Law, Order, and Hierarchy: Qohelet’s View

Ben Witherington III and Frank Viola are in cordial disagreement about hierarchical arrangements in the common life of believers. The online back-and-forth has been fascinating. Go here, . . . here, here, here, and here (more to come!). For further discussion, check out Peter Kirk (here and here) and Bill Heroman (here).

It is interesting to discuss the topic of hierarchy in the midst of a political season in which the old differences between liberals and conservatives come once again to the fore. Liberals tend to be uneasy about stressing the importance of law and order and the hierarchy needed to preserve law and order. Self-identifying conservatives, on the other hand, pay tribute to, but do not develop the subject matter in a convincing way. Below the fold, I touch on the matter further, in light of passages from the book of Qohelet.

As Peter Kirk notes, BW3 offers sharp criticism of some of FV’s emphases, especially the suggestion that the church should not be hierarchical. BW3 writes:

I also have a problem with those who have a problem inherently with the notion of hierarchial leadership structures, because in fact such structures are Biblical not merely in the OT, but in the NT as well, as documents like the Pastoral Epistles and Acts make clear. . . .

[H]ere is where I stress that ontological equality and functional subordination have always been and always will be compatible, and the blueprint the Godhead provides us with a reason to expect that in the church there will be a hierarchial pattern of ordering things. . . . No, it will involve a leader and follower, shepherd and sheep, pastor and congregation, apostle and co-workers – hierarchy - something Frank wants to avoid at all costs, seeing it as either inorganic or simply fallen human structures.

BW3 also has this to say:

As for hermeneutics, Frank seems to me, unless I am missing something, to be adopting what I can only call a spiritualist hermeneutic which privileges theology over history . . . The danger in canonical criticism, which most NT scholars find seriously flawed (see the criticisms now in J.K. Mead's Biblical Theology), is that it denies the historical meaning of the text over and over again, which is why it is called a theological or even Gnostic hermeneutic by some. We are not the inspired writers of the canon, and we do not have the right to read into the text things God didn’t inspire those writers to say. Our job is to interpret the text, not remake it in terms of our modern meaning-making exercises.

On this last point, I agree with FV and not with BW3. It is important to make a distinction between the historical meaning of the text and our modern meaning-making exercises, but the task of confessional interpretation does not end with collecting the historical meanings of the texts and arranging them according to some more or less heteronomic principle. At some point, one has to allow scripture to interpret scripture, and in the process, some passages will end up orienting the reading of the whole more than others. The entire enterprise, furthermore, will take place within the context of a tradition of interpretation more or less broadly defined. It is useless to pretend otherwise.

In light of the above controversy about hierarchy, I thought it would be fun to ask a question: WWQD? WWQS? As in: what does Qohelet say about law, order, hierarchy and the presence / absence thereof, in human society? If Qohelet, who didn’t have much good to say about the world he observed, were transported into ours, would he make common cause with conservatives or liberals?  

Qohelet believed in hierarchy. When he saw class distinctions erased, he took offense (10:5-7):

יֵשׁ רָעָה רָאִיתִי תַּחַת    הַשָּׁמֶשׁ

כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיֹּצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט

נִתַּן הַסֶּכֶל בַּמְּרוֹמִים רַבִּים

וַעֲשִׁירִים בַּשֵּׁפֶל יֵשֵׁבוּ

רָאִיתִי עֲבָדִים עַל־סוּסִים

וְשָׂרִים הֹלְכִים כַּעֲבָדִים עַל־הָאָרֶץ

An evil I’ve observed in the light of day:

the kind of error that issues from a magnate’s court:

folly is appointed to great heights

while the rich take their place at the bottom.

I’ve seen slaves on horses

and princes walking on the ground as if they were slaves.

Not only Qohelet but wisdom literature in general is realistic about the standard outcome of revolutions at the state and domestic levels: a cure worse than the disease. Compare Proverbs 19:10; 30:21-23. It is also clear from the above passage that Qohelet detested the inclination of the powerful to appoint sycophants in high places. He bitterly resigns himself to the abuse of hierarchy on another occasion (5:7):

אִם־עֹשֶׁק רָשׁ

וְגֵזֶל מִשְׁפָּט וָצֶדֶק

תִּרְאֶה בַמְּדִינָה

אַל־תִּתְמַהּ עַל־הַחֵפֶץ

כִּי גָבֹהַּ מֵעַל גָּבֹהַּ שֹׁמֵר

וּגְבֹהִים עֲלֵיהֶם

If you observe the state

oppressing the poor

and robbing them of justice and equity,

do not be surprised at the matter.

For one highly placed person protects another highly placed person,

and highly-placed persons above them.

Qohelet, in any case, was a true-blue law-and-order advocate (8:10b-12a):

גַּם־זֶה הָבֶל

אֲשֶׁר אֵין־נַעֲשֶׂה* פִתְגָם מַעֲשֵׂה הָרָעָה מְהֵרָה

עַל־כֵּן מָלֵא לֵב בְּנֵי־הָאָדָם בָּהֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת רָע

אֲשֶׁר חֹטֶא עֹשֶׂה רָע מֵאָז** וּמַאֲרִיךְ לוֹ

* Vocalization slightly emended. **With LXX. For discussion, see Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 285-286.

Another absurdity:

namely, that the [divine] sentence for an evil act is not carried out quickly.

That is why the heart of human kind is intent on doing evil,

namely, an offender does evil from day one and [thus] prolongs his life.

It’s fair to say that Qohelet was a conservative in the sense of someone who places an extremely high priority on law and order. God himself is not conservative enough for Qohelet’s taste. It’s also fair to say that a lot of people in all times and places tend to be conservative in the very same ways Qohelet was.

Is it possible to be conservative in the sense Qohelet was, but also liberal in the sense of openness to gift-based authority alongside of chain-of-command-based and guild-based authority,¹ and alongside openness to the exercise of mercy in the realm of justice? Of course it is.

On the other hand, it is not possible to be a conservative in the sense Qohelet was, and liberal, too, if being liberal is about “challenging authority” and thinking of law and order as “a system of oppression.” Framing the debate in that way is useless at best and destructive at worst.

BTW, do “house-churches,” the movement Frank Viola relates to, attract conservative or liberals? Based on party identification (here), it’s hard to tell. If i had to guess, I would say that the house church movement attracts conservatives, libertarians, and liberals in numbers proportional to their strength in the general population, but for different reasons. That diversity, of course, is a sign of strength.

Footnote

¹I use “guild-based authority” to refer to distinctions in the trades and professions between apprentices, licensed, and non-licensed practitioners according to standards of accreditation. I use “chain-of-command based authority” to refer to the officer system of a military or paramilitary organization, not to mention the executive structure of corporations and governments.

 

Comments

[Wyn]

Typically in Canadian politics, the liberals are pro hierarchy and centralization, and the conservatives appeal to "law and order." The liberals ask for concessions to preserve unity, and the conservatives appeal to community values, a populace-based power.

In the Anglican church one can see the same thing. The liberals want to preserve the hierarchy, and the conservatives have a free for all approach to power, every congregation to itself, and back to a fundamentalist approach to scripture.

So I see hierarchy and "law and order" as independent and potentially opposing tendencies.

Frankly, I see hierarchy as an instrument, either of unthinkable evil, preservation of an agreed upon good, or anything and everything in between. It is the tension between the different layers of society that lead to a resolution of various needs for justice. We see this tension in the scriptures. I think it is wrong to try and do away with the tension. It is essential.

[Peter Kirk]

The second link to my blog should be to http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=702. See John's comments and my responses.

Interesting points about that old curmudgeon Qoheleth. But I understand his work to be in the canon to make us think, rather than for us to use it as a law code.

I also like your mention of "gift-based authority" in distinction to two other types. I don't know exactly what you mean here, but perhaps this, rather than complete anarchy or democracy, is what Viola really has in mind, or at least what I have.

Then you actually dare to disagree with BW3? What if your bishop sees that and doesn't like it? After all, in your system as you described it on my blog she has the authority to arbitrarily reassign you without consultation to the worst church in her diocese or whatever you call it. Now I'm sure she is a godly lady who wouldn't do that, but don't you see how your system allows bishops this kind of ungodly chain-of-command based authority?

[JohnFH]

Wyn,

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I think of hierarchy as an easily perverted good, which is not far from your stance. I think the same of law and order.

It is definitely true that some people who self-identify as conservatives are anything but in a traditional sense. Furthermore, old-style liberals, as you also note (I'm more familiar with the Roman Catholic world), often made and continue to make judicious use of hierarchical arrangements. Unfortunately, they are a dying breed.

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I am tempted to say that it is new-style liberals and new-style conservatives that make a hash of things almost by definition.

Peter,

You are too funny. It is true that to live within a hierarchical setup, one has to trust in God more than oneself and more than the hierarchy. If one's faith does not allow that kind of confidence, then one is truly left to one's own devices.

BTW, I agree with you completely that Qohelet is not there to be more than a glorious example of what falls within the range of permissible thought for a believer. A heretic is someone who finds the canon too broad for them, too big of a tent, because it includes Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel, Qohelet, and Song of Songs, and in the New Testament, Matthew, John, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, James, 1 Peter, and Revelation.

[Wyn]

Liberals tend to be uneasy about stressing the importance of law and order and the hierarchy needed to preserve law and order.

This confuses me because the liberal govt. here has traditionally been Roman Catholic, but also in the States, the Catholics are Democrats, no?

In this quote, did you mean "old style" liberals, or "new style" liberals, or are you just against anyone who tries to change the status quo, whatever that is.

[Bill]

What is "liberal" in one country may be "conservative" in another.

At their root, conservativism is about maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is about promoting the freedom to change it. Technically, these words mean nothing without a context. Now, forget USA politics for a moment.

In doxy, I'm conservative. In praxy, I'm liberal.

The Reformation was theological.

Luther should have gone further...

[Phil Sumpter]

It seems to be a trend that it's New Testament scholars who emphasise the literal, historical meaning of the text rather than Old Testament scholars. This must have something to do with the fact that it's the "New" testament that they're studying, which can mislead them into thinking that its the New that's where the truth is, they've "got it" so to speak, so all they have to do is interpret it literally and you have a one way path to doctrine. This is a theological mistake which doesn't come to terms with the two-testmental nature of scripture as a combined witness to a single reality, a reality which neither testament has fully grasped. Christian OT scholars are spared this as they simply can't read the OT literally. They are therefore forced to wrestle with questions of referentiality, meaning, and the function of scripture within the economy of God in a way that NT scholars feel is unnecessary. I think it's no wonder that, as Ben Myers recently said (here), all the best biblical theologians are in OT.

But then perhaps I'm being unfair.

[JohnFH]

Wyn,

"Old-style" liberalism is dying out in the Roman Catholic Church. My best friends in the RC, who define themselves as evangelical Catholics (they take typical evangelical emphases like evangelism, group Bible study and prayer, and the experience of personal conversion and enculturate them in a RC setting) note ruefully that they were given more room to make their specific contribution to the whole by the old-style liberals than by the new-style conservatives in the hierarchy, though they are closer to the latter in doxy and praxis in essential ways.

New-style conservatives too often lack sufficient wisdom and confidence to use the power they now have productively.

BTW, Roman Catholics, politically speaking, are no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats. There really is a good chance that younger active Catholics will break decisively for McCain-Palin. If so, Obama-Biden are sunk.

For new-style liberals, "change" too often is some sort of mantra and anyone who expresses doubt about its content is branded as a reactionary. New-style liberals of this kind are insufferable. Insofar as the Obama-Biden brand is identified with that version of liberalism, which sees hierarchy and law and order as evils to be replaced by - new-style liberals calling the shots, it is doomed.

[JohnFH]

Bill,

I think you misrepresent both political conservatism and political liberalism. I continue to be struck by how difficult liberals of the newer variety find it to describe conservative political thought except in very reductionistic terms.

I make no attempt in my post to describe all aspects of conservatism, and I agree with Wyn's qualification that many new-style conservatives are just as mindlessly anti-hierarchy as are new-style liberals, but I think liberals and conservatives would be wise the develop the themes of hierarchy and law and order in positive, constructive ways.

I really don't know which is worse: making "law and order" into an empty mantra, or understanding it to be a system of oppression. I really don't know which is worse: reducing support of hierarchy to delight in its symbols (the stars of a general, the bishop's ring, for many, the American flag), or understanding hierarchy as inherently evil. On the contrary, hierarchy is an easily perverted good.

[JohnFH]

Phil,

I sympathize greatly with your comments. I hope Ben Myers (BTW one of our best bloggers), expands on his point in the future.

[Bill]

I wasn't talking about political liberalism or conservatism. Just making a seperate point. Or so I thought. ;)

Reading George Will is about as political as I get. Actually, John, you might like him too.

[Bill]

Phil,

I'm not an OT guy. More's the pity. But I do imagine that if we had as much extant on the Pharoahs and other Middle Eastern Kings as we do on Greece & Rome, the elements you talked about would shift somewhat.

My point, merely, is that even partial evidence is at least tempting. I trust you know the old joke about looking for a watch under a streetlight?

[Wyn]

or understanding hierarchy as inherently evil.

I would not say this at all, but hierarachy has an enormous potential for evil. Therefore, there must always be a tension. There are those who have been destroyed by genocide and the evil use of power. This needs to be properly addressed.

I think the suspicion of "new-style" this and that, suggests to me more confidence in "old-style" this and that, than I would ever have. I cannot make peace so lightly with the injustices of the past.

[JohnFH]

Wyn,

We agree. Indeed, as a former member of the Italian Communist Party, there are many injustices of the past associated with the left that I may be more painfully aware of than you.

When it comes to the abuse of power, the left gets first prize, the right, second.

I was just reading over a historical synopsis of the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. I am more comfortable with "old-style" liberalism than "new-style," but "old-style" liberals also have much to be ashamed about.

[Wyn]

I am struggling with how this conversation morphed from

Liberals tend to be uneasy about stressing the importance of law and order and the hierarchy needed to preserve law and order.

To

When it comes to the abuse of power, the left gets first prize, the right, second.

I see that the conglomeration of power, regardless of who has it, as a problem.

I think we are talking apples and oranges. I will have to leave off. No more time.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Wyn, for the dialogue.

It was a freewheeling discussion, with apples and oranges and even bananas and apricots compared here and there.

[Shawshank Redemption 1]

We surround ourselves with hierarchy in our everyday lives, and never comment about it. This is seen in the different levels of government, on our job sites, and for some, even in our families. The Bible has made it clear that there is a hierarchy that we as Christians need to come under. Everyone does have a position to fill in the body of Christ and none can look at the other part of the body and think they are greater, because we all need each other. However, with that said, and understood, it is when we as a body work as a unit that there will be certain times that the leg will be the expert and the rest of the body will have to trust and follow. If you have seen a body in motion than this should be easily understood; we can not operate as a body without allowing leadership to be given, and we follow when needed.

[prayingwithlior1]

I enjoyed this conversation today in lecture with Christ giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. I feel as though people thought that Jesus would come down to earth and rule over the Jew and defeat all their enemies like the Romans. However, Jesus was a symbol, for his kingdom was not of the earthly world, but of the heavenly one. For whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Also I believe God sent those she bears to test his prophet Elisha. For God has given us free will and we must believe in him to let the Holy Spirit guide us to God.

[Truman Show 2]

Everybody has to deal with hierarchy in their everyday lives, even if we don’t see it. Every day we see hierarchy in the government, at our jobs, at our school, and even at home with your family. Having a hierarchy isn’t always bad, because a lot of people need someone to follow. When hierarchy is bad is when the leader becomes corrupt and abuses their power. In 1 Samuel 8 Samuel tells the people what the king will do if they have a king rule over them, but the people still wanted to have a king put in place to rule over them. This shows me that even though people know that some bad things will happen, they would still like to have someone who leads everyone.

[Pulp Fiction 6]

Romans 13 is a great passage describing how the government is worked into the bible at that time. It discusses God's governing abilities and what he does. Also, it speaks of how the people need to fulfill what is do, speaking of things such as taxes, customs, and honor. It also discusses the value of love and the concern of moral purity. It explains that as a Christian, people are supposed to submit to God's law and what he expects of us. And it discusses how we owe our love to one another and all the people around us.

[The Mission 7]

“May desert tribes kneel before him and his enemies lick the dust. … And let all kings bow down to him, all nations serve him.” I can see why people would think that God is and his role in the lives of not only His believers, the Israelites, but for also their enemies. However, if you continue that passage, it goes on to say, “For he will rescue the poor who cry out and the afflicted who have no helper. He will have pity on the poor and helpless and save the lives of the poor. He will redeem them from oppression and violence, for their lives are precious in his sight.” This, to me, shows God’s almighty power and reasons why He should be feared. As for hierarchy, God gives man the right to choose which path they will walk, but it is repeated numerous times in the Bible that God is a wrathful one, but to say that he is unjust is pushing it. In a Biblical perspective, God is the ultimate ruler and judge of His people, and those who disobey his commandments will be subject to whatever ruling He has for them on Judgment Day. There is a reason why He gave us free will to do as we liked, but also set standards to gain acceptance to His kingdom. It is so He knows who his true believers are and who has real faith.

[Breaker Morant 2]

Hierarchy can be both a positive and a negative way of life. It is positive in the fact that we understand were people fit into society and are able to better identify life. But at the same time, hierarchy is negative for a multitude of reasons. First, hierarchy makes prejudice and discrimination all the more easier because it distinguishes between people. If you were not raised with the hierarchical idea that homeless people or people with no money were at the bottom of the pyramid, you would not be able to make fun of them or discriminate against them in crimes. This same idea comes through on the idea of race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation with the idea that anyone who thinks someone is different can and will be discriminated against. Yes, we will always have hierarchy, but I believe the idea that we as humans are all on the same level in the hierarchy with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit a level above us as our leaders and kings in our lives.

[The Truman Show 3]

With the current Occupy protests around the country, it becomes more and more clear that Hierarchy and power corrupts. Hierarchy is defined as any system of people or things rated higher than another and in this case, that would be the top 1% of the nations income bracket. People have become outrages at the imbalance of wealth and resources in the United States and have staged multiple protests to prove their point, and protests don't erupt without some form of corruption... at least not in my experience.

[Nell 2]

Hierarchy is something that truly does affect our day-to-day lives. It is not something that is brought up daily and it seems that people just accept it the way it is. Hierarchy has taken root in our culture in so many different areas. It can be seen in our government, in the work place, and financial structure. Within the Bible, a hierarchy is set for Christians. Each Christian has a place. The Lord is atop of this structure and Christians and brother and sister in Christ are a larger, but less powered tier of hierarchy. Together Christians need to care for one another and support others, even outside of Christianity. God is a great leader of Christians. With this leadership, Christians can continue to do the work of the Lord.

[True Grit 3]

Hierarchy is what makes our society run today. The way our society is set up calls for someone in charge, leading the people. This is the only way things can get done, and the only way things can happen. There is Hierarchy in religion and faith as well. God, the Pope, Bishops and so on, they are all a working hierarchy that keeps followers doing all the things that they do.

[Dead Man Walking 6]

In our life, everybody has to deal with hierarchy, even if we do not really see it. Every day we see hierarchy in the government, at our jobs, at our school, and even at home with your family. Hierarchy can be both a positive and a negative way of life. It is positive because we need to identify things surrounding us in order to have a united society. In another hand, hierarchy is negative for a multiple of reasons. First, hierarchy creates prejudice and discrimination among between people. For an example, it raises the idea which people makes fun at other because they are homeless or from different races or ethnic. Secondly, hierarchy is bad is when the leader becomes corrupt and abuses their power. We will always have hierarchy, but I believe the idea that we as humans are all on the same level in the hierarchy with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[Breaker Morant 3]

I believe there will always be corruption in hierarchies because we're human and we sin, and there's no way around it. However, I don't believe God is unjust or selfish in any way. God is not human, he is not prone to sin, so his will and his command are perfect.