From the desk of Ryan Riggs

Music

2007-12-10T15:13:00.000-06:00

Well, I was recently tagged by my friend Kevin to post my 3 favorite albums of all time. If you haven't listened to these albums yet, then you must do so before you die. If you are dead already and haven't yet listened to these albums, there's not much I can do about it. However, for the rest of you, get on it.

1. Lifehouse-No Name Face
Many people hail this album for its hit singles such as Hanging by a Moment and Breathing. While these are good songs, they are no where near the best on the album. To me, a great CD is one in which you can get completely caught up in worship. The song Everything does this to me. Jesus is all I want, all I need, and He is my everything. Jason Wade clearly marked himself as a great song writer both before and after this CD.

2. Blyss-Diff's Lucky day
My love of Lifehouse and of Jason Wade as a songwriter inspired to track down some earlier work. This CD was a limited release, with only 1000 albums sold. It was made before the debut album of No Name Face and even before Lifehouse became Lifehouse. Some of the songs on Diff's made it to No Name Face, but the songs which remained behind are some powerful testaments to the song-writing capabilities of Wade. The basis of my blog is found in Ecclesiastes in which Solomon talks about the meaningless of worldly pursuits. Jason Wade echoes this in Mudpie, comparing worldy pursuits to the following of rainbows when he will follow the Sun (Son). Storm, recently redone in the latests Lifehouse album, Who We Are, is a great and powerful worship song testifying to our dependence on Christ: "And I will walk on water, and you will catch me if I fall."

3. 38th Parallel-Turn the Tides
While my first two albums are dead-set in my head, choosing a third was a much trickier task as my tastes do change over time and albums come and albums go. However, this one was always one of my favorites. 38th Parallel is a
local Ames band that made it big and has a unique sound to them. Horizon is still one of my favorite songs of all time. Check them out!

Rewriting Redbook

2007-03-27T01:45:00.000-05:00

Another poem by my girlfriend...

Rewriting Redbook

I once lifted salon shine tendrils from
Egyptian Cotton sheets,
Wrapping my perfumed body in a Chenille robe.
Long showers left a layer of moisture on the mirror.
Lather of Lavender.
Curled eyelashes,
frost eyeshadow and wild berry lipgloss.
Sunshine lyrics blared through molded earbuds.
Biting dark beans and creamy liquid caramel
performed a vibrant tango on my pink tongue.
My shallow routines mimicked Redbook taglines.
Goodbye sweet ignorance and carefree materialism
Your seduction and acceptance
no longer control my pocketbook.
A monastic life I choose.
Content in simple frocks, void of superficial entertainment.
Goodbye trendy aviators and saltwater pearls.
So long frothy Macchiato with your canned whipping cream.
Farwell overpriced stripmalls of
gone tomorrow trends.
I bid thee farewell waving
unmanicured hand.
Sip of reused teabag.
Hand-me-down sandals and hippie skirt.
Refreshed by the simplicity of reinvention.

Rest

2007-02-21T18:54:00.000-06:00

Psalm 95: 6-11 "Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker! For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasutre, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers put me to the test and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work. For forty years I loathed that generation and said, "They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways." Therefore I swore in my wrath, "They shall not enter my rest.""

Picture this: You are a people group who is the apple of God's eye. Though you have been through hardship and slavery, God delivers from your captors. He parted the Red Sea for you, gave you water from a rock, manna from heaven, and is leading and guiding you to the promised land, and more importantly, His rest. For a people who had suffered hundreds of years under the Egyptians, the promise of rest, not only physical, but spiritual, would supposedly drive them though the desert. But what did they do? At every turn they tested God (Massah) and quarrelled (Meribah) with each other. They basically angered God, who swore that they would not be allowed to enter His rest.

But hold on Ryan, remember that Israel did make it into the Promised Land under Joshua? You speak sooth, the next generation of Israel was able to enter the Promised Land, a place of physical rest, but God's spiritual rest had been removed from them. In Psalm 95, God tells us that Today we should listen to his voice and not harden our hearts. He is telling David that the promise of entering His rest still stands, Israel blew it. Joshua had led them to physical rest, but God's rest, spiritually being able to rest with God, as He rested on the seventh day, is available to all of us. Hebrew 4: 8 says "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on (to David)." Today, not thousands of years ago. The promise is to us today. So we should "take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you and evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'Today' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." (Hebrews 3: 12-13)

As we go through the wilderness of Sin much like Israel (see Exodus 17:1), we should believe in the living God and His word, which is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of sould and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4: 12)

In John 1:1 the Word becomes flesh a.k.a. Jesus. Interesting to note is that Jesus and Joshua's name stem from Yeshua, or "God is Savior." As Joshua led Israel into physical rest, so can Jesus lead us into His rest, Today.

The One

2007-01-30T12:39:00.000-06:00

A poem my girlfriend wrote....

The One
by Mallory Herrstrom

One
One touch.
One brush across the tips of your Holy tassels
One quick, unnoticed swipe
One stroke to break this agonizing bondage.

Pushing my way through a crushing crowd.
Unclean, unwanted, a disgrace.
To be seen would surely be my death.
I’m unhuman in their eyes
The patient of many doctors
Cursed and abandoned
Left to die.

One touch.
One brush at the base of your Holy cloak
I’d risk it all.
My life is a meager price
To know the healing of the Anointed One.
Some say I’m a fool
Yet with every ounce of my hemorrhaging body
I believe.

One touch.
One quick, unnoticed swipe
I would no longer cower in shame.
For He turns mourning to dancing
He revives the lowly in spirit.

I fight the overwhelming urge to flee
Lowering my afflicted body to a humble bow.
Reaching-
One shaking hand
Fearful and desperate
Slowly, faithfully
Towards the
One.

Death of Deus ex Machina...

2007-01-24T17:54:00.000-06:00

In Greek tragedies, as the play went on toward the end and the characters lives were getting more and more helplessly destroyed and no other ending could be seen appropriate, they would wheel in a god on a machine who would float above them and fix all their problems or kill someone, or do whatever it is that gods on machines did back in that day. God of the machince, Deus ex Machina. And that was their view of the gods.

That view still persists in many world religions. A type of Zeus figure waiting with thunderbolts on hand waiting for you to mess up so he can smite you, or just waiting to smite you for the Hades of it.

But not Jesus.

Here comes a someone who is different from all other gods in the fact that he is not different from us. He is not floating along in the clouds humming a catchy jingle and frying us with a magnifying glass. He became us. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. He suffered, starved, was tempted, mocked, ridiculed. Remember, if the world hates you, it hated me first. He can relate to us. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

When the Israelites were stricken by the plague of snakes in the desert, what did God fashion for them to look at to be saved? A mongoose, slayer of all snakes evil? No, an image of snake, raised on a tree, the very thing that was haunting them, could save them.

In similar fashion, to whom can man look to save us from ourselves? How about Jesus, the perfect image of mankind, raised on a tree. He called us brothers and calls us to himself. We can share in sufferings, becoming like him in his death and so somehow to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Jesus is not some other Deus ex Machina, he is the Son of Man.

Christian vs. Christian

2007-01-12T16:03:00.000-06:00

What do you do for a living? Are you a doctor? A lawyer? A pharmicist? A musician?

Are you a Christian?

Are you a Christian doctor?

Do you play in a Christian band?

Why does one of these seem more common to be asked than the other? Is it because that the word Christian is meant to be one referring to a person following after the teachings of Christ? i.e. a noun? How is it that society has started adjectifying this word? (Yes, I realize that I just verbalized that noun).

I guess that since our music and entertainment is a great source of praise for many Christians, they seek to know what they can or cannot use in their praise. The fact is, the label "Christian" as an adjective destroys the beauty of alot of art and tools than can be used in this manner. It seems to force Christians to embrace and enjoy something that they may not like, that may not be beautiful, may not be art.

Take, for example, low budget Christian movies. Should I like and claim these as a part of my worldview? Many I have seen have been terrible. Unfortunately, the label implies that I, being a Christian, must support and enjoy this. Conversely, if something is deemed as "nonChristian" I should not listen/watch/enjoy/whatever these things. If they are not "Christian" what good could there be in them right?

The fact is that God is our source of truth and beauty. What can be true and beautiful apart from him. If something is true and beautiful, claim it as your own, it is from God. Be wary of labels and people telling you, "This is a Christian band, you'll enjoy them."

Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

The truth is, I listen to alot of music that people would deem "Christian." However, Jesus calls all of his followers to pursue Him with all their heart in whatever it is they do. A lot of bands do this and do it well. They sing to God with all their hearts. A lot of movie directors do this. A lot of doctors do this. A lot of garbage men do this. If we focus on the heart of the follower and not the labels of society, we will be a lot freer to worship God.

The Title

2006-12-03T18:40:00.000-06:00

תלהק
א
ב
לבה לכה םילבה לבה תלהק רמא םילבה לבה

Ecclesiastes
1
2
"Meaningless Meaningless" says the Teacher "Utterly Meaningless, everything is Meaningless!"

The Teacher in this case, is the King Solomon, son of David. In the book of Ecclesiastes he is reflecting back on his life and contemplating its meaning, his purpose, and finds none. With all of his wisdom, greatness, riches, women, he still sees emptiness, Meaningless, vanity.
Eat, drink, be merry. Tommorow, you die. Death is the destiny of every man. Life is but a vapor, a mist. Naked you came into this world, naked you will leave it. What can you do, what will you do, with this short amount of time that hasn't been done before, that is new, that will never be forgotten? Nothing, the same destiny overtakes all. Enjoy life, all the days of your Meaningless life, that God has given you-all your Meaningless days under the Sun. wisdomFOLLY, lifeDEATH, timeVAPOR, everythingMEANINGLESS.

ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ
10
10
ΕΓΩ ΗΛΘΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΖΩΗΝ ΕΧΩΣΙΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΝ ΕΧΩΣΙΝ

John
10
10
"I have come that you may have life, and have it to the full."

The Teacher, in this case, in Jesus, son of David. theWAY, theTRUTH, theLIFE. What else is there? What is there on this earth that we can do to gain favor in his eyes but follow after HIM? He came to bring hope to a world without. LIGHT into darkness, LIFE to the dead. MEANING to meaninglessness.

Conclusion of the Matter: fearGODloveJESUS.

"Doubting Thomas" by Nickel Creek

2006-07-15T17:25:00.000-05:00

This song by Nickel Creek is not only a great song, but also a challening one. I think the lyrics speak for itself:

"What will be left when I've drawn my last breath
Besides the folks I've met and the folks who've known me
Will I discover a soul-saving love
Or just the dirt above and below me

I'm a doubting Thomas
I took a promise
But I do not feel safe
Oh me of little faith

Sometimes I pray for a slap in the face
Then I beg to be spared 'cause I'm a coward
If there's a master of death
I bet he's holding his breath
As I show the blind and tell the deaf about his power

I'm a doubting Thomas
I can't keep my promises
Cause I don't know what's safe
Oh me of little faith

Can I be used to help others find truth
When I'm scared I'll find proof that it's a lie
Can I be led down a trail dropping bread crumbs
That prove I'm not ready to die

Please give me time to decipher the signs
Please forgive me for time that I've wasted

I'm a doubting Thomas
I'll take your promise
Though I know nothin's safe
Oh me of little faith"

How Rome Fell: Manpower Shortage and Its Implications for the Western Roman Empire

2006-05-08T11:01:00.000-05:00

When Edward Gibbon published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he was not the first one to put forth a theory regarding the decline of the Roman Empire. And he would certainly not be the last. He seemed only to have laid the cornerstone on which a type of ‘Tower of Babel’ would be built by hundreds of succeeding historians for centuries later, reaching to God-knows-where, towering into the heavens in search of the reasons why this great empire ever came to a close, if it indeed fell at all. And it seems that the builders of this Babel are as equally confused as their predecessors, their theories as varied as the languages in which they were written. Despite such confusion, the construction of this Tower is far from being abandoned and one can only speculate as to whether its pinnacle will ever be achieved. Until that day comes, climb on.
With such diversity amongst these theories, it is difficult and treacherous to lump any together, but for the sake of ease, this must be done. Gibbon put forth the theory of a ‘declining empire’ by turning the blame toward the loss of civic virtue of Rome and her citizens. Vegetius blamed the barbarians and ‘barbarization’ of Rome. Ludwig von Mises turned on price controls and inflation. Other theories derive from the assumption that Rome was ‘doomed from the start.’ Such supporters of this theory are Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke who claim that Rome was rotten from its inception and ergo, destined for failure and collapse. Further still, many historians have put forth the idea that Rome neither fell, nor even declined at all. Henri Pirenne stated that the empire continued all the way up to the Arab conquests of the 7th century. Others, like Peter Brown, refer to the period as ‘Late Antiquity’ in which Rome was merely transformed from a classical to a medieval culture (en.wikipedia.org).
With all of these differing theories by hundreds of respectable historians, the thought of a student pinning the underlying cause to the downfall of the world’s greatest empire is similar to that of a toddler putting the star on top of a 20-foot Christmas tree in a room full of hundreds of full-grown adults much taller than he. However, he can study a few of the given theories and come up with what he feels is the best explanation. This is the attempt by this student in the following paper. It is in my opinion that Rome did indeed fall and this was due to manpower shortage. This theory has been greatly stressed by Moses Finley in The Economic Decline of Empires, and also by Arthur E.R. Boak in Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. It is in examining these two historians’ opinions, along with help from others, and also in looking briefly at some objections and responses to this theory, that we will see what I believe to be the root of the fall of the great Roman Empire.
The starting point in examining this theory should be in stating the seemingly simple cycle put forth by Moses Finley for Rome’s economic collapse:

The army could not be enlarged because the land could not stand further depletion of manpower; the situation on the land had deteriorated because taxes were too high; taxes were too high because the military demands were increasing; and for that the German pressures were mainly responsible (Finley, 1970, 90).

To begin to break down this cycle we must first look at problems the army was facing and discover the reasons why it needed to be enlarged. Firstly was the issue of such a large border to protect and maintain. Rome consisted of about 1,600,000 square miles (Finley, 1970, 85). Right at its heart was the Mediterranean Sea. Due to its enormity and the fact that the Sea aided in cutting up its lines of communication, a greater army was needed than would have been for a more compact state (Boak, 1955, 114-5). This becomes evident when one compared the size of the army to that of France under Louis XIV. Both Marcus Aurelius and Louis XIV had army sizes of approximately 300,000. However, France was only 211,000 square miles compared to Rome’s 1,600,000 (www.cia.gov; Finley, 1970, 85-6).
Rome’s large frontier was under constant threat from Persians and barbarians alike (Boak, 1955, 115). Warring against the Germanic tribes was not like warring against a neighboring nation. These Germanic tribes were migratory. They wanted to loot the Roman lands and they began to settle on them. They did not work. Many attempts were made to get them to work but failed simply because the barbarian tribes would not be Romanized and these attempts attracted even more Germans to cross the borders in search of similar treatment. With a frontier ranging from the Rhine river all the way to the Black Sea and over to Persia, Germans were pouring in and infesting the lands. Even the increased army size of 600,000 established under Diocletian was insufficient to protect such a large border from its enemy (Finley, 1970, 88).
The battle of the frontiers was not the only problem facing the army. The problem was also internal. It seemed that in the 3rd century the Roman armies were more preoccupied with fighting amongst their own people than fighting the barbarian Germans (Finely, 1970, 86). Michael Rostovtzeff addresses this issue in The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. In this work Rostovtzeff claims that there was a class struggle between the cities and the rural areas. The rural areas had the army made up of its members who shared their same views (Rostovtzeff, 1966, 494). Rostovtzeff goes on to state that “it was evidently not easy to convince the soldiers that the cities of the Empire were not their chief enemies (Rostovtzeff, 1966, 498).” The army itself, however, fought well most of the time. Whenever they did engage the barbarians, they were usually victorious. What they could not do was cope with the enemy for such an extended period of time (Finley, 1970, 88).
The army needed further additions. Volunteers were rare and played a very small role in the Roman army. Patriotism, Finley notes, was lukewarm at best. Despite not wanting to see their empire ripped apart by their enemies, no one felt any personal responsibility themselves for its protection. At times they would even cut off their own fingers to escape servitude in the army (Finley, 1970, 87). Because of this, emperors had to turn to barbarians, the very enemy they were fighting, to increase their army. This led to the eventual barbarization of the army. The barbarians had a role not only in the ranks but also in the officer corps. Some were even commanding generals. This brought even more barbarian tribes to settle on the lands (Boak, 1955, 116). In the opinion of Arthur Boak:

The inability of the Roman government to prevent the settlement of these allies as well as other invaders within the Empire, coupled with the passing of the command of the army of the West into the hands of barbarian king makers was the immediate cause of the disintegration of the Western Empire (Boak, 1955, 116).

Both Finley and Boak agree that it would be naïve and stupid to think the Roman leaders simply did not foresee such problems that such policies would invoke. Indeed, they did, however, other attempts to mend said problems had failed and it seemed remarkable that the Roman Empire, at least in the west, had not collapsed earlier (Boak, 1955, 115-6; Finley, 1970, 86). Gibbon himself echoes that we should not wonder why the Empire was destroyed, but rather wonder how it existed for as long as it did (Gibbon, 161).
What of population size? Perhaps Rome was unable to increase its army size due to a small total population. Both Finley and Boak agree that the exact size of population does not play a large role. To quote Boak: “…there might be an increase in total population and yet a shortage of manpower in critical occupation groups. I do not, however, mean to imply that any such increase took place in the Roman state during the period in question (Boak, 1955, 2).” Finley echoes Boak by stating that what really matters is the proportion of the population in the army. Finley does say, however, that it would be beneficial to know if the total population was increasing, decreasing, or stagnant (Finley, 1970, 85-6). Apparently, Boak agrees as well, for it is to Boak we turn to examine more closely the population pattern facing Rome.
Before jumping into an examination of the population of the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth century, Boak says that it is first necessary to examine the population trends earlier in Rome’s history. This is extremely difficult due to a lack of statistics and leads to great divergence in quoted statistics by historians. For example, during the reign of Augustus, Beloch claims a total population of between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 whereas Ferdinand Lot gives between 60,000,000 and 65,000,000 and Ernst Stein around 70,000,000. The difference between the greatest and lowest estimate is 20,000,000 or 40 per cent of the lowest estimate! Examining the question of depopulation becomes extremely sticky. Boak prefers to stick to the lower of the estimates (Boak, 1955, 4-5; 7).
Equally dangerous is the desire to compare the population situation of Rome to those of modern day societies facing similar situations with more readily available statistics. There are far too many variables such as differences in the types of crops used, tools and machinery, methods of fertilization and irrigation, state of technology, and countless others. Only when many of these variables are certain to be similar, from crops and tools to even religious ideas and thoughts of the day can it be said that an ancient population might have been similar to that of a modern society (Boak, 1955, 7-8).
The most important points to take away from Boak’s study are thus: Firstly, that by the middle of the third century Rome’s population was already decreasing. Secondly, a similar country to that of ancient Rome is China who is also primarily agricultural country relying on manpower rather than machinery for its sustenance (Boak, 1955, 11; 112-3). Thirdly, “once the Chinese population began to decrease, it continued its downward trend long after the conditions which produced the decline were reversed and conditions favoring a population rise had set in (Boak, 1955, 13).” Finally, no such favorable condition was ever established in Rome during the fourth and fifth centuries (Boak, 1955, 113).
It is also interesting to note that ever since the appearance of mankind, the human population has not increased steadily. In fact, periods of remarkable increase seem to be merely an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself (Boak, 1955, 14). So in light of everything that Rome was facing it is safe to say its population was decreasing.
So with all of the problems facing the army as mentioned above, there was simply not enough manpower. When emperor Diocletian increased the army from 300,000 to 600,000 it still proved insufficient. To where did this burden fall? It fell upon the agricultural workers of the rural areas who were already being burdened by a decreasing population. Not only did they lose manpower to the army, but the increased army size also meant another source of suffering for the farmers: Taxes.
Agriculture was the main source of wealth in the Roman era. Its production depended on manpower. Had the agricultural population been increasing, more could have been produced (Boak, 1955, 112). However, as we have seen, this was not the case in the Roman Empire and taxes only hurt the agricultural community. Going back to the model discussed by Moses Finley, before the needs for an increased army size arose, the Roman population had reached a sort of equilibrium in which they produced enough for themselves to live on and to support the wealthy aristocracy (Finley, 1970, 89). With the increase in needs of the army and subsequent taxes, the cycle was horrifically broken.
A.H.M. Jones addresses the issue of taxes in more detail in The Decline of the Ancient World. Some important points made by Jones are as follows: Firstly, that the rate of tax was remaining the same regardless of whether the population was rising or falling, and as we have seen, it was falling. Secondly, that all landowners paid the same amount of tax from the wealthiest of senators to the poorest of peasants. Finally, that the load of taxing introduced by the government was, with very few exceptions, not progressive and proved a crushing blow to the agricultural economy and, ultimately, to Rome (Jones, 1966, 176-7; 180). They could no longer raise enough to maintain their numbers, much less increase them. Lands were abandoned and taxes merely kept rising, providing more strain on those who were left (Boak, 1955, 112; 125).
Now that we have examined my opinion on the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire, we must quickly address other theories brought forth to explain the decrease in the agricultural population and also examine Boak’s rebuttal of them. Firstly is that of soil quality. It is known that Greece, Sicily and the Italian peninsula had suffered from soil erosion, but no discovery has shown there to be any such erosion in any other part of the Roman Empire, therefore the declining population is a much more likely explanation for a decrease in agricultural production (Boak, 1955, 120).
Secondly, some people ask, “Why did not the extensive settlements of the Germanic peoples aide in reversing the downward population trend?” The answer is quite simple, like other peoples of the day the Germans had a high infant mortality rate and low life expectancy. Beyond this, the life of those who settled on the Roman lands was little different from that of a slave’s. They were no better off than the Romans.
Some historians claim that the rise of Christianity played a large role in the downfall of Rome bringing high standards of morality and a greater emphasis on the family life to its people. Boak, however, claims its effects were marginal at best. Christianity was first established as a religion in the urban regions of the empire. Its spread to the rural areas of the empire was slow. The term we know as ‘pagan’ has derived from their paganus or ‘countryman’ and as we have seen, the urban population was decreasing as much as that of the rural (Boak, 1955, 128-9). Gibbon himself states that, to a falling empire, Christianity only aided in breaking the violence of the fall (Gibbon, 163).
Therefore, in conclusion, I maintain that the downfall was thus: the army, being unable to put up with further harassment from the invading tribes, needed increasing. This burden fell upon the agricultural community. Due to both losing the manpower necessary to maintain the lands and to pressures from ever-increasing taxes, they were no longer able to function under such heavy demands “and so, with declining manpower and increasing impoverishment, the Roman Empire in the west, unable to defend itself against disintegration from within and invasion from without, staggered slowly on to its inevitable dissolution (Boak, 1955, 129) and “the brightest light of the whole world was extinguished (Finley, 1970, 87).”

Bibliography

Boak, Arthur E.R., Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, Jerome Lectures Third Series (Ann Arbor, MI, 1955).

Central Intelligence Agency

“Decline of the Roman Empire”. Wikipedia. (2006).
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire>

Finley, Moses, ‘Manpower and the Fall of Rome’, in Carlo M. Cipolla (ed.), The Economic Decline of Empires (London, 1970), pp. 84-91.

Gibbon, Edward, ‘General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West’, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury, 7 vols. (London: Methuen, 1909-13), iv, pp. 160-9.

Jones, A.H.M., ‘Finance’, The Decline of the Ancient World, (London, 1966), chp. 13. MBB, pp. 154-180.

Rostovtzeff, Michael, ‘The Empire During the Anarcy’, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 2 vols. (2nd ed, Oxford, 1966), pp.490-501.

Why Women Should Be Allowed to Eat Their Babies

2006-04-12T06:04:00.000-05:00

In “A Modest Proposal,” written in 1729 as a solution to help prevent the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their parents or country and to make them beneficial to the public, Jonathan Swift writes: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled.”
Hi, my name is Ryan Riggs and I’d like to thank you for allowing me to come in and speak to you today. Having my doctorates degree in sociology and being a very strong pro-choice advocate, I have been enthralled with the choices that this country has made in the past couple of decades, especially in the area of women’s choice, which is what I am here to talk to you about today.
While “A Modest Proposal” was written as a sarcastic solution for the problems of the day, their society was nowhere near as ready for such a drastic measure as ours is. Perhaps his idea was not so far off as the people of 1729, including Swift himself, thought it was. While the rights to abortion won in the 1972 Roe vs. Wade case is great for women and their right to choice, we need to take it a step further: Women should be allowed to eat their babies.
I know what you are thinking: What kind of monster is this? This guy is off his rocker. What a sick and twisted man this is. Well, before you jump to conclusions, let’s take a look at some of the benefits that a law supporting the eating of babies would give us.
First of all, it would be more humane than an abortion, both for the child and for the mother. While abortion has been a great step, it is not perfect. Abortion has been known to have physical and mental complications for the mothers. According to Johns Hopkins University, genital tract infection is a well-known complication of abortion occurring in 5.2% of first trimester abortions and 18.5% of midtrimester abortions. Infection can also cause permanent damage. The Fallopian tube is a fragile organ and if infection injures it, it could seal shut. This could then lead to infertility. My proposed law would eliminate these effects altogether. As long as the cooking job is thorough, there should be no worries about any physical side effects whatsoever. Also, it would be a more humane process. In an abortion, the fetus’ limbs are ripped off and the skull crushed, and then all the pieces sucked out of the woman’s body. Not only is this not the most humane way of going about it, it is also very wasteful. My proposed procedure could be done with a lethal injection making for a very quick and painless death and leave the child intact for further preparation.
Furthermore, it is much more cost-effective than an abortion. An abortion can cost several hundred dollars. My suggested procedure would only cost roughly around 20 dollars to provide for the vial of lethal injection fluid and syringe. Cooking spices and oils would add slightly to the cost but overall it would still be much less than an abortion. If the mother did not want to eat the child, she could sell it to a restaurant to be served as a delicacy. Money saved from this procedure does not even begin to scratch the surface of money that would be saved from raising the child: food, clothing, and shelter for 18 years. According to http://partners.financenter.com/netscape/calculate/us-eng/budget07.fcs, this could amount to $177,700,and this number does not include the cost to put the child through college.
What about adoption? Please! Give me a break... No one told you that sex could lead to pregnancy and after 9 months of hard labor why should you turn around and slake the hunger of another greedy couple just dying to get their hands on this rare delicatessen? Oh no, their lies about how "hard they've been trying and trying to have a child but couldn't" shouldn't fool you. They're probably already preheating the oven and trying not to drool on the forms they want you to sign so hastily. No way, you're going to enjoy every bite of this child, no one else.
Finally, it would take a lot of stress off of the mother. No more dirty diapers or screaming babies to worry about every waking moment of the day. Just a relaxing meal to enjoy with her beloved partner and desired children. Nights could be slept all the way through without needing to rock the baby back to sleep at 4 o’clock in the morning. It would provide a nice trial period for the mother to see if this baby is what she wants. Is the baby an undesired sex? Is there a physical or mental defect on the child that you would rather not waste your time dealing with? No problem. Zip on over to your local Hy-Vee and for 20 measly bucks you could have your problem solved and a nice hearty supper.
In conclusion, I think that my proposal is the next rung of the women’s rights ladder that we need to climb. We are already well into our ascent with such great steps taken like the Roe vs. Wade case but must improve on this great idea. My solution would do just that. After considering the benefits of money, health, stress and overall deliciousness, I hope that you will seriously reconsider your stance on the mother’s right to eat her babies and help support me in my strive for the ratification of this law so that everyone’s lives can continue to be changed for the better. Thank you.

Karl Barth's Dialectical Theology: A Justified Attack on Liberal Protestantism

2006-03-19T18:43:00.000-06:00

In 1886, one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century was born in Basle, Switzerland. His name was Karl Barth. Barth is best known for his development of the ‘theology of crisis’ or ‘dialectical theology.’ This theology deals primarily with the gap between God and humanity and that any bridging on this gap is based solely on the initiative of God and not by any attempt made by man (McGrath, 30). In this theology, Barth goes against the main teaching of the day: Liberal Protestantism. Barth himself was brought up and trained in the theological teachings of Liberal Protestantism and so it is in briefly examining the background of Barth and the teachings of Liberal Protestantism that we can begin to further examine the radical viewpoint taken by Barth. Barth’s theology deals with God’s contact with humanity through Jesus Christ. It can be broken up into two main segments: The ‘no’ of God through the cross and death of Jesus and the ‘yes’ of God through His resurrection three days later (McGrath, 30; Heron, 77-8). After the analysis of Barth’s theology in contrast with that of Liberal Protestantism, one will conclude that Barth’s attack on Liberal Protestantism was indeed justified and altered the course of theology forever.
As previously mentioned, Barth was educated in the doctrine of Liberal Protestantism. He received his training in Bern, Berlin from Adolf von Harnack and Hermann Gunkel and also at Tubingen and Marburg from Wilhelm Herrmann (McGrath, 30). Liberal Protestantism owes much of its roots to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ‘the father of modern theology.’ Schleiermacher was greatly influenced by the works of Karl Marx and his ‘turn to the self’ philosophy. Schleiermacher’s most important works are Addresses on Religion, to its Cultured Despisers and The Christian Faith. Addresses was written as a defense of religion to those who wanted to dismiss it as superstition and The Christian Faith presents the main themes of the teachings of Christianity (Heron, 23).
The subject of Schleiermacher’s theology is mankind and is centered on what is known as the ‘religious experience’ (Heron, 25). It is through this experience that talk about God can happen. Talk of God cannot happen directly. Essentially, then, this is what the Bible is, a discourse of human experiences. Human beings can progress toward divinity by being more and more God-conscious. Along these same lines come the Liberal Protestants’ view on Jesus and sin. Jesus was divine because his God-consciousness was absolutely potent (Fletcher Lecture, 26/01/06):

"The Redeemer, then, is like all men in virtue of the identity of human nature, but distinguished from them all by the constant potency of His God-consciousness which was a veritable existence of God in Him (Schleiermacher, 385)."

Sin is merely the absence of God-consciousness. Two themes of this philosophy stand out and provide the source of distress for Barth: Firstly, that humans can progress and secondly that humans are innately good (Fletcher Lecture, 26/01/06). A major event happened in Barth’s lifetime that affected not only the world, but also caused his break-off with Liberal Protestantism. This was World War I.
Barth was a pastor of church in Safenwil, Switzerland from 1911-1921 (McGrath, 30). It was in the middle of his tenure here that he and the world witnessed the first ‘war to end all wars’ take place. As he looked out into his congregation he could see in their faces the hardships that they had been through, and he found that he could no longer teach the message of Liberal Protestantism. The thought of progress of mankind could not apply to these people who had known nothing but struggles their whole lives (Fletcher Lecture, 31/01/06). The war only added to this doubt. “The liberal message of progress through human effort was simply no message for a world at war (Klooster, 18).”
The actions of his Liberal Protestant peers only affirmed this belief. In August of 1914, as the war was beginning, 93 German intellectuals signed a declaration of support for the Kaiser’s war policy. They called it necessary for the defense of the Christian faith and way of life. Many of these German intellectuals were Barth’s former theological teachers. It was a “black day” according to Barth. He now deemed the message of the Protestants of the day to have lost all credibility. Their philosophy no longer had a future and Barth set out to formulate his own (Heron, 75).
In his quest to develop a new theology, Barth came across the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard and the novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky. These works helped Barth to reaffirm the depth of humanity and the otherness and divinity of God. Another influence to whom Barth turned was Franz Overbeck, a Swiss philosopher, who maintained that if a religion was to be genuine, it needed to rely on the revelation of the supernatural coming from beyond history. The teachings of J.C. Blumhardt that the kingdom of God would not come through the progression of mankind but would come from God himself was a further influence on the philosophy of Barth (Heron, 75-6).
The most important and radical aspect of Barth’s theology was to ‘let God be God’, not man (McGrath, 31). Barth’s ‘dialectical theology’ dealt with precisely this. There is a diastema between God and humanity. Diastema refers to spacing (Fletcher Lecture, 31/01/06). This leads to a crisis between transcendence and immanence, the infinite and the finite, God and humanity. It is

"what Kierkegaard called the ‘infinite qualitative distinction’ between time and eternity, and to my regarding this as possessing negative as well as positive significance: ‘God is in heaven, and thou art on earth.’ The relation between such a God and such a man, and the relation between such a man and such a God, is for me the theme of the Bible and the essence of philosophy. Philosophers name this KRISIS of human perception (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 10)."

This diastema can only be crossed by God and through his revelation to us.
Barth’s theology can be broken down into three main emphases: “first, the ‘Godness of God’; second, the reality of the Word of God in Jesus Christ; third, the impossibility of building theology itself on any other foundation (Heron, 79).” When Barth first set out to formulate this new, radical theology, he focused heavily on the first and third of the aforementioned emphases. He drew, and still draws even today, heavy criticism for being too negative in his approach to God and man (Heron, 79). However, it is in looking at all three that one can better grasp the whole of Barth’s theology, beginning with the first and third emphases, and wrapping up with the second.
Firstly, Barth attempts to redefine God. To do this he looked firstly at a common misconception of God. He states that

"when man speaks of God…then he means the object of the universally present and active longing, the object of man’s homesickness and man’s hope for a unity, a basis, a meaning to his existence, and the meaning of the world (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 35)."

God, on the other hand, continues Barth

"is in no way established in us, in no way corresponds to a human disposition and possibility, but who is in every sense established simply in Himself and is real in that way; and who is manifest and made manifest to us men, not because of our seeking and finding, feeling and thinking, but again and again only through himself (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 37)."

This goes against the very foundations of Liberal Protestantism. God does not come from the subject of man, but He Himself is the subject, a separate, divine entity. Likewise, Barth goes on to explain how the Bible is not a ‘history book’ nor does it attempt to prove God. God is unprovable and inconceivable. The Bible, on the other hand, describes acts by God and is a method in which he becomes knowable to us, not vice versa (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 38). God is not found in humans, but is separate from all of the other gods and once this is found to be true, these other “gods collapse in the dust” (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 36; 40).
Therefore, if God is not to be found within humans, then there must be a conflict between God and mankind, instead of a likeness between the two, as put forth by the Liberal Protestants of the day. There is, in fact, a crisis, and Barth attempts to describe this for us. The Bible, according to Barth in his Epistle to the Romans, tells us very clearly what some of these contradictions are:

"He promises eternal life - to those who are dead. He speaks of the blessedness of resurrection - to those who are compassed about with corruption. He pronounces those in whom sin dwells - to be righteous. He calls those oppressed with ceaseless tribulation - blessed. He promises abundance of riches – to those abounding only in hunger and thirst (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 20)."

Furthermore, the Bible

"contradicts and condemns us in our pride, our self-sufficiency, our ethics, our politics, and our religion which, far from being our point of closest access to God, is the house we build in order to hide ourselves from him, to convince ourselves that we have him in our control (Heron, 77)."

Barth tears down the foundation of the Liberal Protestants’ attempt to make man the subject of religious philosophy. This viewpoint not only goes against the teachings of Liberal Protestants, but also against the teachings of the modern day Catholic church, who attempt to put their trust in the church or in spirituality instead of in God. In making ourselves the center of theology, we are going against the second of the Ten Commandments put forth by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai: “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below (The Holy Bible, 66).” Barth says that any man-centered philosophy such as Liberal Protestantism or any denomination who put their faith in a church rather than in the God who “does not live in temples built by hands (The Holy Bible, 963)” is exactly that: Idolatry. It had become not a place to worship the one true God, but to realize man’s own divinity apart from Him (Heron, 79).
An excerpt from The Bible and Barth’s Epistle to the Romans can further help one to understand the concept of man’s imperfection and, in fact, the impossibility of man to be the subject of theology. This passage is that of Romans 3:23: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (The Holy Bible, 978).” This verse, says Barth, states “there is no positive possession of men which is sufficient to provide a foundation for human solidarity (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 100).”
These two points, the “Godness of God” and the impossibility of men, or anything else for that matter, as a foundation of theology are directly correlated with what Barth talks about as the ‘no’ of God. This becomes very clear in the cross of Jesus. Through this act, God removed any and all hope of mankind to bridge the gap separating them from God themselves. This does not negate all hope, just the possibility of that hope being derived from within oneself. Because of this ‘no’, men are left nowhere to turn, but to God. And because of this utter and complete negation through the cross, the ‘yes’ of God through the resurrection of Jesus is even sweeter (Heron, 77-8). Faith, then, is based “solely [on] the promise and invitation of God” and not, according to Schleiermacher and other Liberal Protestants, “a general and universally accessible awareness of absolute dependence, but the response in the ‘moment’ to the Word of God himself, a Word which continually creates and renews the possibility of faith (Heron, 78).”
Had Barth’s focus remained on the first and third emphasis dealing with the ‘no’ of God, he would probably hold little to no theological importance today. However, Barth’s theology does not end there and continues with the second of the three emphases and the ‘yes’ of God. This is the “reality of the Word of God in Jesus Christ” as mentioned earlier. It is through the Word, or logos, that God himself bridges the gap between himself and humanity (Heron, 78-9). In John’s gospel, “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (The Holy Bible, 919).” “God has crossed the infinite gulf in Jesus Christ to claim man as his friend and partner (Heron, 80).”
It is this very promise of God that became central to Barth’s theology, despite several years of the one-sidedness of his earlier works in which he focused mainly on the ‘no’ aspect of God, rather than the ‘yes’ promise of Jesus Christ. He maintained, however, that one couldn’t fully appreciate or realize the awesomeness and splendor of such a promise without fully grasping the hopeless depravity of the state of mankind when left to its own devices. And it is after realizing this fact and having studied and examining the ‘no’ of God that one can now move on to study this very promise that He has given to us (Heron, 79-80).
It is through this promise that one can now fully understand the comment by Barth that “God in the highest does not mean someone quite other, who has nothing to do with us, who does not concern us, who is eternally alien to us” but however “means He who from on high has condescended to us, has come to us, has become ours (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 37).” He has accomplished this through Jesus Christ.
Through Jesus, the crisis is resolved, and this fully accomplished by God himself, not us. Yes, man is corrupt and is destined for destruction based solely on their attempts. Yes, God is a completely separate entity from mankind. However, He reaches down and touches us through Jesus.

"He whose nature and essence consist, whose existence is proved, in His descending into the depths, He the Merciful, who gives Himself up for His creature to the utter depths of the existence of His creature – He is God in the highest. Not in spite of this, not in remarkable paradoxical opposition, but the highness of God consists in His thus descending. This is his exalted nature, this His free love (Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 40)."

Not only is this an act of love, but it also gives mankind a hope. For

"what…would be our fate, were we not powerful in hope, were we not hurrying through the darkness of the world along the road which is enlightened by the Spirit and by the Word of God (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 20)?"

This teaching does point to the hopelessness of mankind, but it also points to the great hope that can be had by mankind and does not have to, and in fact cannot be, derived from within. It comes from God.
And so it can be said that the teachings and writings of Karl Barth turned the modern view of theology upside down by doing exactly that. It took the traditional view held by the Liberal Protestants of the day and reversed them. No longer was man the center, but God. No longer could man cross the diastema between himself and God, but it is God who crosses this gulf through his immense promise in Christ Jesus. Barth uprooted the foundation upon which lay the very hope of mankind, themselves, and planted it in its one, true source, God.
Where the Liberal Protestants saw an innate goodness and potential for progress, Barth saw corruption, evil, hardships and tiredness. He saw it everywhere, from his congregation in the little town of Safenwil, Switzerland to Adolf Hitler, against whom he organized a church resistance and was eventually expelled from Germany in 1935. It didn’t end there. With the rise of Hitler came the Second World War, during which Barth supported the Allied forces and opposed Swiss neutrality. Then came the Cold War. Again, Barth was politically active in his opposition to Reinhold Neibuhr who was urging the support of the Soviet Union during the Cold War (McGrath, 31).
Even after Barth’s death in 1968, these tragedies continue (McGrath, 30). From the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City to the bombings in London; from the man who cheats on his taxes and the bully who beats up the weaker kid down the street for a couple of quid, it is in actions such as these that Barth sees a never-ending conflict between God and man with no hope for progress without divine intervention. Are these problems just isolated among certain people or is there a deeper problem lying at the very root of mankind?
If, according to Romans 3:23 and Barth’s commentary on that passage, all have indeed sinned, what does this mean? According to Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (The Holy Bible, 980).” This verse acts a summary of the whole of Barth’s theology and upon it Barth provides perhaps the most convicting and convincing attack on Liberal Protestantism. Regarding this verse, Barth says that

"grace is the KRISIS from death to life. Death is therefore at once the absolute demand and the absolute power of obedience over sin. No tension or polarity is possible between grace and sin; there can be no adjustment or equilibrium or even temporary compromise between them. As men under grace, we cannot admit or allow grace and sin to be two alternative possibilities or necessities, each with its own rights and properties. For this reason, the Gospel of Christ is a shattering disturbance, an assault which brings everything into question. For this reason, nothing is so meaningless as the attempt to construct a religion out of the Gospel, and to set it as one human possibility in the midst of others. Since Schleiermacher, this attempt has been undertaken more consciously than ever before in Protestant theology – and it is the betrayal of Christ (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 225)."

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. 6th ed. Trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Barth, Karl. “God in the Highest.” Dogmatics in Outline. London: SCM Press, 1949. Pp. 35-41.

Fletcher, Paul. Lecture. 26/01/06.

Fletcher, Paul. Lecture. 31/01/06.

Heron, Alasdair I.C. A Century of Protestant Theology. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1985.

Holy Bible, The. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

Klooster, Fred H. The Significance of Barth’s Theology: An Appraisal: With Special Reference to Election and Reconciliation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961.

McGrath, Alister, ed. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. 2nd ed. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, eds. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1928.