the heart. (2008, Oklahoma Correction) Both institutions previously used Pentothal (sodium thiopental) manufactured by Hospira, but has had to make a change as Hospira has chosen to cease production due to its use by correctional facilities on death row inmates. (2011, Hospira News Release)
According to their website, Lundbeck, Inc. has an official tagline of: “One Purpose. One Promise. Fulfilling unmet medical needs. Improving Lives.” Their medicines treat rare and devastating diseases such as Huntington’s, treatment resistant complex partial seizures and others. Pentobarbitol’s specific use as outlined in the prescribing information is:
NEMBUTAL® (pentobarbital sodium injection, USP) is indicated for use as a sedative, a hypnotic for short-term treatment of insomnia, preanaesthetic and as an anticonvulsant in the emergency control of certain acute convulsive episodes, such as those associated with status epilepticus, cholera, eclampsia, meningitis, tetanus and toxic reactions to strychnine or local anesthetics. (Lundbeck 2010) Also, according to the prescribing information in the Physician’s Desk Reference of 2007, the official indications for sodium pentobarbital (trade name of Nembutal) are “as a sedative, … a hypnotic for the short-term treatment of insomnia … Preanesthetics … and [emergency] anticonvulsants…” (p 2470)
Lundbeck wrote letters to both Oklahoma and Ohio expressing its displeasure at the practice, but the letters are private and Lundbeck’s actual language is not known. At the date of publication of the article, both states denied having yet seen the correspondence. (Welsh-Huggins para.5) Interestingly, no notice of the topic can be found on Lundbeck’s official website; even in the press release section.
The moral situation in which Lundbeck finds itself is this: does it cease to manufacture the medicine specifically to prevent its use? Or, does it denounce the practice of using it to take lives and continue to provide it to those who are in need of it? The official statements by Lundbeck as expressed in Welsh-Huggin’s article seem to give their current answer to this question.
"This goes against everything we’re in business to do. (para.3) …
We like to develop and make available therapies that improve people’s lives. That’s the focus of our business. (para.4) …
While we cannot control how our products are administered, it is our intent that our products be used in a safe and appropriate manner and encourage use consistent with the label. (para.8)"So for now, Lundbeck will continue to produce Pentobarbital while publicly opposing its use for executions in Oklahoma and Ohio.
It appears that Lundbeck became involved because of a different decision made by Hospira. A January 31, 2011 article by Reginald Fields of Cleveland.com stated that “Ohio finds itself in this position [of changing medicine and manufacturers] after Hospira Inc., of Lake Forest, Ill., the country’s only maker of sodium pentobarbital, announced it would no longer make the drug in protest over it being used for lethal injections.” (para.26) This obviously states that Hospira made its decision based on the moral crisis in which it found itself.
In the Welsh-Huggins 2011 article, the paragraph addressing Hospira read “That drug’s [sodium pentobarbital] sole U.S. manufacturer … deplored the drug’s use in executions and also asked states not to use it, to no avail. The company announced last week it was discontinuing the product.” (para.11) While not stated outright, one could assume that Hospira was ceasing production in protest. However, a CBS news article of only a month prior reported Hospira with a different situation than a moral one. “But Hospira Inc. … said Thursday new batches of the drug could be available ‘in the first quarter’ of next year. They blamed the shortage on problems with its raw material providers.” (Freeman, para.4)
So which is it; moral or business? It can easily be both. Hospira can both deplore the use of their medicine for a purpose so deviant to the call of medicine and choose to continue production for those who need it. It finally appears in Hospira’s official statement that the latter is the case. Eventually, it was a legal threat that caused them to close their doors on sodium pentobarbital.
Hospira had intended to produce Pentothal at its Italian plant. In the last month, we've had ongoing dialogue with the Italian authorities concerning the use of Pentothal in capital punishment procedures in the United States – a use Hospira has never condoned. Italy's intent is that we control the product all the way to the ultimate end user to prevent use in capital punishment. These discussions and internal deliberation, as well as conversations with wholesalers - the primary distributors of the product to customers - led us to believe we could not prevent the drug from being diverted to departments of corrections for use in capital punishment procedures.
"Based on this understanding, we cannot take the risk that we will be held liable by the Italian authorities if the product is diverted for use in capital punishment. Exposing our employees or facilities to liability is not a risk we are prepared to take. Given the issues surrounding the product, including the government's requirements and challenges bringing the drug back to market, Hospira has decided to exit the market. We regret that issues outside of our control forced Hospira's decision to exit the market, and that our many hospital customers who use the drug for its well-established medical benefits will not be able to obtain the product from Hospira."
(Hospira, January 2011)
So, it appears that Hospira would have preferred to continue to provide its product to those who needed it in a medically necessary use, but legal situations backed them into a corner. Since they could not control the use of others and were not willing to risk their business or their employees’ livelihoods, production ceased.
The only remedy available to this dilemma is this: to eliminate the death penalty. It has long been known that lethal injection is the most humane way of putting a prisoner to death which puts every drug manufacturer in the potentiality of this moral crisis. (Brauchli, para.2) Drugs in state executions are also sed in the euthanasia of pets during their suffering. (Brauchli, para.7) But, death row inmates aren’t suffering pets. They are humans. They are people. They are individuals and while their crimes may have been heinous, removing their lives does not undo their action. Removing their lives is not always necessary. If the laws were such that lethal injection or any capital punishment were used only in provable extremes where life in prison could not protect the public from the offender, or the offender from himself, it would be in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching (Zalot, Guerin, pp141)
What is obvious is that neither company desired or condoned the use of what they had created for such a purpose. However, what may also be gleaned is that they counted the lives they saved as important. They could not stop legal authorities from using their medicines as instruments of death, but they could still promote them as instruments of life to many of the suffering while speaking out to decry the use by states for lethal injection.
1. “First Do No Harm” is a slight mistranslation in the “common knowledge” of western culture as the “Hippocratic Oath.” However, the original from the “Hippocratic Corpus” does explicitly state, “The physician … must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm.”
2. As the mother of a child on the autism spectrum with multiple co-morbid conditions including autoimmune, this “national conversation” is of great personal interest. The use of a medicine purposefully causing death seems unconscionable.
References
Adams, Francis (transl.) The Internet classics archive. Hippocrates: Of the epidemics, Book 1, Section II, 5. , retrieved February 4, 2010 from "http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.1.i.html".
Brauchli, Christopher R., October 27, 2005, Humane Execution, originally published on humanraceandothersports.com, retrieved on February 4, 2011 from http://www.polisource.com/editorials/brauchli-2005-10-27-num150.shtml
Fields, Reginald, January 31, 2011. Ohio sticking with new drug for executions despite manufacturer’s
request not to use it., www.Cleveland.com, retrieved February 1, 2011 from
http://blog.cleveland.com/open_impact/print.html?entry=/2011/01/ohio_sticking_with_new_drugs_fo.html
Freeman, David W (December 17, 2010), Pentobarbital, Euthanasia Drug, Used in Oklahoma Execution: Was It Inhumane?, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20025977-1031704.html
LaGow, Bette (Eds.) (2007). Physicians Desk Reference 2007 (61st ed.). Mondvale, NJ: Thomson PDR
Lundbeck (2010) Nembutal CII Sodium Solution retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.lundbeckinc.com/usa/products/cns/nembutal/default.asp
Office of Communications (January 26, 2011) Ohio Changes Lethal Injection Drug, Ohio Department
of Rehabiitation and correction: News Release, retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/press/press393.htm
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (July 2008), Death Row, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/deathrow.htm
First Do No Harm - 7
Welsh-Huggins, Andrew, (Jan 26, 2011), APNewsBreak: Sedative maker deplores execution use, Yahoo
News, retrieved January 27, 2011 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_execution_drug_shortage
January 21, 2011, News Release: Hospira Statement Regarding Pentothal (Sodium thiopental) Market
Exit, News & Media/Press Relations, retrieved on February 1, 2011 from
http://phx.corporate- ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1518610&highlight=
Zalot, Josef D., Buevin, Benedict, OSB, (2008) Catholic Ethics in Today’s World, Anselm Academic
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Apocalypse of the Bread
These are the words of Rabbi Tevia, regarding the trials and afflictions of the evil ones on the chosen in the Northeastern portions of the world.
Behold, I have received these words from Heaven and submit them to you as the true and worthy testament of the things God has planned for His people in the times yet to arrive. I have been taken and shown that which concerns both the righteous and the unrighteous. Bear witness and heed these words that they may offer hope to the afflicted, but a warning of what is to come to the evildoers of this age!
As I was praying and fasting during the Weeks of Booths, behold, an angel came to me during my sleep to deliver a message of the Lord. The angel took me up to a high mountain and opened my eyes to the invisible things of this world. I looked and saw many Heavenly creatures moving quickly all around me doing the business of the Lord. Many of them were too busy to even glance at my existence on that place, but twelve stood as in a choir declaring the Holiness of the Lord in truth and in spirit. When they had finished their chorus, they spoke to me as one voice which was like seven thousand voices impressing upon me to heed the things which they were to show and say to me.
“Thus says the Lord,” they began. “Tell your people that I have watched their sufferings. Tell them I have constantly interceded to make their way straight and have allowed a certain amount of discomfort in this time to draw them back to me. But because of their disobedience to my covenants, there will be an even greater time of tribulation ahead. Do not be fooled, oh Tevia, each of these things must and will happen, each in its own time!
“First, I allowed the dispersion of my children over the northeastern world. While they appeared to keep my laws, indeed, I saw that their hearts were far from me. While appearing to keep themselves separate, they adopted the customs of their neighbors. They perverted my perfect order with transactions and agreements with the foreigner.”
At this time I was shown a vision of four breads. The first was of a soft challah with a beautiful golden crust which was doughy on the inside. The next was of a dense pumpernickel; covered in seeds which could not grow, and tasted bitter but was still filling. The third, a hard piece of matza, and the last was a crust like rock; too hard to even break with the strongest jaw. Eventually, the crust was smashed into crumbs of an uncountable multitude, and a great rain came washing them away never to be seen again. Through all of this, behind all the breads was a beautiful field being harvested and tended by the happiest of workers. And I asked, “What is the meaning of all these things?”
The Angel replied in the words of Hashem, “While waiting for them to see the error of such alliances, I was gentle. I gave to them a series of leaders who appeared as kings and even queens, but who were not overly concerned with my people. These rulers saw the people and would consider them a threat, and move them. However, this was a golden age of the first bread. The challah weave shows the work in the field of my people as they honored me with their labors. The golden crust is the nourishment and happiness I gave them through my festivals and in keeping my word to provide.
The next describes a period of unrest. My people will become enamored with ideas not in keeping with my laws. They will worship philosophical ideas and listen to foreigners who rail against the leaders I placed. So, I will give in to their evil desires in wanting this kind of leadership. This is the second bread. Through it, I would hope a prophetic message would be heeded of the bitterness in following this direction, but heed it they will not. My people will sadly persist in gleaning knowledge of this philosophy while ignoring true understanding. The seeds are the other temporary leaders put in place. However, these seeds are incapable of growing and will fall off of the loaf. They are completely useless and will be cast off by the next bread.
“The third bread is the matza. The matza is the situation they will experience when a dynamic leader will come. He will promise a simple utopia. He will appear to be offering hope to the discomforts they had been experiencing before. He will even be a part of the season of the pumpernickel. But they should not be fooled! Though they will be. It is he who will smash the entire interim government in one blow! In one day all will be undone by him and a new regime will begin. Afterward, there will be a horrible and bloody war between the righteous and the unrighteous, but the evil leader will prevail. There will be famine as he implements his rule. Many of the righteous will perish, and others will barely receive the sustenance they need to even breath any breath of life at all. There will be sickness, but no medicines. There will come help from other nations, but it will not be enough. Families who try to keep what they need to support God’s people will only receive death. Then he will perish, but another will come after him.
“Beware the crust coming after. It will be like eating metal – impossible. The last of the leaders. His reign will be one of absolute terror. No one will be safe from the death he will wield. Even those whom he appears to love will suffer at his hands. Many, many times over again. But it is this evil one who will at last be brought down by my hand.”
And as I looked, I saw the crust as it lay on the hard and barren ground of this last kingdom. In the heavens were the angels. Out from the ground came the multitude of the martyrs from each of these eras. They cried out for justice, they cried out for the anguish they had endured. The blood of those who had endured slaughter stained their clothes and those who had starved stood in their skeletal forms.
But then there came one as a great warrior. Riding a great white bull, wielding a sword of gleaming steel and charging toward the martyrs. He waved his great sword over them and they became whole and healthy again; in new bodies with pure white robes and glowing faces. They beamed and joined the chorus of angels in praises of the Lord. They sang:
Oh, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty.
He makes right the ways of the world,
He created it from the beginnings and foundations of the universe.
He delivered to us the law of his perfect order.
Now he comes to vanquish the evil one and reestablish His kingdom.
Praise be to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
Forever, Amen! (Selah)
And the mighty warrior went down to do battle with the crust. The crust stood, confident of its massive strength, but the warrior first punctured it with his sword causing a mold to form. It grew and broke the bread in two making it useless to even stand. Then, the great warrior of the Lord raised his sword two more times and smashed each piece so it became only a pile of useless crumbs. Then, he commanded the purifying rains come to wash away the abomination so the whole land may be made whole and beautiful again.
Then, once all was accomplished, the fields and forests of the land became healthy and golden again. A throne appeared in the mountains of the south of the land-which had been the original home of the crust-for the holy warrior to reign and oversee this new kingdom of the Lord’s. And it was perfect. The martyrs rejoined the living and they all happily tended the fields harvesting much grain and producing aromatic and healthy breads such as only the Lord can provide.
Then the angel said to me, “Tevia, write all of these things down and keep them for a season to be revealed at the right time. Know that the Lord is the Lord and knows what is best for His people, Amen!” After, the angel brought me down from the mountain back to my booth where I woke up and ate and thought about these things. Amen.
AUTHORS NOTE – the History and setting of this Apocalypse
This is the ex-eventu tale of the fall of the Tsar and then the Soviet Union up to the time of Stalin. It is pseudopigraphic and is attributed to the character Tevia from “Fiddler on the Roof” (late 1800s). The four “breads” are four governments. First, the Tsars who were difficult, but often just let the Jewish communities live in little pockets. Ivan the Terrible made things more difficult for peasants and eventually a serfdom of sorts was set up in more ancient Russian culture, but except for occasional pogroms or relocations (both pretty awful) they were left alone.
The second bread is that of the interim government. After the “Bloody Sunday” massacre, a dumas was set up by Alexander II and the “October Manifesto” was created granting certain human liberties. However, all the changes were discontinued within a year. After the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Dumas (parliament) was re-established and working on a new constitution to be ratified.
The third bread is Vladimir Lenin. In a one day coup just before the ratification, he cut off all communication and travel, the Dumas were murdered and the Red Russians took over. There was an horrific civil war between the Reds and the White Russians. Once Lenin’s government prevailed, there was a devastating famine (1921). Any family who kept any grain at all was considered a traitor and shot. The United States and other countries aided the newly formed Soviet Union, but the famine persisted.
After Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin came to power. This is the “crust”. It is as hard as “metal” because Stalin had changed his name from Djugashvili to Stalin and was known as the “Man of Steel” for both his massive work in developing the Soviet Union into an industrial power and because of his hard, cold nature. In his paranoia, it is well established that he would get help eliminating his enemies by those close to him, and then he would have his friends murdered because they knew too much. This was a horrid cycle that continued for quite some time. But, it wasn’t too long before his wrath was issued against the people. Stalin eventually died from a brain aneurism. This is the mold.
The warrior is a messiah figure. This is the part where the ex-eventu ends and the “prophesy” begins. After doing battle and defeating Stalin (the crust) a beautiful new world of great sustenance arrives (which is fitting as they were dealing with great stresses and starvation). Finally, the throne of the new king – or great warrior- is in the south because Stalin was from the Caucasus mountains noting a complete usurpation of the reign of evil.
Behold, I have received these words from Heaven and submit them to you as the true and worthy testament of the things God has planned for His people in the times yet to arrive. I have been taken and shown that which concerns both the righteous and the unrighteous. Bear witness and heed these words that they may offer hope to the afflicted, but a warning of what is to come to the evildoers of this age!
As I was praying and fasting during the Weeks of Booths, behold, an angel came to me during my sleep to deliver a message of the Lord. The angel took me up to a high mountain and opened my eyes to the invisible things of this world. I looked and saw many Heavenly creatures moving quickly all around me doing the business of the Lord. Many of them were too busy to even glance at my existence on that place, but twelve stood as in a choir declaring the Holiness of the Lord in truth and in spirit. When they had finished their chorus, they spoke to me as one voice which was like seven thousand voices impressing upon me to heed the things which they were to show and say to me.
“Thus says the Lord,” they began. “Tell your people that I have watched their sufferings. Tell them I have constantly interceded to make their way straight and have allowed a certain amount of discomfort in this time to draw them back to me. But because of their disobedience to my covenants, there will be an even greater time of tribulation ahead. Do not be fooled, oh Tevia, each of these things must and will happen, each in its own time!
“First, I allowed the dispersion of my children over the northeastern world. While they appeared to keep my laws, indeed, I saw that their hearts were far from me. While appearing to keep themselves separate, they adopted the customs of their neighbors. They perverted my perfect order with transactions and agreements with the foreigner.”
At this time I was shown a vision of four breads. The first was of a soft challah with a beautiful golden crust which was doughy on the inside. The next was of a dense pumpernickel; covered in seeds which could not grow, and tasted bitter but was still filling. The third, a hard piece of matza, and the last was a crust like rock; too hard to even break with the strongest jaw. Eventually, the crust was smashed into crumbs of an uncountable multitude, and a great rain came washing them away never to be seen again. Through all of this, behind all the breads was a beautiful field being harvested and tended by the happiest of workers. And I asked, “What is the meaning of all these things?”
The Angel replied in the words of Hashem, “While waiting for them to see the error of such alliances, I was gentle. I gave to them a series of leaders who appeared as kings and even queens, but who were not overly concerned with my people. These rulers saw the people and would consider them a threat, and move them. However, this was a golden age of the first bread. The challah weave shows the work in the field of my people as they honored me with their labors. The golden crust is the nourishment and happiness I gave them through my festivals and in keeping my word to provide.
The next describes a period of unrest. My people will become enamored with ideas not in keeping with my laws. They will worship philosophical ideas and listen to foreigners who rail against the leaders I placed. So, I will give in to their evil desires in wanting this kind of leadership. This is the second bread. Through it, I would hope a prophetic message would be heeded of the bitterness in following this direction, but heed it they will not. My people will sadly persist in gleaning knowledge of this philosophy while ignoring true understanding. The seeds are the other temporary leaders put in place. However, these seeds are incapable of growing and will fall off of the loaf. They are completely useless and will be cast off by the next bread.
“The third bread is the matza. The matza is the situation they will experience when a dynamic leader will come. He will promise a simple utopia. He will appear to be offering hope to the discomforts they had been experiencing before. He will even be a part of the season of the pumpernickel. But they should not be fooled! Though they will be. It is he who will smash the entire interim government in one blow! In one day all will be undone by him and a new regime will begin. Afterward, there will be a horrible and bloody war between the righteous and the unrighteous, but the evil leader will prevail. There will be famine as he implements his rule. Many of the righteous will perish, and others will barely receive the sustenance they need to even breath any breath of life at all. There will be sickness, but no medicines. There will come help from other nations, but it will not be enough. Families who try to keep what they need to support God’s people will only receive death. Then he will perish, but another will come after him.
“Beware the crust coming after. It will be like eating metal – impossible. The last of the leaders. His reign will be one of absolute terror. No one will be safe from the death he will wield. Even those whom he appears to love will suffer at his hands. Many, many times over again. But it is this evil one who will at last be brought down by my hand.”
And as I looked, I saw the crust as it lay on the hard and barren ground of this last kingdom. In the heavens were the angels. Out from the ground came the multitude of the martyrs from each of these eras. They cried out for justice, they cried out for the anguish they had endured. The blood of those who had endured slaughter stained their clothes and those who had starved stood in their skeletal forms.
But then there came one as a great warrior. Riding a great white bull, wielding a sword of gleaming steel and charging toward the martyrs. He waved his great sword over them and they became whole and healthy again; in new bodies with pure white robes and glowing faces. They beamed and joined the chorus of angels in praises of the Lord. They sang:
Oh, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty.
He makes right the ways of the world,
He created it from the beginnings and foundations of the universe.
He delivered to us the law of his perfect order.
Now he comes to vanquish the evil one and reestablish His kingdom.
Praise be to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
Forever, Amen! (Selah)
And the mighty warrior went down to do battle with the crust. The crust stood, confident of its massive strength, but the warrior first punctured it with his sword causing a mold to form. It grew and broke the bread in two making it useless to even stand. Then, the great warrior of the Lord raised his sword two more times and smashed each piece so it became only a pile of useless crumbs. Then, he commanded the purifying rains come to wash away the abomination so the whole land may be made whole and beautiful again.
Then, once all was accomplished, the fields and forests of the land became healthy and golden again. A throne appeared in the mountains of the south of the land-which had been the original home of the crust-for the holy warrior to reign and oversee this new kingdom of the Lord’s. And it was perfect. The martyrs rejoined the living and they all happily tended the fields harvesting much grain and producing aromatic and healthy breads such as only the Lord can provide.
Then the angel said to me, “Tevia, write all of these things down and keep them for a season to be revealed at the right time. Know that the Lord is the Lord and knows what is best for His people, Amen!” After, the angel brought me down from the mountain back to my booth where I woke up and ate and thought about these things. Amen.
AUTHORS NOTE – the History and setting of this Apocalypse
This is the ex-eventu tale of the fall of the Tsar and then the Soviet Union up to the time of Stalin. It is pseudopigraphic and is attributed to the character Tevia from “Fiddler on the Roof” (late 1800s). The four “breads” are four governments. First, the Tsars who were difficult, but often just let the Jewish communities live in little pockets. Ivan the Terrible made things more difficult for peasants and eventually a serfdom of sorts was set up in more ancient Russian culture, but except for occasional pogroms or relocations (both pretty awful) they were left alone.
The second bread is that of the interim government. After the “Bloody Sunday” massacre, a dumas was set up by Alexander II and the “October Manifesto” was created granting certain human liberties. However, all the changes were discontinued within a year. After the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Dumas (parliament) was re-established and working on a new constitution to be ratified.
The third bread is Vladimir Lenin. In a one day coup just before the ratification, he cut off all communication and travel, the Dumas were murdered and the Red Russians took over. There was an horrific civil war between the Reds and the White Russians. Once Lenin’s government prevailed, there was a devastating famine (1921). Any family who kept any grain at all was considered a traitor and shot. The United States and other countries aided the newly formed Soviet Union, but the famine persisted.
After Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin came to power. This is the “crust”. It is as hard as “metal” because Stalin had changed his name from Djugashvili to Stalin and was known as the “Man of Steel” for both his massive work in developing the Soviet Union into an industrial power and because of his hard, cold nature. In his paranoia, it is well established that he would get help eliminating his enemies by those close to him, and then he would have his friends murdered because they knew too much. This was a horrid cycle that continued for quite some time. But, it wasn’t too long before his wrath was issued against the people. Stalin eventually died from a brain aneurism. This is the mold.
The warrior is a messiah figure. This is the part where the ex-eventu ends and the “prophesy” begins. After doing battle and defeating Stalin (the crust) a beautiful new world of great sustenance arrives (which is fitting as they were dealing with great stresses and starvation). Finally, the throne of the new king – or great warrior- is in the south because Stalin was from the Caucasus mountains noting a complete usurpation of the reign of evil.
The purpose and conflict of "Vaticinium Ex Eventu" Prophesy/Apocalypse
Apocalyptic Literature-Dr. Tim Milinovich, PhD
The very nature of the terms “prophesy” and “apocalypse” tend to incite rather instant and passionate feelings in the Western world. The number of fictional books and movies produced using the Judeo-Christian (and sometimes other faiths) literatures of prophesy and apocalypse are too numerous to even begin to list. The evangelical movement of working to decipher Biblical texts regarding “apocalypse” is exceedingly strong and exceedingly “literal”. There is a tremendous movement which has been ongoing for centuries, but has recently picked up momentum in literally working out days, numbers and events used in scripture to determine the date of Jesus’ Parousia.
Enter the concept of the Vaticinium Ex Eventu style of prophesy. The mere mention of such a mechanism of genre in scripture instantly creates a firestorm of opinions, articles, dissentions, defenses and more. The “Vaticinium Ex Eventu” literally translates from the latin: prophesy from (or after) the event. The idea of the formation of a work in this manner assumes a “pseudepigraphy” whereas the writer assumes the identity of a respected wise person of a previous age. This “wise person” is documenting certain future events which were given during a revelation. (In keeping with the usual definition of apocalyptic literature, this revelation is from heaven either through an otherworldly journey, or a vision delivered by otherworldy creatures.) Of course, though attributed to the “wise person”, if the work is written by someone else, they would naturally have knowledge of the events and the prophesy would appear to have been accurate.
So the question is raised, what is the purpose of the ex eventu? Must it be a crisis of faith or is it an affirmation of faith? With an understanding of the mode of declaration and the literary mechanisms of the ancient world, the notion of a subversive motive is obtuse. The purpose of texts using this device was to teach, exhort and edify.
The typical Evangelical position has a difficult time with ex eventu. Especially as it could deny the authority of scripture if prophesy contained in the Canonized Bible is indeed pseudepigraphic. I.e. did or did not Daniel write the book of Daniel? Did or did not the apostles write the gospels? To say they did not could be considered a complete affront to the authority of scripture. And there is a good point with that argument. If, indeed, Daniel did not write Daniel (and it is often considered one of the pseudepigraphic ) one could easily use it as a good reason to doubt the whole of scripture and thus, not believe. The group of www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com has chosen to do exactly that and have a full article to proselytize the non-believer. (It is referred to as: Christian Deceptions 4: The Restrospective Prophesy.)
In the wake of such arguments and with the genuine intention of refutation for the purpose of apologetics, evangelical scholars have endeavored to engage the argument of the authority of scripture. The evidence of the reliability of scripture is argued in general terms regularly through the use of logic and archeological findings of writings in pure forms such as those found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. “Thanks to archeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know. One of the scrolls was a complete MS of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. It is dated by paleographers around 125 B.C. This MS is more than 1000 years older than any MS we previously possessed.” [“The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense” Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers c1993, pp 50-51]
Other evangelical scholars have worked to defend texts such as Daniel. One example of an anti-ex eventu defense of Daniel is the article by Dr. G. Ch. Aalders, PhD (1880-1960). [“The Book of Daniel: Its Historical Trustworthiness and Prophetic Character”; Evangelical Quarterly 2.3 (July 1930): 242-254] His work argues against negative criticism used to declare the Biblical book inaccurate, and he point by point approaches the major arguments given to him at the time. Dr. Aalders even goes so far as to defend what is often considered as the major inaccuracy: the demise of Antiochus. “We point to the death of Antiochus, predicted Dan. viii. 25 and xi.45: he was ‘broken without hand,’ a severe illness made him meet his fate. Critics consider it as a contradiction… but this is only due to a misunderstanding of the text…” While not specifically stated in his introduction, the conclusion of the article addresses ex eventu by name.
“Consequently, the suppositions which has to sustain the vaticinia ex eventu theory lacks exegetical validity… For, of course, the belief in the truth of Holy Writ does not depend upon the result of any scientific investigation, yet, over against the claim of negative Bible criticism, as if it were arriving at its conclusions merely by a thorough, impartial investigation of the Bible itself, we have to throw strong light upon the fact that a solid, accurate, scientific examination of the Bible does not impugn its truth.”
While his conclusion shows his opinion that his defense of the text has proven it may be historically verified, how this is supposed to deny ex eventu does not seem to be well-argued. A more accurate than previously thought text could argue either way for ex eventu or perfect prophesy. The purpose of its citation here is to show existing supportable work by the evangelical community to combat ex eventu specifically.
Moving forward, Dr. Aalders begs the question: Is it a “crisis” to use a scientific method and determine that a text (more importantly a truth text i.e. scripture) may, in fact, not be perfectly accurate? Is making such a “discovery” equivalent to maligning scripture? One may reasonably infer that this is the very concern of Dr. Aalders.
The purpose of such a style of prophesy in its proper setting is a necessary component of investigation. Ex eventu was a normative tool of communication throughout the ancient world. Multiple religions relied upon it to encourage their faithful. Kenton Sparks, in his book “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 2005] notes its use in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian and Greek apocalypses. Likewise, Christopher Buck’s article “Baha’u’llah as Zoroastrian savior” [Baha’i Studies Review, vol. 8-1998] gives another example of an apocalypse using the ex eventu method. “The prophecies of the Persian messiah, Shah Bahram Varjavand, are clearly modeled on the legendary Persian warlord Bahram obin …”
Why would ancient authors use this technique? First, by attributing its authorship to a hero or wise person who is known throughout the culture, the text gains instant credibility. Secondly, it was the regular thought of the era that history was cyclical. Ex eventu would be useful in retelling the events of a significant period in the culture’s history when it was recurring so the faithful could steel themselves in preparation. “There is no doubt, of course, that this pseudoprophetic device would have duped some readers, but it is perhaps more helpful to view the practice as a pious ruse rather than as a mendacious attempt to mislead.” (Sparks p.250)
Supporting the position that those who declare texts to be pseudepigraphic ex eventu works are not working to subvert the faithful is defended by Dr. Sam Storms. A self-professed “Reformed Evangelical”, his article “Apocalyptic” is a very brief outline/introduction to the entire genre of Apocalyptic literature. [www.enjoyinggodministries.com/ariticle/apocalyptic] In his section “Special Note on Daniel” he says:
“It is not necessarily the case that a scholar who places Daniel in the 2nd century and thus classifies it as pseudepigraphical does so because he has an anti-supernatural bias or is philosophically opposed to the possibility of predictive prophecy. Many believe that Daniel is simply another example of Jewish apocalyptic which, although canonical, manifests the same characteristics as all the ancient literature in that particular genre.”
He then utilizes a quote from John J. Collins which will be expanded here from Storm’s original text. “Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus of Persia were unquestionably historical figures, but the stories in which they are mentioned are not for that reason factual. One can grant the a priori possibility of predictive prophecy without conceding that we find it in Daniel.” [Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, John J. Collins, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 28-29] In this quote is the very permission by a highly esteemed scholar in the field of apocalyptic literature to believe both elements of historicity and mystery in these texts.
If it can be understood that each of these works, indeed most all apocalypses and several major prophesies were written during a time of real or perceived persecution or threat to ideology, then whether or not the writings were before or after the fact become moot. The point that this mode of declaration would or can only serve to undermine the authority of God is to misunderstand the genre and the authors entirely. “Apocalyptic literature is crisis literature. These writings were produced during a time of perceived crisis to offer hope to oppressed and beleaguered individuals by giving them an alternative picture of reality…” [Apocalyptic Literature: a Reader, Mitchell G. Reddish, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1995 p.24]
Below are three examples of generally accepted scholarly accounts of the situations for many profound apocalyptic texts, both canonical and non-canonical as stated in “Reader”:
• Book of Daniel – The persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes (p.27) but written as though during the diaspora into Babylon.
• The Animal Apocalypse- attributed to Enoch, during the Maccabean revolt also during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. (p.43) but written as if from almost the beginning of days.
• 4 Ezra-100C.E. to bemoan the destruction of Jerusalem (p.58) but written as though from the scribe Ezra in around 556. (p.58)
To borrow heavily, indeed to allow another to speak the natural conclusion of grappling with the potential ethical/faith crisis which one could have in response to the idea of the Vaticinium Ex Event, Reddish states it perfectly:
“…for those people who value the religious dimension of apocalyptic literature, these writings continue to challenge and comfort. The eschatological visions of the apocalypses often serve at catalysts…serve as forceful reminders that the world…is not the way it should be…” (p36)
The very nature of the terms “prophesy” and “apocalypse” tend to incite rather instant and passionate feelings in the Western world. The number of fictional books and movies produced using the Judeo-Christian (and sometimes other faiths) literatures of prophesy and apocalypse are too numerous to even begin to list. The evangelical movement of working to decipher Biblical texts regarding “apocalypse” is exceedingly strong and exceedingly “literal”. There is a tremendous movement which has been ongoing for centuries, but has recently picked up momentum in literally working out days, numbers and events used in scripture to determine the date of Jesus’ Parousia.
Enter the concept of the Vaticinium Ex Eventu style of prophesy. The mere mention of such a mechanism of genre in scripture instantly creates a firestorm of opinions, articles, dissentions, defenses and more. The “Vaticinium Ex Eventu” literally translates from the latin: prophesy from (or after) the event. The idea of the formation of a work in this manner assumes a “pseudepigraphy” whereas the writer assumes the identity of a respected wise person of a previous age. This “wise person” is documenting certain future events which were given during a revelation. (In keeping with the usual definition of apocalyptic literature, this revelation is from heaven either through an otherworldly journey, or a vision delivered by otherworldy creatures.) Of course, though attributed to the “wise person”, if the work is written by someone else, they would naturally have knowledge of the events and the prophesy would appear to have been accurate.
So the question is raised, what is the purpose of the ex eventu? Must it be a crisis of faith or is it an affirmation of faith? With an understanding of the mode of declaration and the literary mechanisms of the ancient world, the notion of a subversive motive is obtuse. The purpose of texts using this device was to teach, exhort and edify.
The typical Evangelical position has a difficult time with ex eventu. Especially as it could deny the authority of scripture if prophesy contained in the Canonized Bible is indeed pseudepigraphic. I.e. did or did not Daniel write the book of Daniel? Did or did not the apostles write the gospels? To say they did not could be considered a complete affront to the authority of scripture. And there is a good point with that argument. If, indeed, Daniel did not write Daniel (and it is often considered one of the pseudepigraphic ) one could easily use it as a good reason to doubt the whole of scripture and thus, not believe. The group of www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com has chosen to do exactly that and have a full article to proselytize the non-believer. (It is referred to as: Christian Deceptions 4: The Restrospective Prophesy.)
In the wake of such arguments and with the genuine intention of refutation for the purpose of apologetics, evangelical scholars have endeavored to engage the argument of the authority of scripture. The evidence of the reliability of scripture is argued in general terms regularly through the use of logic and archeological findings of writings in pure forms such as those found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. “Thanks to archeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know. One of the scrolls was a complete MS of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. It is dated by paleographers around 125 B.C. This MS is more than 1000 years older than any MS we previously possessed.” [“The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense” Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers c1993, pp 50-51]
Other evangelical scholars have worked to defend texts such as Daniel. One example of an anti-ex eventu defense of Daniel is the article by Dr. G. Ch. Aalders, PhD (1880-1960). [“The Book of Daniel: Its Historical Trustworthiness and Prophetic Character”; Evangelical Quarterly 2.3 (July 1930): 242-254] His work argues against negative criticism used to declare the Biblical book inaccurate, and he point by point approaches the major arguments given to him at the time. Dr. Aalders even goes so far as to defend what is often considered as the major inaccuracy: the demise of Antiochus. “We point to the death of Antiochus, predicted Dan. viii. 25 and xi.45: he was ‘broken without hand,’ a severe illness made him meet his fate. Critics consider it as a contradiction… but this is only due to a misunderstanding of the text…” While not specifically stated in his introduction, the conclusion of the article addresses ex eventu by name.
“Consequently, the suppositions which has to sustain the vaticinia ex eventu theory lacks exegetical validity… For, of course, the belief in the truth of Holy Writ does not depend upon the result of any scientific investigation, yet, over against the claim of negative Bible criticism, as if it were arriving at its conclusions merely by a thorough, impartial investigation of the Bible itself, we have to throw strong light upon the fact that a solid, accurate, scientific examination of the Bible does not impugn its truth.”
While his conclusion shows his opinion that his defense of the text has proven it may be historically verified, how this is supposed to deny ex eventu does not seem to be well-argued. A more accurate than previously thought text could argue either way for ex eventu or perfect prophesy. The purpose of its citation here is to show existing supportable work by the evangelical community to combat ex eventu specifically.
Moving forward, Dr. Aalders begs the question: Is it a “crisis” to use a scientific method and determine that a text (more importantly a truth text i.e. scripture) may, in fact, not be perfectly accurate? Is making such a “discovery” equivalent to maligning scripture? One may reasonably infer that this is the very concern of Dr. Aalders.
The purpose of such a style of prophesy in its proper setting is a necessary component of investigation. Ex eventu was a normative tool of communication throughout the ancient world. Multiple religions relied upon it to encourage their faithful. Kenton Sparks, in his book “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 2005] notes its use in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian and Greek apocalypses. Likewise, Christopher Buck’s article “Baha’u’llah as Zoroastrian savior” [Baha’i Studies Review, vol. 8-1998] gives another example of an apocalypse using the ex eventu method. “The prophecies of the Persian messiah, Shah Bahram Varjavand, are clearly modeled on the legendary Persian warlord Bahram obin …”
Why would ancient authors use this technique? First, by attributing its authorship to a hero or wise person who is known throughout the culture, the text gains instant credibility. Secondly, it was the regular thought of the era that history was cyclical. Ex eventu would be useful in retelling the events of a significant period in the culture’s history when it was recurring so the faithful could steel themselves in preparation. “There is no doubt, of course, that this pseudoprophetic device would have duped some readers, but it is perhaps more helpful to view the practice as a pious ruse rather than as a mendacious attempt to mislead.” (Sparks p.250)
Supporting the position that those who declare texts to be pseudepigraphic ex eventu works are not working to subvert the faithful is defended by Dr. Sam Storms. A self-professed “Reformed Evangelical”, his article “Apocalyptic” is a very brief outline/introduction to the entire genre of Apocalyptic literature. [www.enjoyinggodministries.com/ariticle/apocalyptic] In his section “Special Note on Daniel” he says:
“It is not necessarily the case that a scholar who places Daniel in the 2nd century and thus classifies it as pseudepigraphical does so because he has an anti-supernatural bias or is philosophically opposed to the possibility of predictive prophecy. Many believe that Daniel is simply another example of Jewish apocalyptic which, although canonical, manifests the same characteristics as all the ancient literature in that particular genre.”
He then utilizes a quote from John J. Collins which will be expanded here from Storm’s original text. “Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus of Persia were unquestionably historical figures, but the stories in which they are mentioned are not for that reason factual. One can grant the a priori possibility of predictive prophecy without conceding that we find it in Daniel.” [Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, John J. Collins, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 28-29] In this quote is the very permission by a highly esteemed scholar in the field of apocalyptic literature to believe both elements of historicity and mystery in these texts.
If it can be understood that each of these works, indeed most all apocalypses and several major prophesies were written during a time of real or perceived persecution or threat to ideology, then whether or not the writings were before or after the fact become moot. The point that this mode of declaration would or can only serve to undermine the authority of God is to misunderstand the genre and the authors entirely. “Apocalyptic literature is crisis literature. These writings were produced during a time of perceived crisis to offer hope to oppressed and beleaguered individuals by giving them an alternative picture of reality…” [Apocalyptic Literature: a Reader, Mitchell G. Reddish, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1995 p.24]
Below are three examples of generally accepted scholarly accounts of the situations for many profound apocalyptic texts, both canonical and non-canonical as stated in “Reader”:
• Book of Daniel – The persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes (p.27) but written as though during the diaspora into Babylon.
• The Animal Apocalypse- attributed to Enoch, during the Maccabean revolt also during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. (p.43) but written as if from almost the beginning of days.
• 4 Ezra-100C.E. to bemoan the destruction of Jerusalem (p.58) but written as though from the scribe Ezra in around 556. (p.58)
To borrow heavily, indeed to allow another to speak the natural conclusion of grappling with the potential ethical/faith crisis which one could have in response to the idea of the Vaticinium Ex Event, Reddish states it perfectly:
“…for those people who value the religious dimension of apocalyptic literature, these writings continue to challenge and comfort. The eschatological visions of the apocalypses often serve at catalysts…serve as forceful reminders that the world…is not the way it should be…” (p36)
Saturday, May 24, 2008
It's been quite a whie since I posted. I've had many things I could have written about, but sometimes, we just need to be still.
During my times of meditating on the beautiful life the Lord has given to me, I like to go through all the pictures I've taken of trips, the children, everything moms take pictures of. While rummaging around my computer photos, inspiration struck. I've been taking lots of pictures of gardens and flowers, some are even my own! So, I made a new store:
It has a collection of my floral photographs from Florida to California and Texas in between. I've put them on notecards, prints..I do hope you enjoy them as much as I have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)