Hippolytus on deception

a great story - it'll be worth it - read on!

The Story Of A Maiden Of Corinth, And A Certain Magistrianus

There lived a certain most noble and beautiful maiden in the city of Corinth, in the careful exercise of a virtuous life. At that time some persons falsely charged her before the judge there, who was a Greek, with cursing the times, and the princes, and the images. Now those who trafficked in such things, brought her beauty under the notice of the impious judge, who lusted after women. And he gladly received the accusation with his equine ears and lascivious thoughts. And when she was brought before the bloodstained (judge), he was driven still more frantic with profligate passion. But when, after bringing every device to bear upon her, the profane than could not gain over this woman of God, he subjected the noble maiden to various outrages. And when he failed in these too, and was unable to seduce her from her confession of Christ, the cruel judge became furious against her, and gave her over to a punishment of the following nature: Placing the chaste maiden in a brothel, he charged the manager, saying, Take this woman, and bring me three nummi by her every day. And the man, exacting the money from her by her dishonour, gave her up to any who sought her in the brothel. And when the women-hunters knew that, they came to the brothel, and, paying the price lint upon their iniquity, sought to seduce her. But this most honourable maiden, taking counsel with herself to deceive them, called them to her, and earnestly besought them, saying: I have a certain ulceration of the pudenda, which has an extremely hateful stench; and I am afraid that ye might come to hate me on account of the abominable sore. Grant me therefore a few days, and then ye may have me even for nothing. With these words the blessed maiden gained over the profligates, and dismissed them for a time. And with most fitting prayers she importuned God, and with contrite supplications she sought to turn Him to compassion. God, therefore, who knew her thoughts, and understood how the chaste maiden was distressed in heart for her purity, gave ear to her; and the Guardian of the safety of all men in those days interposed with His arrangements in the following manner:

Of a certain person Magistrianus.

There was a certain young man, Magistrianus, comely in his personal appearance, and of a pious mind, whom God had inspired with such a burning spiritual zeal, that he despised even death itself. He, coming under the guise of profligacy, goes in, when the evening was far gone, to the fellow who kept the women, and pays him five nummi, and says to him, Permit me to spend this night with this damsel. Entering then with her into the private apartment, he says to her, Rise, save thyself. And taking off her garments, and dressing her in his own attire, his night-gown, his cloak, and all the habiliments of a man, he says to her, Wrap yourself up with the top of your cloak, and go out; and doing so, and signing herself entirely with the mystery of the cross, she went forth uncorrupted from that place, and was preserved perfectly stainless by the grace of Christ, and by the instrumentality of the young man, who by his own blood delivered her from dishonour. And on the following day the matter became known, and Magistrianus was brought before the infuriated judge. And when the cruel tyrant had examined the noble champion of Christ, and had learned all, he ordered him to be thrown to the wild beasts, — that in this, too, the honour-hating demon might be put to shame. For, whereas he thought to involve the noble youth in an unhallowed punishment, he exhibited him as a double martyr for Christ, inasmuch as he had both striven nobly for his own immortal soul, and persevered manfully in labours also in behalf of that noble and blessed maiden. Wherefore also he was deemed worthy of double honour with Christ, and of the illustrious and blessed crowns by His goodness.

Elucidation.

The conduct of Father Abraham, although not approved of by Inspiration, but simply recorded (Genesis 26:7), gave early Christians an opinion that the wicked may be justly foiled, by equivocation and deception, for the preservation of innocence or the life of the innocent. In such case the person deceived, they might argue, is not injured, but benefited (Genesis 26:10), being saved from committing violence and murder. The Corinthian maiden was accustomed to be veiled, and was taught alike to cherish her own purity and to have no share in affording occasion of sin to others.

from Schaff's ANF, vol V

Hippolytus was i think the first anti-pope - a rival bishop of Rome. some of his stuff is appropriately wacky for ~200AD, but other stuff is genius - his creed likely was the foundation for the apostle's creed.

apart from this being a great yarn, it's interesting to note his ethic - acting for the good of the other person. it's obviously not easy to work out the good for all involved, but the old question of lying about the Jews in the basement could be answered by Hippolytus - it's for the good of them, and it prevents the Nazis at the door from committing a great evil also. a win-win.

patients and clients

i've been meaning to write about this for a while now.

when i went to university the first time round, one of the first things we were told is that we didn't have patients anymore, we had clients. and we all nodded, recognising we weren't splint-makers, but health-service providers. we had an important task to work out in concert with our clients which services best fitted their needs. no more were we caring for, looking after, or helping people. we were professionals.

in the olden days, prosthetist-orthotists like me, wouldn't have been like me. they would most likely have been war veterans, with at the very least one prosthesis. their patients would have been people who lost their legs a little later than them, and, chances are, if they were up to it, would've been trained up to help the next lot.

but today, we're university educated, with a nice piece of paper, and we are the clients' health service providers.


i think my question is, what does this change in nomenclature mean for a) the way we treat patients, and b) for their expectations of us?

the words patient, treat, care, look after - all imply that there is something wrong. that there is something that needs to be made right. it is not about wants but needs. this doesn't mean the needs will always be met, that we will work toward goals, but if someone has lost a leg, their need is to be able to walk again, even if a wheelchair may be the best outcome considering various factors.

but the words client, health-service provider, management, service, imply a contractual relationship, where one's services are engaged for a particular agreed-upon purpose. the sense of caring for someone who unable is gone.

likewise, the recent don't dis- my -ability campaign baffles me. i get what it's saying. but, if i may make a tandem point (this is a blog, after all), part of being in community is helping those who need help. we (should) help people with prams on and off buses, we (should) give up our seats for others. yes, you can crawl the kokoda track, but why should that ever make it condescending for someone to offer or to receive assistance from a fellow human being.

after all, the worth of a person is not in what they can or can't do, or how many functioning limbs they have. but our value is in our created-ness, our innate image-bearing. and indeed, it is often those with so little who contribute so much - triumphing over adversity to achieve the unachievable.

in my short time working in the health-care industry, i have served patients from all walks of life - homeless, teachers, public officials, artists - and compassion, care and serving those unable to serve themselves has been what has driven the same level of care for all.

the road to clients is a road that means the end of multi-disciplinary teams, the end of public health care, the end of sympathy.

Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. Mark 2.17

you might want to make your own extrapolations for what this means in a ministry context.

being Hauerwas

in between prolonged illness and exegeticals, i've managed to squeeze in a fair bit of Hauerwas. dan, pretty much the closest thing to a Hauerwas specialist, recommended i start with Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, which i really loved.

i should add - Stanley Hauerwas is an American ethicist, who is strongly influenced by John Howard Yoder who was a Mennonite pacifist.

Hauerwas has worked at a variety of institutions - most notably Arkansas (which i was taught this week is actually said Arkansaw - who would have guessed!), Notre Dame and Duke. he came over to do the New College Lectures back in 1990, and as well as being named by Time magazine America's best theologian, he presented the 2000/2001 Gifford Lectures.

he's a really interesting guy - as mentioned above, Hannah's Child is a great introduction to him. there are also some great anecdotes about him.
an untrue, yet very funny one, is that he visited Harvard, asked 'where the library was at', and upon being told that people at Harvard didn't end sentences with prepositions, rephrased his question, 'where's the library at asshole'.
he denies this ever happened - but not that it is at all against his character (i.e., it could've, but didn't happen).*

my biggest problem with Hauerwas is he's written so voluminously! it's really hard to get through all he's written, particularly with others wanting to borrow the same books from the library! what i like about him is his emphasis on the centrality of the church, and the importance of simple acts such as kneeling and doing communion as signifying what it is to be a set-apart community. although he perhaps overstates the importance of for example doing the eucharist weekly, in the Australian, and particularly Sydney context, we have definitely gone to far in the other direction - there is a fear of making church look like church.

anyway, i'll keep trawling through. will say more when i have more to say.

* in The State of the University, 2007, p133.

to decriminalise is to legitimise

Phillip Jensen wrote today on this issue in regards to the abhorrent victorian abortion legislation (is that too strong a word?). you can find it in today's SMH, or here.

despite the histrionics of Green's MP Lee Rhiannon*, i think Jensen makes a really good point:

Since the 1960s, censorship and gambling laws have been relaxed, and prostitution and homosexuality have been decriminalised.
[... T]o decriminalise is to legitimise.

whilst i am generally quite liberal (if i don't say so myself), i am thankful for this reminder about the impacts of decriminalising things that society has generally had questions about. decriminalising under-age sex for example sends the message not that society doesn't think jail is too extreme a punishment for teenage kids who have sex, but rather it says anyone is fair game - don't ever let age (or anything!) limit your sexual freedom. however old you are. and your respective age differences.

we need then to think not just about the immediate impacts of decriminalisation (eg ending backyard abortion clinics - tho i didn't think this was currently an issue), but what it implies society thinks on certain issues (eg an abortion is a lifestyle choice). it's about keeping the big picture in perspective.

* i should perhaps note, i have written written favourably about the Greens previously here. however i have sadly rarely found Rhiannon to be representative of myself or rational discussion.

#11 - Thou shalt not ogle

growing up in canberra, i would always be amazed at how one prang could lead onto a series of lesser prangs.
you'd see all these people on the side of the road exchanging details, wonder what's going on, and then see there'd be a bigger prang off to the side.
i don't know if it's a canberra thing, but they are worse drivers there generally.

but i guess my question is about voyeurism. not in the sexual way my dictionary wants to explain it, but more just the general staring and taking an unnecessary interest in things that do not concern us.

on the way to the snow, we saw cars off the side of the road, some even upside down, even one with the numberplate 'LEJND', or something just as bad (can't remember - how could i forget!). now it was really hard to not watch it - but it does get you wondering - what is it that makes this SO irresistible to look at?

is it the same thing as greed, or envy? well, i don't want to be in that car lying upside down in the ditch.
it it just simple schadenfreude? possibly.
it could just be thankfulness that it wasn't me! or possibly pride? being haughty?

maybe it's just harmless, but i never feel like laughing watching Australia's Funniest Home Videos. maybe it's cause i know it could very probably be me!

it could also be i'm worried about this sort of response:

“You have heard their taunts, O LORD,
all their plots against me.
The lips and thoughts of my assailants
are against me all the day long.
Behold their sitting and their rising;
I am the object of their taunts.

“You will repay them, O LORD,
according to the work of their hands.
You will give them dullness of heart;
your curse will be on them.
You will pursue them in anger and destroy them
from under your heavens, O LORD.”

Lamentations 3.61-66

blog-wrap: the gospel and gays

some interesting posts around

particularly liked two:
firstly, from america's young theologianthis on sharing the gospel when not in relationship.

i've chatted to different people about this over the years who have been quite 'anti' this, the normal reason being wanting to not impose 'your thing' on others. the way i responded was the imperative we have in the gospel to 1/ share the gospel even to the ends of the earth, 2/ wanting to snatch people from the fire, 3/ with the people of God being not limited to any particular nation, or more positively being expanded to all nations, just as the prophets of old went and preached repentance to the lost sheep of israel, so we should preach repentance to all (actually i just thought of this one).

have you thought about this/come across this/share this view?


secondly, then, from faith and theology, this on the moral superiority of gays (as a group) (despite the impression you would get from the comments!).

it reminded me of a list of the most influential people in history, and coming in i think at number 3 was Jesus of Nazareth. now we would want to say, 'what?', but the justification is the charge levelled at the hypocrisy, the nominalism, the inconsistancy of those proclaiming to be governed by 'their own lord and master, Jesus Christ'. the discussion of Hauerwas' and Rowan Williams' thoughts is quite engaging indeed.

the philosophy of politics

i found this fascinating interview from Jon Stewart's Newshour, linked here by way of Swords to Plowshares, which i found via Faith and Theology which i usually look at via Nothing New Under the Sun!

it's a really insightful look at what it means to live life out, if all of life was politics!
for example, do you say what is right, or what will win? the answer, for one who lives life as if it were all politics, is obviously the latter.
it's how to win friends and influence people taken to the extreme.

i guess it might win you friends - but what kind of friends?

... and still a Christian

the sequel to the prequel, ie the second of Greg's talks discussing Christianity and Atheism was again very helpful in understanding why, in the light of present (and past) debates around atheism and agnosticism, how a thinking person could remain a Christian. let alone a theist!

another talk, another list; this time, the reasons for still being a Christian:

1. it shapes you, but it's not a straight-jacket
   sure, you don't want to discount the influence your upbringing has had on shaping you, but even Dawkins has to admit that he's been able to break free of his memes (even though he's claimed the only reason anyone is a theist is because we're unable to break free of our history, see here for what seems to me to be a contradiction)
   everyone has to have a time when they're able to forge their own path, choosing not to blindly go where many have gone before, but opening their eyes, to discern where their foundations and assumptions truly lie.
   
   
2. just 51% possibility of the existence of the Other makes the resurrection a possible option
   it is to this 51% chance that we THEN bring any other evidence, ie the gospels, contemporaneous writings, archaeological evidence, sociological patterns etc
   
   
3. "living towards death" (c/f Heidegger) gives us meaning and hope
   with anything else, any meaning has to be injected from outside, creating one's own meaning. which is fine, it's simply without foundation.

come back at me if you want (mum and mark, unless there are indeed other readers out there - if so, GREETINGS!)

not an atheist

on sunday we started the first of two talks on atheism by Greg Clarke, of the newly formed Public Christianity Australia (or whatever it's supposed to be called).

of the many things he talked about, perhaps one of the most helpful was the classification of atheism into four drawers;

1. philosophical atheism
   that is, it makes sense, logically, that there is no god. Arthur C. Clarke (no relation, i believe), succinctly put it, that it is un-sane to be a theist.
   
   
2. sociological atheism
   the crutch idea - we need a god so we don't have to take responsibility for our own actions, think for ourselves etc - but surely we as a race have matured beyond this primitive need for a god.
   
   
3. darwinian atheism
   evolution = no god. or something like that. whatever. (thanks Ken Ham for all your great work in equating (in scientismists' minds) the scientific method with irreligion!)
   
   
4. ethical atheism
   perhaps where we can feel guiltiest. believers should be known for having all things in common, distributing for the poor as they have any need, caring for the widows, the sick. sure we can point to those who do do this, but that we have to point it out is a blight on us, as we do not, by our selfless works, make God's name known and praised among the nations.

i think that (4) was by far the biggest take home point for me, apart from the great apologetic thinking through of why not become an atheist?, ie, that we need to keep repenting for our unbelief, for living lives that don't necessarily show we have been saved from anything, to be anything.

looking forward to next week's installment, why i am still a christian

something worse than abortion

the untouchables series at church have been interesting and engaging, to say the least. they were on racism, homosexuality, abortion and church and state. a step away from the week-to-week exegetical preaching we're used to, the topical talks have been a good point for engagement with the community.

the angle that wasn't looked at, at least explicitly, was from the perspective of retrieval ethic. mainly associated with (i think) Reinhold Niebuhr (but also Michael Hill of Moore College), it's looking at questions that would, should be open and shut, were we living in a perfect world.

but since we aren't, questions such as "war", are actually not as simple as "war's bad", because, using the paradigm of the retrieval ethic, there may be "worse things than war", such as (to use the Niebuhr example) Hitler ruling the world! that is not to say there should be no boundaries, no rules of engagement, no limits - but that pacifism isn't necessarily the answer, as so many who quote John 18:36 may claim:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

likewise, i think the same may apply to the question of abortion. we see the "right to lifers" coming to blows with the "pro-choicers", in much the same way as pacifists come at the warmongers.

it's not about the 3rd way or the middle path; rather accepting doing the best we can in this fallen world to be compassionate, merciful and just, recognising that we are under God.


anything we can therefore do is not going to reverse the curse, nor should that be in our minds.

1 Chronicles 29:11-12 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.
Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.

strike!!!

as much as i love a good rally, holding up a sign, and traffic, what role are Christians to play, when it involves contradicting the wishes of your employers. specifically:
1 Peter 2:13-14 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
and
18-19 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.

is the question whether you place the union as supreme, ie worthy of more respect that your employers? what should Christians have done in Tienanmen Square, what about in Thatcher's England?
what about caring for the weak, the unprotected among us, those unable to stand up for themselves?

would not not striking mean you are complicit in their mistreatment? we can't all be Daniel, having a chat with the King, or the CEO i guess in our case.

thoughts? advice?

Greed v Discontent

is there a difference between discontentment that leads to the accumulation of stuff (think shopping sprees) versus the better-than-the-joneses never-ending pursuit of wealth?
i mean to say feeling unfulfilled and discontent is quite a different malady than being greedy, but do they have necessarily different cures?
the solution to discontentment is to be content. content with who you are, what you have, where you fit in to the world, the grand scheme of things.
the drug of greed however seems quite different. is it necessarily due to a lack of fulfillment? for i think many greedy people are fulfilled, do have all they want, but simply enjoy the endless pursuit of more. i don't know whether this is a condition that needs a cure. i don't know whether the greedy person has a soul that cries out for meaning, for water to drink that will truly satisfy. i don't know whether this person needs anything? whether they need jesus?
the person who seeks contentment, however, will, and can truly be content when they find and accept jesus, the water that he brings.
but what, if anything, can we bring to the greedy person?