Romans II

9:1 Paul seems more to be convincing himself than his audience

9:2-5 What an interesting source of anguish. He almost wishes he didn't know the truth so as not to be alienated from his own people.

9:9 but he justifies it by claiming that Christians are the real holders of Abraham's legacy.

9:14-16 Paul takes this as an example of God's justice, but it certainly seems to be otherwise. If God's mercy is arbitrary, as was his selection of Jacob over Esau, what could be less just?

9:17 and here he invokes another example, but weakens his point. Surely god set Pharoah up, hardening his heart just to make a point. Was this just?

9:20 and the only answer that can be made, "well, his ways are a mystery" is utterly unsatisfactory.

9:23 it is well and good that god should use the objects of wrath to make known the riches of mercy--unless you happen to be one of those objects of wrath, in which case it is bound to seem unfair.

9:33 and here god has said with his own voice that he purposefully set some up to take a fall.

This whole chapter has left me feeling quite melancholy. If one is to believe the Bible at all, this book, but especially the Hebrew Scriptures, then I am most certainly one of those "objects of wrath that are made for destruction." I am by Biblical standards, quite flawed. The funny thing is, so was Paul. What is the difference? Why has he been "saved" and I have not?

10:1 and what good are Paul's prayers that so and so be saved, if god's decision on these matters is arbitrary and irreversible?

10:3 and he seems to be talking about the Nation of Israel as a whole here--no wonder he is in such anguish writing these words. It is his own people that have been set aside for destruction.

10:13 and yet, is this all that is necessary? If so, Paul is contradicting himself rather seriously . . . of course, his theology is sound if one applies only to the specific case of Israelites who have heard the word of Christ. For the rest of us, though, what application is to be made of these words? We have neither law nor faith by which to be saved? We have not been born into law, like Israel, nor have we been called to faith, for, as Paul describes in ch.9, this call is arbitrary. Paul is not addressing such cases here, of course, but if the theology is sound, then how can it fit?

11:1 It is telling that Paul cannot help but refer to the Israelites as "God's People", even though he well knows that the appellation no longer really fits.

11:4 In what sense did Go keep these 7,000 for himself? Did he actively intervene in their exercise of free choice? Is this what we are calling, "Grace"?

11:7 More and more, this book takes on the flavor of a convulsing dialectic, one that may never reach synthesis. When Paul asks, "What then?" it doesn't seem rhetorical anymore. He seems to realize that he has reasoned himself into a corner, and doesn't know what's next.

11:11 A terrible proposition: that the Gentiles are God's backup date, intended to make Israel jealous.

11:16 This metaphor takes some of the sting out of that though. Nicely played. The question is, in the metaphor what is the root? Israel, or God?

11:25 And what is that "full number"? Does that mean that a limited number of Gentiles can be saved?

11:26 Is all Israel intended for salvation in the sense that Gentiles will fill the empty places, and so the number will be unchanged, or the entrance of Gentiles will inspire the nation as a whole to repentance (whereupon Paul seems to thing the Gentiles would become irrelevant)?

11:28-32 Okay it's about to get really twisted; let's see if I can make sense of Paul's reasoning here: The Jews are still elect, but were disobedient so the Gentiles have received mercy. What is not clear is in v.31 how the mercy shown to the Gentiles opens mercy up to the repentant Jews. I suppose the connection must be made to v.23 where branches that have been cut off can be grafted back on--in this sens the mercy of the grafting process is made possible for the Jews after is has been made necessary for the Gentiles.

11:33 Did Paul just give up understanding this muddle? This wasn't even the worst one; I thought I untied it rather nicely above.

12:3 "According to the measure of faith that God has assigned" is an interesting phrase. Is Paul indicating that, as grace is in ch.11, so faith is portioned out administratively?

12:6 But Paul makes that sound like such a good thing: very ecumenical. Even just being cheerful is a gift of spirit--kind of like, "Well, she has a great personality. . ."

12:16 The only one in this list of usual exhortations that caught my eye: "Do not claim to be wiser than you are" as opposed to "Do not claim to be wiser than another". This makes me giggle inside.

12:19 I like this expression: "Leave room for the wrath of God". Don't avenge yourselves, not because it is wrong, but because if you avenge yourselves then God won't do it.

13:1 This certainly seems to be an untenable argument--that no authority exists that God has not instituted. Surely Paul realizes that it is a ridiculous proposition; could he be covering his ass here? Paul asserts that the governmental authorities are no impediment to good, which is manifestly and immediately disprovable.

In all, this chapter is really nice though. Sweet, poetic, and meaningful.

14:15 Paul takes a bold step here, one that elevates this chapter from mere proverbs to real theology. He takes aim here, not at flawed ideas, but at the stony, proud hearts of mankind, who insist on their "rights" and especially on being "right". It is the natural path of any religion, as it develops, to begin with a focus on righteousness, and end up in a pit of rightness. What Paul proposes here is revolutionary: let yourself be wrong--not wronged, but actually be wrong--for the sake of your brother. That may be a gift more subtle and more profound than giving one's life.

15:1 and doing so, don't clap yourself on the back either. The noble thing that Paul proposes is to let yourself be wrong, and let your brother whom you know to be wrong--albeit harmlessly--think himself right. So difficult . . .

15:17 Rather an unorthodox thing to dwell on for half a chapter . . .

15:27 another untenable position--surely meant more with a smirk than as actual theology.

16:1 this chapter reads like a postscript, or a list of attachments.

16:22 This Tertius is a potentially fascinating character. I wonder what else is known about him. Seems to be a psuedonym, especially when considering that he calls his bother Quartus.

Joseph Conrad: Under Western Eyes

"Speech has been given to us for the purpose of concealing our thoughts." (136)

It takes Conrad a while, but with this quote he reveals his purpose, much like he did in The Secret Agent. On the surface, this is yet another spy novel, but underneath is the painful thesis that people never really know one another, especially those separated by culture on top of our already insurmountable isolation. I have treated this theme already in the aforementioned book of Conrad's, so why not touch on a more personal application of this idea, one to which I am beginning to subscribe . . .

Let's call this fellow Jay. Why not? That's what he calls himself, and the fact that it is not his real name should already be revealing. Jay is a Korean man who has lived in the United States for 15 years, and speaks nearly perfect English. Jay and I have remarkably similar values and religious beliefs--startlingly so. We also share several interests, not the least of which are opera and cuddling. On top of these overlapping features, he also has a powerful set of relationship skills, with which I continue to be impressed. In short, Jay and I should be able to communicate well, as well as can be expected of any two people, let alone two people of different nationalities.

Be we do not. Even in flawless English, I find that our messages are muddied somehow, misinterpreted and transformed into something offensive. Conrad would not be surprised, of course, so why should I be? I already know that one never knows another, not measurably, yet I find myself startled each time. To avoid wallowing, let me conclude by saying that it is a source of wonder and fear that, in each mind that passes my way, there is an entire universe every bit as strange and complicated as the one in my own mind, and it would take a lifetime to understand, even I did have access to it. Which I do not.

Albert Camus: The Fall

I can think of no better endorsement of this novelette than to announce that I have found the epigraph for my memoir:

"But what do I care? Don't all lies eventually lead to the truth? And don't all stories, true or false, tend toward the same conclusion? . . . Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twlight that enhances every object. Well, take it how you like, I was named Pope in a prison camp" (340,41).

Aside from being a riveting panegyric thinly disguised as a narrative, this book has one other distinguishing feature: it is the only fiction work I can think of that is written in the second person. The possibilities that such a format offers opened before me as I read it, and they are considerable. It is strange that more authors don't make use of it--only Browning even toyed with it that I know of. Even here, Conrad only scratches the surface of the possibilities. So, I shall take more than Conrad's words for my memoir. I shall write it, at least partly, in the second person. It was never going to get published anyway--maybe not even written.