Reggie Kidd, Paul to Titus: On Christians in the Public Square

In his letter to Titus, Paul offers forty-six crisp verses on theology, social ethics, and personal morality. The letter is a stunning tour-de-force on how Christians are to impact their pagan world. It includes thoughts, I think, that are worth lingering over in a political season.

Curiously, the first thing Paul says about God is that he “does not lie” (Titus 1:2). This is the only time the Bible ever feels the need to say precisely this. Why here? Why now? Simple. From antiquity, Cretans had claimed that Zeus had been born as a man on the island of Crete and had eventually died and been buried there as well; only then had he been elevated to deity in acknowledgment of his many benefactions for the human race.

In a word, Cretans were the Mormons of the ancient world. Not coincidentally, I think, Nikos Kazantzakis, whose several writings — not just The Last Temptation of Christ — imagine a merely human Christ ascending to deity through suffering — was from Crete.

Mainland Greeks had mocked Cretans for their theological brazenness. “Cretans are always liars. For a tomb, O Lord, Cretans build for you; but you did not die, for you are forever,” stormed Callimachus, the 3rd century B.C.E. librarian of Alexandria.

Imagine Paul’s delight at landing upon an indigenous voice that had much earlier affirmed the indictment: “Cretans are always liars …” (Titus 1:12, traditionally, from Epimenides, the 7th century B.C.E. chronicler of Cretan mythology). “Alas,” the Cretan prophet had already acknowledged, “we do knowingly misrepresent the god we claim to know.”

Imagine Paul’s triple delight to find the ancient Cretan voice spelling out in his saying the social and personal consequences of theological dissembling: “… vicious beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). 

Crete was reputed to lack predatory animals: no “wolves, bears, any noxious animals at all except a poisonous spider, wild boars, and hedgehogs,” says Pliny, the Roman historian (Natural History 8.83). “Alas,” to paraphrase Paul’s Cretan prophet, “we have no need of vicious beasts, we have each other!”

The history of ethical discourse about Crete consists of a tension between a desire to curb “greed and luxury” for the sake of social harmony and the sad fact that dissension rooted in selfish “envy, arrogance, and hatred” continually surfaces (according to the Roman geographer, Strabo Geography 10.4.16). The Roman ethicist Polybius defines “uncontrolled avarice and the lust for gain” as “the besetting Cretan vice” (Polybius 6.46.3; 6.46.9; 6.47.4). “Amen,” echoes the Cretan prophet sadly, “we cannot control our desires” (the phrase “lazy gluttons” is, of course, tongue in cheek).

When a Cretan says Cretans never tell the truth, is he telling the truth or is he lying? If he’s telling the truth, he’s a liar who can’t be telling the truth. If he’s lying, then he’s just confirming the truth of the statement and he’s not a liar after all. Logicians have pondered that conundrum for centuries. One of the Bible’s most delightful moments of irony lies in Paul’s literary wink: “He has surely told the truth!” (Titus 1:13).

The truth is this: Cretan Christians minister in a culture that confesses that when it comes to honoring the divine, promoting justice, and governing the self, there is a gap between aspiration and realization. It is as though Paul had shown up on the streets of Baltimore quoting H. L. Mencken, or in Hannibal quoting Samuel Clemens. No wonder Paul calls him — pagan though he was — a prophet.

The Cretan prophet’s saying provides the keynote for Paul’s message to Cretan Christians, a fact that becomes clear by the time we get to 2:11-12: “The grace of God has appeared … and teaches us … to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives.” What Christ came to teach and what his followers are called upon to embody is the opposite of the Cretan prophet’s three phrases. Rather than religious lies, Christ and his followers promote godliness. Rather than ethical viciousness, Christ and his followers display justice. Rather than corrupt motives, Christ and his followers embody self-control. (To download a fuller treatment of the subject, see my Horizons in Biblical Theology article “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts, and Gluttons.”)

What is worth pondering in this election year is where Paul goes with all this when he turns, as he does in chapter 3 of the letter, to Christians’ place in the public square:

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone (Titus 3:1-2 TNIV).

At about the same time he writes to Titus, Paul urges prayer for civil authorities (1Timothy 2:1-2). Here, though — as he had earlier in Romans 13:1-7 — Paul provides instruction for living under civil authority. But the instructions in Romans 13 were simple: submit and be willing to pay taxes. Here the instructions are more active, and more complicated. The Greek term translated “be obedient” (1:2) connotes “readiness of persuasion” — it is a disposition towards cooperation. In an age when members of Roman municipal elites often begged off when asked to help their communities, Paul tells Christians: “be ready to do whatever is good.”

Moreover, when Crete’s Christians step into the political arena, their demeanor should belie the Cretan prophet’s saying that Cretans are “vicious beasts.” Christians in the public square are to be winsome and irenic: “to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.” 

Paul, himself a Roman citizen, knew the politics of anger and claque-envy. He was also a citizen of the Hellenistic provincial city of Tarsus (in modern day southeastern Turkey), where a famous political dispute beginning with the inscription: “Work for young men, counsels for the middle-aged, and flatulence for old men,” had escalated into a war of excrement-slinging, literally and metaphorically (as narrated by Strabo, Geography 14.5.14). Paul was as familiar as we are with a politics of defamation, of “not only are you totally wrong but you are totally my enemy and I will do everything I can to humiliate you.” 

So, how to keep our wits about us this electoral season?

Paul would discourage us, I think, from wigging out, from throwing up our hands and voting, “None of the above.”

Paul would encourage us, I think, to consider what policies and what candidates will make us less a nation of religious liars — that means, in the first place, to refuse to succumb to the demand for total religious “buy-in” from either side. It means having our sensors up for prevarication from the left (“only our candidate cares about the poor and the environment”) and from the right (“only our candidate cares about national security and family values”). It means praying for that atmosphere Paul says we should be praying for: one in which “we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2). And it means, as Paul himself might put it, being “ready to be persuaded,”  but not willing to be duped.

Paul would encourage us, I think, to consider what policies and what candidates will diminish social viciousness and encourage social justice: justice for the unborn and the born; justice for the unemployed, for wage earners, and for investors; justice for women and justice for men; justice for Christians, for Jews, for Muslims, for “Other,” for “None;” justice for marrieds, for singles, for straights, for gays; and given the reach of our military and the interconnectedness of the global economy, justice for Darfur’s children well as Dayton’s. 

Finally, Paul would encourage us, I think, to consider what polices and candidates will discourage us from being a citizenry of “lazy gluttons.” To wit, what are the policies and who are the candidates who do not pander to us, but rather encourage among us sobriety and self-mastery — freedom from the tyranny of appetite and avarice?

After reading Paul’s profound letter to Titus, I feel like I grew up on Crete myself. In many respects I guess I have. I pray that I and my fellow citizens of the City of God will know how to resist the latent irreligion and bent to injustice and dissolution that both surrounds us and has inevitably shaped us. I pray we may be marked — in the public square as well as in our homes and churches and quiet time closets — by sobriety, justice, and godliness. 

Comments

[Linc Ashby]

During my seminary experience - in which you were such a huge and influential part - we were always challenged to enter into their world, that is the world of the text, the world of the audience, or in the case of this post, the situation that Paul was addressing in Crete. I found myself saying, as I read, "you've done it again," and by "again" I mean convicting me of my lack of understanding (and therefore possible misapplication) of the bible. Wonderful insights into Titus and spot on application to our world today. I have a good friend who shamelessly admits that he is a "one-issue" voter, meaning he will not ever under any circumstances vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion. Do you think this is legit? How should I counsel if it's not? Now I must hesitantly anticipate your comment to my most recent post.

[Dan]

I have two comments which are really more questions...just not phrased or punctuated that way:

1) when I read 1 Timothy 2 to pray for the kings and authorities, I read it this way: "pray for the authorities so that they stay the hell out of the way and allow the church to work unhindered" - not "pray for the authorities so that they do what is right". I understand that is certainly my presuppositions coming through - ie: a secular govt cannot rightly administer justice because it has no concept of right - therefore the best we can hope for in a secular world is that it[the govt] doesn't interfere with the church's work.

2) This goes back to an email I fired off to a group of friends a couple weeks ago (I think inspired by John Piper's gun control stance). On one side I certainly see living at peace with the authorities and slandering no one. I think you can take that stance and be totally legit - praying for guys like Hitler and Stalin and Mao as they murder millions of people. I think you can make a strong Biblical argument for never physically fighting wars and submitting even to the most evil men. But I think you can also make a strong argument that if some dude is abusing his power, there is certainly a reason to take him down - which almost requires not "living at peace with all men". The conclusion of that email as will be the conclusion of this comment is that I have no idea how to balance those two ideals. I just know if I come home and find some dude raping my wife, it will be awfully hard to "to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."

[Reggie Kidd]

Linc, thanks for your thoughts. No, I don't think single-issue voting is wise. I think that we've learned since 1973 that a sea change in public opinion has to occur before abortion can be eliminated. Logically, if a person doesn't support the rights of the unborn (the weakest in society) maybe I shouldn't expect them to work for justice for anybody else. But life doesn't follow logic. In fact, such-and-such a candidate who believes abortion should remain legal may have more impact in lowering abortions by furthering policies that make abortion seem less necessary than so-and-so candidate whose sole purpose for serving in office is legislatively overturning it. Thanks again. Reggie

[Reggie Kidd]

Dan, thanks for your questions not phrased as such. Here's my best shot, on the fly:

1) I do think it's a person's presupposition and not the text of 1Tm 2 itself that would have someone merely praying that the state not interfere in the church's work. Humans can't help it that they are made in the image of God. Humans can't help but create societies that reflect to some extent God's character and the dignity with which and for which God created them, whether they know it or not. To the extent that doesn't happen there will be sheer murderous barbarism; to the extent it does happen, there will be a measure of civility and social justice. By all means, pray that you have a government that does not hinder the church's work. But also pray for a government that -- whether knowing why it does so or not -- creates a climate in which justice and self-control flourish.

2) I agree with you that Paul's injunction to "live at peace with all men" is situation-specific, and cannot be woodenly applied. Titus 3:1-2 and Rom 13:1-7 are injunctions for life under the best case scenario. In Rom 12:18, Paul himself provides further nuance: "If possible, as far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all." That means: if the government tells me to disobey God, I must disobey the government (Acts 4:19-20). It also means that when when I am confronted with a person who is doing violence to another person, my job becomes protecting the innocent (Prov 24:10-12).

I know those aren't complete answers, but I think they head in the right direction. Thanks again. Reggie

[Alex]

I may be the good friend to whom Linc refers. I have called myself a single-issue voter, but what I mean by that is this: I think that most people are probably single issue voters in a sense. By that, I mean that I’m guessing we all have an issue that would automatically eliminate a candidate. I hesitate to use a hypothetical scenario or example from history, but I think such examples would abound. In a similar vain, I’m a single-issue voter in the sense that I am committed to never voting for a pro-choice candidate. That doesn’t mean it’s the only issue that I care about or that I think the solution to that problem is merely political. And it certainly doesn’t mean that I’ll vote for any pro-life candidate who requests my vote. It only means that I see that issue as large enough to be a single-issue eliminator. I’m asking honestly: do you also think that position is unwise?

Honestly, in spite of all the nuances I've heard, I can't get around that isue being the single biggest moral issue on our lifetimes. I feel so unsophisticated saying and even thinking that. I don't want to be a black-or-white, dogmatic, simplistic dude. Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I said I don't think we're blinded to how horrific it is for us to consider people who are open to defending abortion. I simply cannot stop feeling that way.

[Reggie Kidd]

Alex, I am close to being in sync with you ... I pretty much see a pro-abortion stance as disqualifying too ... but life is strange, and sometimes there are happy inconsistencies in the way people actually behave ... it's possible (as I indicate in my comment back to Linc) that the politician I agree with in principle is not actually able to help the cause and a politician I disagree with in principle shapes governmental policy in such a way as to make the situation a better one. I think it's a matter, as Jesus put it (though I'm pulling the phrase from its specific context) of, "wisdom being vindicated by her children" (Lk 7:35). Thanks for your thoughts ... much to ponder.

[Alex]

Dr. Kidd -

Thanks for the kind and helpful response. Another question I have, if you don't mind, is this: how much do you weigh the faith of potential candidates? If a candidate is secular or Mormon or something else other than Christian, does that factor in significantly for you? Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Reggie Kidd]

It's all relevant. The hard thing is that the filtering system that stands between any candidate and me is so dense, I don't know how to interpret information about their faith.

There's a YouTube video out there right now that has my friend Joel Hunter (pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed; and featured in Frances Fitzgerald's June 30 New Yorker article as her prime example of "The New Evangelicals") asking Hillary Clinton a question about how values shape her decision-making. Joel is one of the most penetrating Christian thinkers I know, but the setting totally allows her to go into politician-speak on him. You leave with absolutely no idea what she really believes and how her beliefs affect her policy-positions.

We've seen Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (don't believe it? ask Tony Campolo), and George W. Bush, all of whom claim some sort of evangelical/born-again experience and perspective. And it's hard to find a consistent thread of impact of their faith on their policies. It's pretty frustrating.

I've almost (note: *almost*!) come to conclude I have to discount or ignore the question of a candidates personal faith and just try to weed through the policy statements: who is most likely to create a climate in which faith, justice, and self-control can flourish?

Maybe you've got a better approach, Alex ... or maybe some other citizens of Commongrounds Nation have better wisdom to offer.

Reggie

[Alex]

Dr. Kidd - Very well put and helpful. Thank you for your time and helpful insight. By the way, awesome book (With One Voice) and awesome piece on Jackie Robinson! Keep up the great work!

[Lindy Davidson]

Reggie, Linc and company,
I just posted a short article I wrote on abortion on my blog at www.lindydavidson.net. Rather than going into it all here, it was easier to do it there. This being said, I'm with you Reggie. I remember one day in class one of our Canadian friends saying that we were eventually going to have to pick a new issue because the day would come when a pro-life candidate wouldn't be on the ballot. I have something else I'm working on that flips this whole concept of abortion being a Republican issue. The people who get the credit, at least, for civil rights justice are the Democrats. (in recent history, that is) What if all the pro-life people became Democrats and then started strong-arming their candidates to consider the other side? I know, it's totally upside-down. Sometimes the way up is the way down though.