The term polygamy denotes a person having more than one spouse at one time. The term polyandry denotes a woman having more than one husband, polygyny a man having more than one wife, and communal marriage multiple husbands being in relationship with multiple wives.
Western cultures, under the influence of the NT and centuries of Christian and European tradition, have rejected polygamy theologically, morally, and legally. And yet it exists in many parts of the world, creating challenges when Western missionaries encounter polygamous cultures. Meanwhile, the weakening of Christian cultural hegemony in the West has begun to create the conditions for a questioning of any inherited norm in relation to marriage.
Biblical Considerations
Christian ethics has taught that monogamy reflects God’s design for marriage. The argument is that monogamy was established by God in creation (Gen. 2:18-25), reaffirmed by Christ in his teachings about marriage (Matt. 19:3-12 // Mark 10:212), and echoed in the later NT when it touches on marriage (1 Cor. 6:16; 7:1-2; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 3:2). The turn early in the church’s history toward a sometimes pessimistic and ascetic approach to sexuality, in which celibacy competed with monogamous marriage as the highest expression of Christian discipleship, moved the church even farther away from any acceptance of polygamy.
Certainly the tradition has recognized that polygamy (technically, polygyny) is recorded in numerous stories of the OT, such as the ancestor narratives of Gen. 12-36, in the stories of Lamech (Gen. 4:19), Gideon (Judg. 8:30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1-2), and Joash (2 Chr. 24:1-3), and in the sad, lengthy tales of David and Solomon. Yet Christian leaders have been quick to note that polygamy is not explicitly endorsed, only described, and that its effects quite often were problematic if not disastrous. Polygamy seems to have been the preserve of exceptionally powerful and wealthy men whose sprawling households of wives and half-related children often were filled with favored and disfavored wives and children and vexed by the inevitable intrigues, jealousies, and hard feelings (the problem was sufficient to prompt legislation regulating how disfavored wives and children were to be treated [Deut. 21:15-17]). Solomon’s polygamy comes in for special opprobrium as the avenue through which idolatry infected Israel at the height of its power. Maintenance of such a massive household also contributed to Solomon’s exploitative use of power and violation of Israel’s older, more egalitarian traditions (see 1 Kgs. 11).
The practice of concubinage, also recorded frequently in the OT (Gen. 16:3; 30:3; Judg. 19:1), in which the man enjoyed sexual access to a woman who did not have the status of “wife” to him, leaving him free to bed other women, has been even more objectionable in Christian thought.
The setting aside of divine permission or concession for polygamy and concubinage, if such had ever really been permitted, has been taken by most Western Christians as clear from the prior and subsequent biblical evidence. Rejection of this interpretation of Scripture historically has been confined to heterodox groups such as the Mormons.
As Christian thinking about marriage turned in more modern times in more personal, relational, and companionate directions, polygamy became even more unthinkable. The interpersonal intimacy sought in marriage seems entirely incompatible with the maintenance of multiple simultaneous marriages. And it did not take a well-developed form of feminism for modern Christians to oppose polygamy as oppressive to women and as a venue for male sexual license—organized adultery.
Contemporary Challenges
Christians in nations still practicing polygamy have struggled with the issue of whether monogamy should be treated as a nonnegotiable element of Christian morality. For the church to bring people to Christian faith and then demand that they shatter the polygamous relationships to which they were committed strikes many as a damaging practice that does more harm than good—espe-cially, for example, to women and children who are abandoned by new Christian converts. One solution, offered by John Pobee for the African setting, suggests that in such situations those new Christians who are already polygamists should be permitted to continue existing relationships as long as they care for the wives and children that they have and create no new marriages. The unmarried and those with one wife must not enter into polygamous unions. This approach gradually eases polygamy out of the church, if not the culture.
The Western setting is, if anything, even more interesting. Marriage, understood as a sexually exclusive lifetime covenant between one adult man and one adult woman, the God-given locus for adult male/female companionship, sexual expression, procreation, and childrearing, is a legacy of Christian civilization. For centuries it was both taught by the churches and enforced by the state. Even when states disestablished Christianity, as in the United States, a deep cultural establishment continued that worked its way into both law and culture.
Late-twentieth-century developments in Western cultures have shattered the cultural hegemony of Christianity and therefore of the Christian understanding of marriage. Marriage is no longer the privileged locus for sexual expression; procreation and childrearing happen routinely outside of marriage; many adults live together without benefit of marriage; some press for sex between adults and children; many marriages are not sexually exclusive; at least 40 percent of all marriages end in divorce; many people marry two, three, or more times; and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals enter into marriage or marriage-like relationships. Western law continues to evolve to make room for greater and greater personal freedom to enter into whatever adult sexual and romantic partnerships might be desired. Eventually, the state may abandon any regulatory efforts in this arena, although there are strong social reasons to continue to regulate marriage.
In this context, the centuries-long cultural and legal rejection of polygamy undoubtedly will be challenged. It might be said that Western cultures are already in one sense “polygamous,” since most adults do have multiple partners or spouses over the course of a lifetime. Christian marriage, as classically understood, may soon exist only within the countercultural reality of the local church.
See also Adultery; Family; Marriage and Divorce; Sexual Ethics; Women, Status of
Bibliography
Pobee, J. Toward an African Theology. Abingdon, 1979.
David P. Gushee
Poor See Poverty and Poor
Since ancient times, human cultures have regulated population numbers by way of societal norms for marriage, child rearing, and inheritance. Today, population growth is a global issue as human numbers exceed seven billion. Developing nations, on average, have higher population growth rates and thereby very youthful demographics, which can strain resource availability, including schools, jobs, and medical services. Poor nutrition and excess child mortality often accompany rapid population increase. A few developed countries, primarily in Europe, have average family sizes smaller than necessary to replace their current populations. Low rates of growth also have economic impacts, such as reducing the available labor pool and raising the proportion of elderly citizens. Environmentalists and economists have argued over the ultimate carrying capacity of the planet, and whether human technology can compensate for greater stresses on the world’s water, agricultural, and energy resources.
Although to some the Bible may appear to offer unified instruction concerning human population growth, texts applicable to the topic are historically varied and complex. The oldest biblical books describe a herding culture, centered on family camps.
The influence of urbanization on biblical narratives increases through time, as does the impact of empire building. In the ancient world, norms and practices encouraging large families and population growth included the following: marrying at a young age, taking multiple wives and concubines, avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation, valuing children as agricultural labor, and offering children in marriage to build economic or military relationships with other clans. Among the historic practices limiting family size and population growth are the following: marrying at an older age, sexual abstinence outside marriage, monogamy, breastfeeding infants for more than a year, and formal schooling for children. The latter strategies often improve survivorship of individual children. Extended breastfeeding delays ovulation, for example, and prevents an additional child from being conceived while the mother is already stressed with a new baby.
The Creation
In Gen. 1:22 God, having created the sea creatures and the birds, “blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas.’ ” God affirms the animals’ compliant response and says that it is “good,” implying that reproduction is intended to be a blessing. In Gen. 1:28 God extends the blessing to Adam and Eve, saying to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.” Some interpreters treat this passage as a command, effective in perpetuity, to produce large families. The gift of reproduction, however, is shared among the animals and humankind and is not an instruction to overwhelm or displace other creatures. Texts such as Ps. 104 invoke God’s care for the earth’s biota and their offspring as evidence for the continuing providential activity of God.
Hebrew Family Structure
Genesis 13:8-13 recognizes the importance of carrying capacity, such as avoiding overgrazing and of sharing land, when Lot moves his flocks to the Jordan Valley and Abram takes his to Canaan. In the third millennium BCE, having a son was important to continuing the family name and to providing care for aging parents. When Sarai was barren, Abram had sexual intercourse with her maidservant Hagar in order to begin a family. Hagar bore Ishmael, and after three men, identified as angels, visit their camp, Sarah (renamed) gives birth to Isaac (Gen. 16-21). God affirmed, “Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” (Gen. 18:18). The Bible reports that polygamy led to jealousy and internal disagreements within families, such as the strained relationships between Rachel and Leah (Gen. 29-30) or among David’s wives and concubines and their offspring (2 Sam. 13). Solomon’s many marriages with foreign women are portrayed as luring him to make offerings to their false gods (1 Kgs. 11).
Despite the value awarded to children, OT texts model loving treatment for the childless and discourage selling one’s own children into slavery Elkanah gave his wife, Hannah, who was barren, a double portion of meat when he sacrificed “because he loved her” (1 Sam. 1:5). She ultimately becomes the mother of the prophet Samuel. Deuteronomy 24:19-22 requires resource sharing with widows and orphans, who are allowed to glean the fields of those more fortunate. Care for the aged is encouraged by Exod. 20:12, which instructs, “Honor thy father and mother.” Isaiah 56:4-5 promises eunuchs who keep the covenant “a monument and a name better than sons and daughters.”
War, Invasion, and Deportation
The OT responds to population crises, such as famine, war, and deportation. Joseph’s eleven brothers, with the survival of their families at stake, were forced to travel to Egypt in search of food during famine (Gen. 40-47). The invasions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians resulted in the deportation and dispersal of ten of the tribes of Israel. Jeremiah describes the return of a “remnant” of the nation to their homeland. The general perspective in the face of these continuing forced population depletions is pronatalist. Biblical norms encourage mercy to outsiders and sojourners, while not depleting the populationsupporting agricultural resources of the countryside during war.
The New Testament
The Gospels, in contrast to the family narratives of Genesis, place little emphasis on childbearing, while frequently addressing the worth of children and care for the ill or widowed. In the Roman realms of the first century CE, fathers exposed unwanted female or disabled children and sold children into slavery to settle debts. Caesar Augustus, worried about staffing Rome’s armies, however, established pronatalist policies, encouraging larger family sizes, while discouraging abortion and abandonment of healthy infants. Jesus, in opposition to Roman norms, treated children as valued souls and not merely as economic commodities or future soldiers. Jesus says, “Let the little children come to me” (Luke 18:16), implying all are welcome in his kingdom.
The Gospels provide no information about the children of Christ’s disciples and imply that the early church did not have hereditary leadership. The NT encourages recruitment of new Christians via evangelization from all ethnicities and from those with and without families. One of the first non-Palestinian converts was the Ethiopian eunuch, a Jewish proselyte baptized by Philip on the desert road (Acts 8:26-40). He returned to Africa to found the Ethiopian church. Some potential Christians, including many soldiers and slaves, had predetermined life paths without families. Still controversial apocalyptic texts suggest the first Christians believed that the numbers of those entering the kingdom were already determined (Rev. 14). Rodney Stark has argued that Christianity spread rapidly both because it addressed the social issues of the empire and bridged class boundaries, and because Christians had high fertility rates. While committed to caring for their own children, the first Christians adopted orphans, saved infants from exposure, and helped to feed the poor.
Interpretation
Today, those denominations and sects that are predominantly rural, partially isolated from the greater culture, or living in communities composed of their coreligionists, such as Hasidic Jews and the Amish, are more likely to take a pronatalist position, affirming high birth rates and family size. Those denominations or sects that are liberal or highly integrated with other religious groups are more likely to be nonnatalist, believing that each family should make its own decision about childbearing. Historically, some Christian sects have been strongly antinatalist, practicing complete celibacy. The Shakers, or United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing, lived on communal farms, did not marry, and replenished their numbers by adopting orphans. Today’s Christians and Jews largely continue to agree that care for children, respect for the elderly, just sharing of the earth’s resources, and concern for the poor are key themes of biblical ethics.
See also Bioethics; Birth Control; Childlessness; Children; Family; Procreation
Bibliography
Bouma-Prediger, S. For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. Baker Academic, 2001; Bratton, S. Six Billion and More: Human Population Regulation and Christian Ethics. Westminster John Knox, 1992; Stark, R. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
Susan Power Bratton
For Christians in a technological and media-saturated age, pornography presents one of the most common moral struggles as well as one of the most shameful and thus least discussed. Although the numbers are difficult to track, approximately forty million people in the United States view pornography every year; the global pornography industry generates approximately $100 billion per year, producing $13 billion in US revenue. Pornography comprises roughly 25 percent of all internet search-engine requests. As with any ethical issue, Christians seek guidance from many sources, particularly Scripture. Despite availability of sexually explicit art in cultures in which they were written, the Scriptures remain relatively silent on this topic, at least in the forms in which we encounter it today. However, Scripture does provide guidance for understanding and addressing this issue, especially as it shapes our moral imaginations and expectations of the goods at which sex and sexuality aim.
The “Sin” of Pornography
The root of the first part of the word pornography is the Greek porne, “female slave or prostitute.” The related verb porneuo occurs in many texts in the NT and is translated variously as “immorality,” “fornication,” or “lust” (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5-6). Given the understanding of sin as a distortion of God’s good intention, pornography must be contrasted against the background of sexuality as described in Gen. 2:18-25. Sexuality there involves a celebration of sameness and difference, with a creative power that binds people together as inspirited bodies. The destructive nature of pornography is, then, understood as a twisting of God’s good gift into a means of violating, dominating, or controlling others, or of users themselves becoming enslaved, warped, or driven by pornography.
A major reason why pornography is such an important ethical issue today is the internet. Therapist and researcher Al Cooper describes a “triple-A engine” that has produced an explosion of explicit material in the “pornosphere”: accessibility, affordability, and anonymity. Addiction, a related and important aspect of such proliferation, can be defined in different ways, but it includes many hours of viewing (e.g., more than ten hours per week); increased appetite, desire, or tolerance; compulsivity; or harm to self or others, including marital difficulties. Some psychologists suggest that the combination of fantasy and isolation contribute to such addictive behavior; this is not surprising, given a traditional Christian perspective of sexuality as aiming at human bonding and friendship. Despite the shame, this addiction should be treated like any other addiction, with professional help and support in a caring community. However, most research indicates that a relatively small percentage of viewers (2-8 percent) are addicted to pornography.
Pornography needs to be distinguished from
erotica, which is acceptable to many Christians. Some Christians define the difference between the two as the muddy but real line between material that expresses committed and affectionate sex (erotica) and that which portrays degrading, violent, or dehumanizing sexual acts (pornography). How such material shapes the viewer depends not only on its objective content but also on the character of the participant(s). From this perspective, the biblical book Song of Songs qualifies as erotic but not pornographic. Although sexually explicit, films may highlight the vacuous or destructive nature of uncommitted sex. Whether individuals find such material inappropriate or sexually stimulating depends on their maturity as well as their worldview. For Christians, then, determining if something qualifies as pornographic requires an honest analysis of the material’s effect on those involved, including those who produce it. Given these parameters, some Christians might support the use of erotica for masturbation while prohibiting pornography for such use.
Gender and Pornography
Although the use of pornography is most often assumed to be a problem for men, the “triple-A engine” has made sexually explicit material more accessible to women; studies indicate that 30 to 60 percent of women view or download pornography. Some feminists have argued stridently against the harmful effects of pornography, but others have argued for equal use. It appears, however, that women and men interpret and respond to such material differently. For example, some studies indicated that women bring what they are seeing and doing online into their sexual relationships, while men are more apt to utilize such material in isolation. In contrast to the experience of most men, pornography sometimes negatively affects women’s body image, with an increasing number pursuing physical augmentation (Albright 185).
For many women, sexual fantasy takes a form other than use of material strictly understood as pornography, such as romance novels or sexual banter. Although more socially acceptable, this relational or emotional stimulation parallels men’s arousal by physically beautiful, pleasing, or malleable women. Pornography in this broader sense draws people away from the actual relationships and into an unreal world devoid of the demands and rewards of committed sexual affection.
Like prostitutes purchased for pleasure, divorced from the complexities and fruitfulness of committed sexual relationships, pornography demands nothing from us but our own preferences; we re-create the other as a mirror image of our own desires apart from their uniqueness. Its allure lies in the control of persons and situations in a manner that denies the other’s dignity, needs, or desires. This dominating stance makes impossible a Christian sexuality that trains us to offer ourselves to one another in life-giving, life-sustaining ways. At its worst, pornography—especially that involving children, rape, or other violence—scars and deforms our individual and social moral imaginations. Pornography illustrates the antithesis of Gen. 2:23-25, where sexuality is celebrated as mutual vulnerability by which the other makes claims on us yet also frees us to be more fully and joyfully human.
See also Exploitation; Prostitution; Sex and Sexuality; Sexual Ethics
Bibliography
Albright, J. “Sex in America Online: An Exploration of Sex, Marital Status, and Sexual Identity in Internet Sex Seeking and Its Impacts.” JSexR 45 (2008): 175-86; Bals-wick, J. K., and J. O. Balswick. “Pornography and Erotica.” Pages 275-93 in Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach. IVP Academic, 2008; Paul, P. Por-nified: How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families. Holt, 2006; Sheldrake, P. “Desire and Sexuality.” Pages 77-100 in Befriending Our Desires. Darton, Longman & Todd, 2001.
Erin Dufault-Hunter
Possessions See Property and Possessions
Concern for the poor is present throughout the biblical tradition. Although the OT sometimes uses “the poor” as a pious metaphor for those who must depend on God (see Pss. 40:17; 86:1), most often the term refers to those who find themselves on the margins of society because of their economic situation, which leaves them open to exploitation (e.g., Pss. 10:2; 72:12; 109:31). The prophetic tradition usually portrays poverty as the result of actions taken by people of means to deprive the vulnerable of their share of the bounty that God gave to Israel. The prophets condemned the economic exploitation made possible by the corruption of the ancient Israelite legal system. They announced divine judgment on the social, economic, and political system that, they insisted, created poverty (e.g., Isa. 1:21-26; Amos 4:1-4). Deuteronomy maintains that there would be no poor in Israelite society if the people observed the norms of traditional Israelite morality (Deut. 15:4-5). Still, Deuteronomy recognizes that poverty does exist in Israel (15:11), so it calls for Israelites to be generous to the poor (15:7) and suggests strategies to ensure that poverty would never become a permanent feature of Israelite society (15:12-14). Those who wish to follow Jesus are to sell their goods and give the proceeds to the poor (Matt. 19:21). Paul urged generosity toward the poor of Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-3; cf. Rom. 15:26).
At first glance, the needs of poor people and the injustice they experience do not appear to be a central concern of the Torah. Various Hebrew words that are rendered in English as “poor” or “needy” occur fewer than twenty times in the first five books of the Bible. Yet this statistic does not tell the whole story. The narratives of the Torah include stories of how wealthy people can use their economic power as an advantage in their dealings with those whose social standing is marginal because of their poverty. The stories about Hagar illustrate the vulnerability of the poor (Gen. 16; 21:1-21). Sarah and Abraham used their servant Hagar to meet their needs. She provided Abraham with an heir whom Sarah claimed as her child according to the customs of the day. But when Hagar’s presence and service were no longer necessary and when she and her child were deemed troubling following the birth of Isaac, Abraham simply sent them away at Sarah’s insistence. But God saved Hagar and her son Ishmael from certain death and promised to make of him “a great nation” (Gen. 21:18).
The story of Pharaoh’s enslavement of Jacob’s descendants living in Egypt is another case in point. This Egyptian king, who “did not know Joseph” (Exod. 1:8), exemplifies those who use their power to oppress people and thereby “make” poverty. God, of course, took the side of the poor Hebrew slaves against their Egyptian masters. Through Moses, God freed the slaves and brought them to a land where they enjoyed freedom and prosperity (Deut. 8:7-10).
The laws of the Torah serve not only to specify the rights of poor people but also to regulate how more successful Israelites are to deal with those on the margins of the ancient Israelite economy. For example, people who have completed service as bond slaves in repayment of a debt are not simply to be left to their own devices after regaining their freedom. The former slaves are to be given “gifts” that will enable them to make a fresh start (Deut. 15:13-14). Without such help, former slaves would eventually find that their newly reacquired freedom brought them to the same kind of destitution that led them into bond slavery in the first place. The Deuteronomic law, then, sought to break the cycle of poverty that kept the poor in economic dependency.
The call for justice on behalf of poor people and the announcement of judgment on their oppressors are central concerns of prophetic preaching. Ancient Israel’s prophets were not economic theorists or social critics, but still they were convinced that the traditional moral values of ancient Israel were being violated by people of means for their own enrichment. The prophets sought to make Israel appreciate the consequences of the injustice that infested the ancient Israelite social and economic system. The poor were created by the rich who, in their greed, disregarded the norms of traditional Israelite morality (Jer. 5:27; Ezek. 45:9; Amos 3:9; Hab. 2:9; Mal. 3:5). The prophets believed that the actions of those who oppressed people with no economic power and social standing would bring divine judgment on Israel. The prophets were certain that God called them to announce the inevitability of that judgment.
The preaching of the prophets often included intense criticism of the monarchy and associated institutions, especially the judicial system that facilitated the oppression of the poor (Isa. 5:23; Jer. 22:13-17; Amos 5:7; Mic. 3:9-11). Prophetic criticism was directed also at wealthy landowners. Ancient Israel witnessed the gradual concentration of land in the hands of a few and the creation of a great number of landless farmers who were reduced to hiring themselves out as agricultural workers to survive (Isa. 5:8; Ezek. 22:29; Mic. 2:1-3; Hab. 2:5-6). Also, the crops grown on the land taken from the poor were olives and grapes, since oil and wine made from these crops were valuable commodities. Less land was devoted to the cultivation of grains, which were the staples of the ancient Israelite diet. The result was that the price of grain rose, thus creating a cycle of poverty. The landless poor could not afford to buy grain, and so they became more indebted to the wealthy landowners. Merchants who defrauded their customers and thereby made life more difficult for the poor also heard their practices condemned by the prophets (Isa. 3:14; Jer. 5:27; Hos. 12:7-8; Amos 8:5; Mic. 6:10-11). The economic system during the monarchic period guaranteed the continuation of poverty in Israel and so was the object of prophetic invectives.
The wisdom literature (e.g., Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) deals with the theme of the poor, but its way of approaching this motif differs markedly from that of the Torah and the prophets. The origins of the wisdom tradition lie in the upper classes of ancient Israelite society. It is not surprising that one does not find the moral outrage at the oppression of the poor in the wisdom literature that one finds in prophetic literature, though the sages did regard the existence of poverty as an affront to God (Prov. 14:31). Ancient Israel’s sages address the sons of society’s upper class and warn them against laziness and inattention that will inevitably lead to poverty (Prov. 10:4). According to the sages, success demands a disciplined life. The book of Proverbs makes no connection between the problems faced by the poor and the actions of the wealthy, because it looks at the question of poverty not as a social or moral problem in Israelite society but as a potential threat to the well-being of Judah’s elite. The sages assume that people “choose” poverty by failing to follow the advice of the elders and teachers to live a disciplined life. A fundamental assumption of the wisdom tradition is that actions have consequences and that these consequences are quite predictable. If experience has taught people anything, it is that poverty comes to those who are lazy and unproductive (Prov. 13:18; 20:13; 23:21; 28:19). Still, like the Torah and the prophets, the wisdom tradition also calls its readers to be generous toward the poor (Prov. 19:17; 22:9).
The book of Psalms is replete with references to the “poor and needy.” It is sometimes difficult to determine if the poor of the psalms are the economically poor or if the poor have become a metaphor pointing to the pious in ancient Israelite society. It appears that at times the language of social and economic stratification and conflict become simply a convention in some psalms to speak about the community of Israel as a whole or about a group of the pious within the community. The psalms consistently portray God as the protector and deliverer of the poor (e.g., 9:12, 18; 10:14; 35:1; 68:10; 69:33; 107:41; 109:31; 113:7; 140:12; 147:6; 149:4). Those who experience exploitation ask for God’s protection and strength in their conflict with the rich (12:1; 69:33) because the poor are those who depend on God (10; 25; 34; 37; 82). The poor turn to prayer in the midst of their oppression because they believe in God’s love and fidelity (69:13-15; 86:5, 15). They pray that God will vindicate them, establishing justice according to God’s righteousness (35:23-24; 140:12). Because the biblical tradition regards material poverty as an evil, the book of Psalms is able to appropriate and reinterpret the vocabulary of poverty to speak about the life situations faced by the pious, whether they are poor or not.
When the NT speaks of “the poor,” however, it speaks both of the “working poor” and the genuinely destitute. Members of both groups had little social status and no political power in the first-century Roman world. They existed on the margins of society and were vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of the wealthy. The apocalyptic perspective that helped shape the preaching of Jesus effects a noticeable shift in the assessment of poverty. Indeed, the poor are the fortunate ones given the reversal of fortunes that will happen when the reign of God begins (Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). Nevertheless, the Gospels do not idealize poverty, nor do they suggest that the poor have special access to God. But having no significant possessions, being without political power, and having no social standing eliminate one type of temptation to dismiss Jesus’ call to repentance: the temptation that comes with the self-sufficiency brought by wealth (Matt. 19:24; Luke 12:16-21). While the Gospels recognize the injustice that gives rise to poverty, they hold that this injustice will be redressed in the world to come rather than in this world. Still, the Gospels do not imply that poverty can be ignored or that its existence must be fatalistically accepted.
Responding to Jesus’ calls to repentance enables the disciples to hear the call for justice that comes from ancient Israel’s prophetic tradition. It impels the disciples to sell what they have in order to give to the poor (Matt. 19:21). Indeed, one way for the wealthy to give a tangible sign of their repentance is for them to distribute their goods to people in need. An essential component of a proper response to Jesus’ preaching is action that will benefit the poor (Luke 19:8). Generosity toward the poor, then, is a mark of an authentic disciple. The Gospels present the life and teaching of one who was able to live without the security that comes with political power, social status, or material possessions. They challenge his followers to do the same—to be content living on the mar-gins—because the poor are blessed: the kingdom of God belongs to them (Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20).
Paul gives no evidence of any spiritualization of poverty. For the apostle, the poor are simply those in need. He showed particular concern for the church of Jerusalem because so many of the faithful were in need there (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:3). He also advised people to follow his example by supporting themselves from their work (1 Cor.
4:12; 1 Thess. 4:11) and by being happy with a less than comfortable existence.
The Epistle of James provides the single example of a NT author displaying the passion of the Hebrew prophets (5:1-6). James decried the economic stratification and marginalization of the poor that were evident in some Christian communities (2:2-6). James assumed that the Christian life ought to be characterized by a type of solidarity that should make social injustice and the marginalization of the poor unthinkable.
The biblical tradition is unanimous in asserting that material economic poverty should not exist. Poverty is clearly not in accord with the divine will, since God has provided all that is necessary for people to live a good life. Although the tradition is not unanimous in its explanations for the origin of poverty, it does suggest that poverty results from human decision-making. Poverty is not an inevitable feature of human existence. Poverty exists because people allow it to exist. Although sometimes these decisions can be laid at the feet of the poor themselves (e.g., Prov. 10:4), the predominant assertion made by the tradition is that the avarice and greed of the wealthy lead them to unjustly deprive some people of their essential needs (Isa. 10:2). There is no question that the Scriptures recognize the evil of economic oppression. In the face of this oppression, the tradition affirms that God is the protector of those who are unjustly deprived of their access to the bounty of the earth and the fruits of their labor (Jer. 20:13).
Both the OT and the NT pay attention to the people who are unable to control their own destiny because of their lack of economic independence. Without the power that wealth gives, poor people are especially vulnerable to exploitation and oppression. The biblical tradition also finds the experience of the poor people to be an apt metaphor for the universal need for salvation. Poor people have no other choice but to depend on God. Nevertheless, while the Bible uses poverty as a metaphor to speak about the status of all human beings before God, it never overlooks the injustice that creates the poor. At the same time, the biblical tradition does not idealize the poor as having some sort of special access to God (see Jer. 5:4). Although the Bible uses the cries of the poor to speak about the universal human need for God, it does not confer an aura of holiness around the poor, nor does it understate the need to overcome the forces that create and sustain injustice and oppression.
Indeed, the Bible recognizes the evil of economic oppression and asserts that God hears the cry of the poor. The challenge that the biblical tradition offers believers is to imitate the character of God and stand with the poor in their struggle to overcome the oppression that they experience in their lives. Believers cannot acquiesce in the degradation and exploitation of the poor and oppressed. They will endeavor to end the marginalization and alienation of the poor. Today, standing with the poor is most often a political act, though there is room for expressing solidarity with the poor by individual acts of benevolence such as almsgiving. Still, those who stand with the poor today are resisting the structures of society that institutionalize poverty. This resistance takes different forms: public advocacy, lobbying, protesting, and other forms of political action. The biblical tradition pushes believers beyond simple benevolence toward poor people and beyond radical pronouncements and scathing criticism of unjust economic systems. Of course, the gospel calls believers to conversion, not revolution. It takes genuine conversion before one can really stand with the poor, before one can become an authentic instrument of justice, liberation, and reconciliation.
Finally, the biblical tradition does not allow believers to leave social justice to secular political structures. The community of faith should model a type of society founded on solidarity rather than on competition between social and economic classes. The church must take action on behalf of the poor. Without such actions, the community of faith loses its reason for existence, as the people of ancient Israel and Judah discovered. The very existence of poverty is evidence that the church has not been living up to its responsibilities for “there shall be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4).
Too often, texts such as Deut. 15:11, “there will always be poor people in the land” (NIV [cf. Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8]), have been read as evidence that poverty is part of the natural order of things. But when these texts are read against the wider backdrop of the entire biblical tradition, it becomes clear that not poverty but mutual concern and support are to be the normal pattern of the community’s life. The Bible does not demand that believers adopt any particular economic system. The biblical tradition serves to animate believers to respond to poverty with imagination, creativity, and generosity. Believers recognize that poverty is the creation of those who do not live according to the ideals of the Torah and the gospel, and they are confident that with God’s help they can overcome the selfishness and sin that are the obstacles preventing people from standing with the poor so that the biblical ideal can become a reality: “there should be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4 NIV).
See also Almsgiving; Collection for the Saints; Economic Ethics; Exploitation; Generosity; Greed; Justice; Koinonia; Property and Possessions; Sloth; Solidarity; World Poverty, World Hunger
Bibliography
Hoppe, L. There Shall Be No Poor among You: Poverty in the Bible. Abingdon, 2004; Lohfink, N. Option for the Poor: The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in Light of the Bible. BIBAL, 1987; Pixley, J., and C. Boff. The Bible, the Church and the Poor. Orbis, 1989; Vaage, L., ed. Subversive Scriptures: Revolutionary Christian Readings of the Bible in Latin America. Trinity Press International, 1997; West, G. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible. Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Leslie J. Hoppe, OFM Power See Authority and Power
In Paul’s Letters and elsewhere in the NT we find references to “principalities,” “powers,” “authorities,” “rulers,” “thrones,” “dominions,” and “elemental spirits of the universe” (see, e.g., Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 2:6, 8; 15:24; Gal. 4:3, 8-9; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:8, 10, 15; 1 Pet. 3:22). Although there is ongoing debate about the precise meaning of these titles, comparisons with contemporary apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1-2 Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of Levi, Testament of Solomon) and other sources (e.g., Greek magical papyri) suggest that they refer to distinct classes of supernatural agents who exercise a domain of authority over structural aspects of society and creation. Given that the NT provides no information regarding the specifics of these classifications, it has become common for contemporary theologians to refer to the whole realm simply as “the principalities and powers” or, even more simply, as “the powers.”
Background
A number of historical factors contributed to the development of the conception of the powers in Paul’s thought and in that of the apocalyptic writers of his day, but scholars generally agree that its origins can be traced back to the OT. In keeping with other ancient Near Eastern cultures, ancient Hebraic authors believed that the earth was surrounded and perpetually threatened by forces of chaos, usually depicted as personified waters (Job 38:6-11; Ps. 104:7-8; Prov. 8:27-29) or cosmic monsters (Job 9:13; 26:12-13; 40-41; Pss. 74:10-14; 87:4; Isa. 51:9-10). Moreover, despite their creational monotheism, OT authors generally assumed that a multitude of lesser gods exist alongside Yahweh. Some of these are aligned with God and form his divine council and heavenly army, but others work at cross-purposes with Yahweh and must be fought against. Indeed, as with their Near Eastern neighbors, ancient Jews believed that these gods were involved in their earthly battles (Judg. 11:21-24; 2 Sam. 5:23-24; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:15-18) (Boyd, God at War, 73-142). Biblical authors are uniformly confident that Yah-weh is ultimately sovereign over the forces of chaos and rebellious gods that oppose him. However, his victory is celebrated as something praiseworthy precisely because these foes are so formidable (Konig 46).
Owing to a number of historical factors, the OT’s view that Yahweh does battle against cosmic forces of evil and rebel gods began to play an increasingly central role in the theology of many Jews in the two centuries leading up to Christ. Undoubtedly, several centuries of living under an often-oppressive pagan regime contributed to an intensified sense of cosmic evil among many Jews (Russell 237-38). In addition to this, some scholars argue that this development was partly influenced by Zoroastrianism and possibly other pagan influences (e.g., astrology, magic), though theories of pagan influence such as these have come under strong criticism and now enjoy less academic favor than they once did. Whatever the causes, in the two centuries leading up to the time of Christ we find many Jews depicting the world as engulfed in spiritual warfare as well as an explosion of speculations about the numbers, names, domains of authority, histories, and particular battles of angels and other cosmic agents.
Something of this intensification and increased specification of the powers against which Yah-weh fights is reflected in the book of Daniel. At one point, we read that God dispatched a heavenly messenger in response to Daniel’s prayer. However, the angel was detained for twenty-one days by “the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” which most scholars conclude was a divine power that had jurisdiction over this particular nation but was working at cross-purposes with God. In response, “Michael, one of the chief princes,” came to resist the prince of Persia and free the messenger (Dan. 10:13). After the angel successfully delivered his message, he told Daniel that he must “turn to fight against the prince of Persia,” after which “the prince of Greece will come,” referring to a different power with a different jurisdiction (Dan. 10:20). This intensified and detailed awareness of the spiritual realm is a characteristic of apocalyptic literature and forms the primary background of Paul’s understanding of the powers.
The Powers in Paul’s Theology In keeping with the creational monotheism that runs throughout the biblical literature, Paul sees the powers as originally belonging to God’s good created order (Col. 1:15-17). Yet, as in the apocalyptic literature of the time, Paul for the most part depicts the powers in negative terms. Indeed, to the extent that they work against God’s purposes in the world, Paul and other NT authors view them as belonging to Satan’s rebel kingdom. Going beyond anything found in noncanonical apocalyptic literature, the NT depicts Satan as the head of a vast army of rebel agents, including the powers, fallen angels, and demons (Ling 12-22; Yates 99). Satan is thus spoken of as “the ruler [archon] of the power [dynamis] of the air” (Eph. 2:2), “the ruler [archon] of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4), who controls the entire world (1 John 5:19), owns and dispenses all the authority of the world’s governments (Luke 4:5-7; cf. Rev. 13), and deceives the nations (Rev. 14:8; 18:3; 20:3, 8) (Boyd, God at War, 180-84).
Jesus came to defeat Satan and the powers and deliver humans and all creation from their oppressive reign (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8; cf. Gal. 4:3-9). Failing to understand the “secret wisdom of God,” the powers helped bring about Christ’s crucifixion only to discover that this very act brought about their own demise (1 Cor. 2:6-8; cf. John 13:27; Col. 2:15) (Boyd, “Christus Victor View,” 36-38). Because Christ’s death and resurrection in principle defeated the powers and enthroned Christ “far above” them (Eph. 1:19-21), all who are “in Christ” are empowered to live free from their oppression (Col. 2:20) and make known “the wisdom of God . . . to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10).
At the same time, reflecting the “already but not yet” tension of the NT’s eschatology, Paul and other authors are aware that Christ’s victory over the powers will be fully manifested only when Christ returns and God’s reign is fully established (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:10). Until this time, the powers remain active, and believers must continually struggle against them (Eph. 6:12; cf. Gal. 4:9) while having the assurance that whatever else the powers are capable of doing, they cannot separate believers from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:38-39).
Contemporary Theology and the Powers Throughout much of its history, the church has made little of the powers as a distinct category of supernatural agents. This changed rather dramatically in the twentieth century as theologians wrestled with the horror of two world wars and with national, systemic, and institutional evil on an unprecedented scale. Theologians such as Heinrich Schlier, Hendrik Berkhof, G. B. Caird, and, more recently, Walter Wink have employed the language of the powers to articulate the manner in which nations, governments, social movements, corporations, and other institutions (e.g., “the military industrial complex”) often take on a demonic life of their own and wreak a destructive
influence that goes far beyond what any individual caught up into these social structures would want or be capable of. Many contemporary theologians interpret the apocalyptic depiction of the powers as supernatural agents to be a quasi-mythological way of expressing the “inner essence” and quasi-autonomous reality of corporate wholes (e.g., Wink, Naming the Powers, 104-5). Others, however, argue for the importance of retaining the view of the powers as transcendent agents without denying their close identifications with structural aspects of society and creation (e.g., Boyd, God at War, 272-76; Arnold 169-82).
This renewed appreciation for the centrality of the NT’s concept of the principalities and powers has led some to construe Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection as a sustained nonviolent revolt against the powers and as the model that the body of Christ is to emulate as we struggle “not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12) (Weaver; Yoder; Wink, The Powers That Be, 63-111; Boyd, “Kingdom”). Among other things, the contemporary reinvigoration of the NT’s concept of the powers is helping Christians today wake up to and resist the demonic pull of structural evils such as nationalism, militarism, racism, classism, consumerism, and individualism.
See also Eschatology and Ethics Bibliography
Arnold, C. E. Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters. InterVarsity, 1992; Boyd, G. “Christus Victor View.” Pages 23-66 in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. J. Beilby and P. Eddy. InterVarsity, 2006; idem. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. InterVarsity, 1997; idem. “The Kingdom as a Political-Spiritual Revolution.” CTR 6, no. 2 (2008): 23-41; Caird, G. B. Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology. Clarendon, 1956; Konig, A. New and Greater Things: Reevaluating the Biblical Message on Creation. University of South Africa, 1988; Ling, T. The Significance of Satan. SPCK, 1961; Russell, D. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. Westminster, 1964; Weaver, J. The Nonviolent Atonement. Eerdmans, 2001; Wink, W. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament.
Fortress, 1984; idem. The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. Doubleday, 1998; Yates, R. “The Powers of Evil in the New Testament.” EvQ 52 (1980): 97—111; Yoder, J. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Eerdmans, 1994.
Greg Boyd
In his study of the history of the idea of “theory and practice,” Nicholas Lobkowicz distinguished between the lived realities of theory and practice and various theories about theory and practice (xii—xiii). Thinking about practices, religious or otherwise, has the same kind of complexity associated with it. Practices themselves are observable phenomena of particular kinds of teleological human action in specific historical and communal contexts. Theories about practices aim to provide interpretive and normative frameworks for understanding or criticizing these forms of human activity. Yet such a distinction may be too neat and tidy in that it overlooks the perplexing fact that practices and theoretical perspectives used to guide or to observe them are always deeply intertwined. Merely attempting to define what counts as a practice for purposes of observation (i.e., its boundaries, substantial elements, and function or purpose) always arises from a perspective imbued with normative theory about what constitutes the nature of a practice or practices by some observer (Dewey 491-92). Similarly, whatever perspective informs the observer’s notion of practice inevitably arises out of experience with a distinct constellation of practices.
In recent decades many Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders have developed a strong interest in religious practices as a generative source for various creative intellectual and practical initiatives. This emphasis on religious practices draws from wider discussions about practice in the fields of philosophy, ethics, theology, cultural anthropology, and sociology. Much of the contemporary discussion about religious practices emphasizes the importance of fostering the development of high-commitment Christian “contrast communities” that offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ and the core values of the Christian life over and against the prevailing corrupt, secular, or antiChristian values and practices of the larger society.
Definitions
Contemporary Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders use the term practice in a variety of ways. In one common usage, it refers to an entire pattern of behaviors and interactions to describe the entirety of the Christian life, akin to the practice of medicine or law. In this usage, the sum total of skills, theories, histories, cases, and judgments constitutes the practice of Christian discipleship. Often, this usage implies a bias toward concrete, communal action over and against merely abstract theological reflection that is disconnected from the life of the church or individual Christian actions in a particular social and cultural context.
A second usage of the term practice by Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders is not so much an entire way of religious or professional life as a coordinating center for a constellation of interrelated constituent religious activities. Recent work by Craig Dykstra, Dorothy Bass, and several of their colleagues uses the term in this way As an example, the practice of testimony might include the activities of preaching, teaching, and various kinds of faith-oriented conversation without being reducible to any one of these discrete activities (see Long). In this way of handling the idea of practice, the Christian life of individuals and communities is made up of many overlapping and interlocking teleological behaviors sustained over time, each of which coordinates several discrete and related actions.
The various discussions of religious practices related to the second usage of the term practice tend to be influenced by the neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre, who defined a practice as “any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realised in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the end and goods involved, are systematically extended” (175).
MacIntyre’s notion of practice emphasizes that practices are communal, progressive, and teleological. Many Roman Catholics and Protestants have found MacIntyre’s approach compatible with traditional theological understandings of the nature, character, and purpose of the Christian life (Bass 30 n. 11). Some religious appropriations of MacIntyre’s definition of practices tend to de-emphasize both the role of abstract or dogmatic theology and the centrality of the priest or minister; in contrast, the focused religious formation of the community as a whole as it engages in certain prescribed practices takes center stage. Dogmatic theology and the clergy both continue to play meaningful roles, but only insofar as they support the formational and witnessing dimensions of the religious practices of the Christian community.
Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders who use the term practice in this second orientation guard against latent or overt anti-intellectualism, which can arise from the foregrounding of practice and action, by highlighting the ways in which practices contain, convey, and cultivate theory The theological reflection promulgated in a religious-practices approach often is held up as superior to other forms of theological theory because it is grounded in, disciplined by, and tethered to the actual life of the Christian community Further, it is asserted that theological theory arising out of religious practices recovers an older, traditional conception of theology that is inherently and pervasively practical in character (see Charry; Farley 85-102).
A third usage of the term practice among Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders refers to a narrowly defined or focused form of activity. In this usage, religious practices have to do with active engagement in a certain discrete pattern of action. For example, one might engage in specific focused actions extended over periods of varying lengths of time, such as reading the Bible, praying, fasting, or offering acts of compassion. The emphasis in this way of using the term lies in the concretion of action. Practice and concrete action in this usage are so closely related as to be virtually identical.
A fourth usage of the term practice by Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders arises out of Marxian and Marxist notions of praxis (Marx 15465). This term usually signifies something of the complex, reciprocal interplay between theory and practice, particularly with respect to the effects of social class, race, gender, or sexual identity on human flourishing. Those who draw on critical social theory criticize the MacIntyre-inspired approach to religious practices for focusing too much on the Christian community itself and not attending sufficiently to wider issues of justice and compassion in relation to society at large. The lack of a significant place for critical social theory has raised concern that a religious-practices approach bears an inherently conservative agenda that, in the end, merely supports the social, political, and economic status quo. Instead of a Neo-Aristotelian approach to religious practices, some Christian scholars and ecclesial leaders express a strong preference for the Marxist-inspired notion of “praxis” that intends to contribute to the fundamental reorganization of societal structures in the direction of justice, equality, and compassion.
Engaging discussions about religious practices in an effective and constructive manner requires a certain degree of clarity about the ways in which terms such as practice and religious practices are used. Clarity about the language employed in discussions of practice is essential, but it is not sufficient for robust analysis or for constructive proposals. Additionally, some attention must be given to a range of tensions associated with religious practices.
Tensions Related to Religious Practices
The Christian scholar or the ecclesial leader who wishes to embrace or analyze a religious-practices approach to lived realities of Christian communities in relation to their internal and external relations must negotiate a series of tensions connected with religious practices, including the relationship of theory and practice, the interplay of uniformity and diversity, and the connection between communal and individual engagement. First, one must address the tension between theory and practice. Borrowing from Immanuel Kant’s famous dictum about the necessary interplay of percepts and concepts in the production of thought, we can say that theories without practices are empty, and practices without theories are blind (Kant 193). In the end, theory and practice must and always do go together. Specifying the exact nature of their interplay provides the central challenge for negotiating this tension.
Traditional Protestant emphases on the primacy of divine revelation, the centrality of Scripture, and the initiative of God often have combined to yield an “applied theory” approach to religious practices. In this view, the truth of the divinely inspired and biblically attested gospel message shapes Christian practice. The arrow of influence moves unidirectionally from theory to practice. In this very traditional and often conservative orientation little attention is given to the complexities of context, whether of the biblical text, the theological vision, or the “target” of contemporary ecclesial or society action; the contours of divine revelation provide the determining factor in this orientation to theory and practice.
Another approach to the relationship between theory and practice envisions a multivalent and multilayered reciprocal interplay between them. Often drawing from notions of praxis derived from critical social theory, this approach espouses a bidirectional influence between theory and practice: practices shape theories just as much as theories shape practices. This approach emphasizes the dynamic interrelationship of theory and practice. In this view, often found in liberal Protestantism, the vicissitudes of context and the challenges of hermeneutics tend toward both a mitigation of substantive and metaphysically normative claims and a decided preference for contemporary experience as the determinative norm.
An additional way to approach the tensive relationship between theory and practice gives primacy to practice, maintaining that practice gives rise to theory or that practice is in some significant way “theory laden” (Browning 6). Prosper of Aquitaine provided one of the earliest articulations of this approach when, in arguing for the primacy of prayer and worship in the development of doctrine, he contended that the pattern of prayer (lex orandi) gives rise to the pattern of belief (lex credendi) (Kavanagh xii; see also Schmemann). This way of negotiating the tension holds that all doctrine—at least that which pertains to the life and flourishing of the church—arises from, can be resolved back into, and ultimately serves religious practices.
Second, any engagement with religious practices must attend to and negotiate tensions between uniformity and diversity. Religious practices derive their normative character from Scripture and various ecclesial traditions. The authoritative teachings and narratives of Scripture determine both the range of possible religious practices that are consonant with the core vision and ethical norms of the Jewish and Christian traditions and their normative shape. Similarly, but in a usually subordinate manner, particular religious traditions also contribute to the shaping of normative character of religious practices. The boundaries of orthopraxis arising from biblical interpretation and from awareness of accumulated tradition provide the terms within which communities of faith should engage in particular religious practices, largely without regard to contexts or circumstances. Much of the formal and informal teaching that takes place within religious communities focuses on inducting the faithful and their children into normatively prescribed patterns of engagement with religious practices.
Religious practices as engaged by actual communities and individuals do not take place in abstraction from historical, social, cultural, political, geographical, and economic realities. The actual instantiation of religious practices by communities and individuals always varies to some degree from the prescribed norms of Scripture and tradition. Context and the idiosyncrasies of practitioners always determine the ways in which actual people appropriate and engage in religious practices (see de Certeau). Michel de Certeau, in The Practice of Everyday Life, provided a helpful distinction between “strategies” and “tactics.” For de Certeau, strategies are the imposed norms of the powerful and the established on the weak or the subjected; tactics, by contrast, are the improvised, ad hoc, and often artful appropriations of imposed strategies by the weak and objectified. In relation to religious practices, de Certeau’s distinction illuminates how actual religious practitioners appropriate the norms imposed by Scripture and tradition in ways that often are unique, messy, and ad hoc. Theologian Kathryn Tanner similarly observes about practices that they are “quite open-ended, in the sense of being rather undefined in their exact ideational dimensions and in the sense of being always in the process of re-formation in response to new circumstances” (229-30). The implications of this distinction make clear that religious practices can never be fully understood solely in relation to their normative aspect as derived from Scripture and tradition; religious practices are always a pastiche of the uniformly normative and the contextually diverse. Any treatment of religious practices that attends to only one aspect of this tension will distort their genuine complexity and richness.
Third, any analytical or constructive focus on religious practices must attend to the connection between communal and individual engagement. Communities of faith serve as both seedbeds and stewards of religious practices across centuries and even millennia. Religious practices belong primarily to communities. Most religious practices grow out of and support the ongoing vitality of religious communities. Prior to appropriation by individuals, religious practices find expression in communal contexts, usually in corporate worship or liturgy.
At the same time, communities are made up of individual adherents and their networks of kinship and friendship. While religious communities are always more than the sum total of their individual members, they are never less than the aggregation of those unique persons. Each adherent of a religious community participates in a religious practice in a way that makes sense to him or her, given the specifics of life narrative, personality, gender, likes and dislikes, racial and ethnic identity, economic circumstances, and cultural affinities. No one person engages in a practice in exactly the same way as another person, even if the outwardly observable behavior may appear identical. The meaning made and the particular instantiation of any given religious practice varies from person to person within a religious community.
It should be noted that not every person who engages in one or more religious practices identifies with a particular religious community. Through the widespread availability of information via print, visual, and digital media, not to mention word of mouth and informal observation, many people who lack affiliation with a particular religious community engage in religious practices of various kinds. For example, many people pray and read Scripture who have no membership in any religious community. The recent phenomena of globalization, the digital revolution, and the marbling of cultures have produced significant numbers of people who claim to be “spiritual without being religious” (Eck 4-5). Decoded, this phrase often means that religiously unaffiliated people engage in one or several religious practices in order to find self-fulfillment, meaning, or transcendent experience apart from particular religious communities.
A closely related phenomenon has come into increasing prominence in the contemporary situation: people who appropriate and engage in religious practices from multiple religious traditions. With the greater awareness, access, and curiosity that comes with globalization, ease of migration, multireligious families, and the digital revolution, many individuals who continue to claim primary affiliation with one particular religious community experiment with engagement in selected particular religious practices of other communities within one’s own religion or of religions other than one’s own. Hybridity and creative juxtaposition of religious practices from a dazzling array of religious sources have emerged as significant themes in the contemporary situation. Such a changed and rapidly changing situation presents new challenges for traditionally bounded religious communities, particularly in relation to the issue of uniformity and normativity in relation to religious practices.
Religious Practices in Relation to Scripture and Ethics
Religious practices play a key role in both Scripture and ethics. Normative practices central to both the Jewish and the Christian traditions derive primarily from Scripture. Narratives, paraenetic material, and wisdom literature provide the norms and range of acceptable variations for religious practices of these religious communities.
Similarly, religious practices play a key role in Christian ethics. Ethical visions and norms exert shaping influence on the range and norms of practices pertinent to Christian communities and individuals in particular times and places. While religious practices play some role in every approach to Christian ethics, the Aristotelian-inspired “virtue ethics” orientation to Christian ethics makes religious practices central to the enterprise (see Hauerwas).
Religious practices have to do with more than simply the contents or subject matter of Scripture and ethics. The enterprise of reading and interpreting Scripture through the ages has given rise to a significant set of religious practices. Particular religious practices for reading Scripture devotionally, liturgically, homiletically, scholarly, ethically, and politically have emerged over time. As with Scripture, participation in the discipline of Christian ethics has given rise to distinctive practices and attendant norms for interpreting and responding to moral problems or situations.
Scripture and ethics considered conjointly in their interplay in relation to religious practices have a complex history. For example, scriptural teachings and norms have given rise to many of the practices associated with Christian ethics. Further, for Christian ethics, Scripture provides the primary aims, norms, and guidelines for analysis, evaluation, and construction of ethical visions or programs. Conversely, reflection in the area of Christian ethics has shed considerable light on the meaning of Scripture. A practices perspective frequently has opened up new levels of insight into key or difficult passages of Scripture. Sometimes, as in the cases of the issues of slavery and of the roles of women in church and society, ethical reflection has challenged traditional interpretations of texts and brought to light deeper readings of texts.
Strengths and Weaknesses of a Practices Approach A religious-practices emphasis in relation to Christian life and belief affords a range of benefits for both academy and religious communities. Primarily,
this approach makes central lived realities of Christian community and individual discipleship. It underscores the importance of action, commitment, and embodiment in Christian belief and life. Further, it provides something of a check on tendencies toward abstraction and decontextualization associated with certain idealist forms of theological reflection. It also tends to emphasize the central role of the entirety of the Christian community, not just members of the clergy or Christian academics.
At the same time, a religious-practices approach to Christian life and belief has some significant weaknesses. By putting so much emphasis on the action of communities and individuals, it perpetually runs the risk both of slipping into a “works righteousness” orientation to Christian faith and of deemphasizing the central importance of divine action in human life. A further risk associated with a religious-practices approach involves the devaluation of contemplation, beauty, and serendipitous dimensions of Christian belief and life.
Conclusion
The religious-practices approach to Christian belief and life that has emerged in recent decades has fostered much richness in various branches of theological study, not the least in the fields of Bible and ethics, and in the life of local churches. It has inspired deeper insight into Scripture and has opened up renewed appreciation for the contours of Christian faith as expressed in the patterns of life in Christian communities. Despite some limitations and dangers, the recent emphasis on religious practices promises to function as a fecund source of creativity in biblical studies and Christian ethics for the foreseeable future.
See also Character; Ecclesiology and Ethics; Habit; Hospitality; Liturgy and Ethics; Praxis; Teleological Theories of Ethics; Virtue(s); Virtue Ethics
Bibliography
Bass, D., ed. Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People. Jossey-Bass, 1997; idem. Receiving the Day: Christian Practices for Opening the Gift of Time. Jossey-Bass, 2000; idem. “Ways of Life Abundant.” Pages 21—40 in For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry, ed. D. Bass and C. Dykstra. Eerdmans, 2008; Browning, D. A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals. Fortress, 1991; Charry, E. By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Doctrine. Oxford University Press, 1997; de Certeau, M. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. S. Rendall. University of California Press, 1984; Dewey, J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Holt, 1938; Dykstra, C. Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices. Geneva Press, 1999; Eck, D. A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country” Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. Harper-SanFrancisco, 2001; Farley, E. The Fragility of Knowledge: Theological Education in the Church and the University. Fortress, 1988; Hauerwas, S. The Hauerwas Reader. Ed. J. Berkman and M. Cartwright. Duke University Press, 2001; Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. P Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge University Press, 1998 [1787]; Kavanagh, A. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. SRRCC 1. Pueblo, 1978; Lobkowicz, N. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx. University of Notre Dame Press, 1967; Long, T. Testimony: Talking Ourselves into Being Christian. Jossey-Bass, 2004; MacIntyre, A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. University of Notre Dame Press, 2007; Marx, K. “The German Ideology: Part I.” Pages 146—200 in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. R. Tucker. 2nd ed. Norton, 1978; Schmemann, A. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Trans. A. Moorhouse. 3rd ed. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986; Tanner, K. “Theological Reflection and Christian Practices.” Pages 228—42 in Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, ed. M. Volf and D. Bass. Eerdmans, 2002.
Gordon Mikoski