Exegesis is not Neutral

Recently a community mate took a class that was held at the Sundance festival. It was a Fuller class so naturally they focused on the movies that addressed religious issues. Two of the movies were about homosexuality and took a very liberal stance on the issue. The producers and some of the actors from the movies came to their class and discussed it with them. The movies obviously made the "conservatives" look like asses that nobody in their right mind should even come close to agreeing with. His question, as we were talking, was "Can we be theologically substanitive and not assholes at the same time?" He was dealing with how to disagree with the exegesis of the movies and yet honestly deal with homosexual Christians in love.

(Note here I did not qualify "homosexual Christians" with quotation marks because I think if we are so sure that homosexuals cannot be Christians then we must be equally sure that adulters and divorcees cannot be Christians; not to mention those who habor anger towards another or those who lust after a member of the opposite sex. I know this is a shock but I am just trying to take the words of Jesus seriously though I can rarely live up to them. :)

The following is an email I sent to him as I did not have a developed answer when he posed the question. This is not a thesis project so it is not as thorough I as I would like, but it is from the heart.

I've been thinking since hearing you discuss your time at Sundance and now I can't sleep without getting this out, so please bear with me. Earlier when you were explaining the homosexuality discussion I had a lot I wanted to say but at the time I thought it better to simply listen. However, I am a bit concerned with the liberal ethical shift among certain strains of Christians (some who even label themselves as Evangelical). I am concerned because their "exegesis" and reasoning can seem appealing to young postmodern students who all to often are ready to throw off their perceived constrictive conservative upbringings in order to embrace something "liberating." This goes to the core of many issues, not just homosexuality. Many are ready to shed their denomination, the political party of their parents, and otherwise traditional belief structures that formed them into the people they are today. I think one of the areas where this is readily apparent is in the issue of sexuality.

A brief history of sexual morality in America may be in order here. Protestantism in America has been trying fervently to rid itself of its puritan past which hangs around like a younger sibling despite liberalism's best efforts to do away with it. In rejecting the puritan position of sexual relationships between individuals the church had to attach to another sexual ethic as it was theologically incapable of creating a "new" one as that would be an historically impossible task. Thus, it attached to the American romantic ideal of "falling in love" and "living happily ever after." This was not the traditional Christian view of relationships but it worked for the church early on in American history because it was still heterosexual and remained largely family oriented since birth control was yet to be invented. However, as times began to change and the American romantic ideal shifted to romanticism’s inevitable outcome of sexual narcissism the church in America was impotent to combat the cultural norm due to the fact that it had abandoned its traditional theological framework for thinking about sexuality. The American ideal worked as long as it was Little House on the Prairie but it failed the church when it became Sex and the City. With the church left impotent to defend its traditionally held views which it had rejected, where was it going to turn for a "new" theological perspective on sex? It turned naturally to the Scriptures. This turn should be praised, yet the new exegetical shift was still using the Enlightenment notion that the truth of the text was attainable from a position outside the text. In other words, the text was not enough in itself but the truth had to be determined from sources outside the text. This usually came from history which developed into a historical criticism of the text but much of this "history" is based on the myth that it is possible to understand purely the author's intent if we simply know what was going on historically at the time. And these historical situations are often presented as certain when the vast majority of what we know historically about the text is in fact located in the text itself. I would contend that it is impossible to know exactly what the author of the law codes in the Torah actually meant when writing the text.
The best approach, in my opinion, is a literary approach in which we test our hypothesis (in this case, "homosexuality is not a sin") by examining texts for themselves. In other words, if historically the author was not intending to say that homosexuality was not a sin but simply a part of a culturally dependent law code then do we have other biblical texts in other cultural contexts that either approve of homosexuality explicitly or tell stories in which two members of the same sex are living in a sexual relationship to one another. Thus, even if the text can be explained away historically (I don't think it can but more on that later) then we must ask, "Why is all the literary evidence in support of homosexuality being outside of God's will?" We never have one positive portrayal of homosexuality in the canonical text. All historical criticism must necessarily negate the text rather than affirm the text.
Back to historical criticism. You stated that one of the arguments was that of a holiness code in which many things were condemned unclean that we now have no problem with, i.e. clothes being made of two different fibers. However, just because these are in the same list of prohibitions does not necessitate that they are prohibited for the same reason. For example, the reason why one could not eat lobster was because lobster is a scavenger and, thus, a dirty animal; a pig could not be eaten because it could kill if not cooked at the right temperature for the required length of time while beef is fairly safe raw (I'm not saying they didn't cook it). However, homosexuality could not be condemned for these reasons. Thus, we must have a more substantial view of why homosexuality made a person unclean than simply because God said so in his holiness code, which presumably no longer applies.
I think we must exegete these texts in light of Jesus' hermeneutic. Jesus, when questioned about divorce, referred back to creation (Paul also takes this hermeneutic when explaining the actions of Jesus in light of creation which will be restored in the eschaton). Jesus' says that marriage is one woman and one man because that is how God created them. If certain practices were allowed, such as polygamy and divorce, it was not because God had intended it but because of sin. Thus, we must ask what purpose God had in creating us as sexual beings. Dr. John Goldingay states that there are two biblical testimonies to this. First, in Genesis God created male and female and gave them the command to procreate. God's creation of them would be short lived otherwise and, thus, we cannot cut procreation away from God's intended purpose for making us sexual beings. Homosexuality fails in this appeal to creation. Second, Paul refers to marriage in Ephesians as the imaging of God in the world. God's image is complete in the unity of male and female and not in same sex unions, presumably. Here again homosexuality fails the test (These arguments are both from Goldingay but I think the first argument is much stronger). Thus, in appealing to God's created purpose of marriage and sex as our guiding hermeneutic instead of a radical historical nullification of holiness codes I have provided a counter exegetical method which I believe is more faithful to the witness of the text and of the interpretation of the Church throughout history.
This brings me to another point. It is interesting to me that if the homosexual position of interpretation is correct then why did God wait until now to reveal it to the Church? This position has no historical precedent among orthodox interpretation. As I see it, one of the most sexually liberal societies in world history has found an interpretation that makes it feel comfortable with itself. The interpreters approached the text with the conclusion already in hand. Despite the fact that the historical criticism school believed it was attaining the "truth" behind the text without the biases of Church tradition, it was in fact simply using its own biases over against the vehicle by which the Spirit had chosen to interpret scripture for the last 1900 years.
This issue digs deeper at the Protestant problem than I desire to go into here. Yet, suffice it to say that Protestantism, especially in the U.S., has the problem of understanding tradition and authority in light of its radical individualism. For instance, the problem underlying the statement "Just accept us and let us work out our own sexuality" is that this takes the moral authority away from the Church and places it on the individual. This also assumes that the individual will necessarily come to a correct understanding of sexuality or truth simply by being left alone to think about it. As Hauerwas aptly says, "The Church has the authority to tell us what we can and cannot do with our penises." Furthermore, without an authority structure, or governing body, to help with distinguishing what is and is not God's call in a person's life we are only left with our interpretation of their individual testimony. Thus, if the homosexual says, "I'm alright with God because I have had such and such religious experiences" then we are left having to agree because who can argue with God? However, if the Church, as Paul says, is the body of Christ on earth we then have an authority to appeal to for the will of God. It is from within the authority of Christ given to the Church that we have the ability to say that certain statements or callings cannot possibly be from God even if the individual claims that they are. We may also need to rethink the way in which the Spirit works, mainly on the individual level or through the community. Currently I think we tacitly believe there are a whole bunch of Holy Spirits that indwell each one of us individually and give us direct control over the correct interpretation of the text (this is what I call the popehood of all believers). It should also be noted that this view of sola scriptura is as antithetical to the Reformers as it is to the Catholic Church. Modern liberal evangelicalism in its radical priority on the individual is on a theological island by itself.
Lastly, I think it is interesting what Dr. Roebeck said in class today about this very issue. The Anglican Communion is in a dilemma concerning the American Episcopal church. Bishop Spong has said statements about how Africans need to catch up to the times and stop being so traditional when it comes to sexuality. The African response has been that when missionaries came to Africa they told them that polygamy was wrong. This was part of the African culture but after studying the text they came to the conclusion that the text was needed to correct the culture on this issue. Now the West is telling the Africans to forget the text and acclimate to the culture. Now it is probably time for the text to critique our culture just as it once did the African culture. The point here is larger than simply this story. Again, modern liberal evangelicalism is on an island. It is interesting that God has not revealed this "correct" interpretation of scripture, not only to traditional orthodoxy, but God has also failed to reveal it to the vast majority of Christians alive today. Is the most sexually liberal society on earth simply finding the "truth" in the text? Or is it imposing its "truth" on to the text?

I don't know if this will be helpful to your own dialogue with yourself, but I feel much better now and can probably sleep.

Peace be with you,

Greg

Though we have desegregated we have yet to integrate

In “The Ethical Demands for Integration” Martin Luther King Jr. states eloquently in 1962 what he could still offer today with little revision. He starts by stating, “The problem of race and color prejudice remains America’s greatest moral dilemma. When one considers the impact it has upon or nation, internally and externally, its resolution might well determine our destiny….How we deal with this crucial situation will determine our moral health as individuals, our cultural health as a region, our political health as a nation, and our prestige as leader of the free world. The shape of the world today does not afford us the luxury of an anemic democracy.”
King goes on to discuss how desegregation is not enough. Desegregation as a law can be enforced but the love of our neighbor cannot. Today in America we have a façade of justice which is still challenging the moral center of our communities, both Christian and non-Christian, corporate and individual. Allowing other races to eat in our restaurants, ride our buses, drink from the same water fountain is not justice in and of itself. Justice demands love. Holiness demands love.
Being from the South (Arkansas to be exact) I have experienced first hand desegregation without integration, a façade of justice without love. I must admit, I have no close African American friends. I have several acquaintances whom I respect, but no friends who I know their struggles so intimately that they have become my struggles. The South begrudgingly accepted court ordered desegregation. It took armed escorts in my home town of Little Rock, AR to allow nine African American students the opportunity to enter Central High School where they could be educated alongside us White folks.
The problem still lingers. It is often said in the South, though it is probably equally true here, that the most segregated time of the week is Sunday morning. In the town I went to college in there was an African American Baptist church a block from a White Baptist church. Why is this? It is a prime example of desegregation without integration.
Do not assume, however, that it is merely a White problem. From what I gather the African American church is perfectly happy not having any Whites in it, just as the White church is glad the African Americans stay on their side of the street. Dr. Bill Pannell once said as a guest lecturer in a Systematics class that he does not see many White people worshiping with their Korean brothers and sisters in the Fuller community. There was this sudden awe which if audible would have said, “Those White folks, they need to be more racially diverse.” However, Dr. Pannell followed by noting that the Koreans do not seem to have much of a problem with the situation.
The amazing thing about Dr. King was his insistence on justice for all. He was not a black nationalist, he was not cut from the same block as Malcolm X; the only way King understood justice was through the person of Jesus Christ. Justice was not a tit-for-tat making right of the wrongs, it was a new way of being. A way of being that was more than mere toleration of the other, rather it was a deep profound love of the other. He hoped desperately that we would no longer see black or white but that we would see brothers and sisters.
If we have any hope of reorienting our moral center in the way that Dr. King speaks about we must learn to love. Love is not learned by desegregating buses and restaurants. Neither is it learned by merely tolerating the other because we have no choice. Love is learned by integrating our lives and stories into the lives and stories of the other. It must come to the point that other people are no longer viewed as others but as people. Integration is not only a race issue, it is Kingdom of God issue. It is not a problem that only white people need to solve, it is a problem that every race working together must solve.

An Advent Post

As Advent is upon us I thought it may be appropriate to post a paper that I wrote for my Gospels class. It is rather lengthy but good nonetheless.

The Canticle of Mary: Mary Sings to the World (Luke 1.46-56)

The canticle of Mary, or the Magnificat, has been treasured by many church traditions for the last two millennia. It is arguably the best poetry in the New Testament, and definitely stands out for its sincerity, longing, and obedience to God. The church has rightly treasured Mary’s words for good reason, but first we must examine some critical questions surrounding the canticle.
First, even a quick reading of the gospels reveals that this passage is particular to Luke. This is odd to note because Luke is probably the only Gentile writer of the four gospel writers and this canticle is very much Hebrew in origin. Why would Luke, who most scholars understand to be writing to a Gentile audience, include a passage that follows in the tradition of the psalmody of the OT, which the ears of his readers (if in fact they were Gentiles) would be unfamiliar with? Also, why would Luke who is concerned with the universality of the gospel of Jesus, more so than the explicitly Jewish connotations of Matthew and Mark, be interested in relaying to the audience the musings of a particular Jewish woman?
Second, since this passage is particular to Luke we must ask about its origin. Is it part of the Q material that Matthew failed to record? If so, why did the Jewish author leave out a particularly Jewish passage? Is it from another gospel tradition which has been lost through the passing of time? Or is it possible that Luke or the early church created the hymn? All of these possibilities have been suggested and the answer depends greatly on which group of scholars are writing on the subject.
I believe that Luke has included the canticle because it was historically spoken by Mary. Some of the early Latin manuscripts have Elizabeth as the author but most scholars have rejected these due to textual issues. Some, however, do favor Elizabeth as the author because the canticle is a variant of Hannah’s song found in 1 Sam 2.1-10. In this canticle Hannah praises God because she was barren but is now having a son. Thus, some take “lowliness” or “afflicted state” to mean that the author was a barren woman and was seen as afflicted due to this fact. However, these words can be explained in other ways. It is possible that the words refer to Israel as a whole because Israel is often referred to as God’s servant and at this point in history, as at most points, they were in an afflicted state.
It is probable that Luke either had special knowledge of the source of this canticle or he adapted a similar well known canticle to suit the purpose of his gospel. In either case I do not think it is derived from Q. Also, Luke, if he indeed was a companion of Paul, would be very familiar with the importance of the OT and its fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, he knew the importance of including Mary’s prophecy to illustrate that the Jesus tradition finds its foundation in the OT.

The Magnificat as prophecy
More importantly I believe Luke includes the canticle as a prelude to his gospel’s major themes. Up until the canticle is spoken, the reader knows of the way in which Jesus was conceived and the importance of John the Baptist. Yet, the reader at this point does not have any idea of the ramifications of Jesus’ life and its meaning for the communities to which he is writing. As most assumed, the Messiah would be a conqueror who would restore the kingship of David in a tangible way. What Luke portrays instead is a God who is remembering his promises to Abraham and to his descendants which reflects the ethical demands of the prophets.
There are many similarities between how Mary views God acting through her and the kingdom that Jesus proclaims. Mary could have easily used other OT motifs that claimed the power of God to restore a strong ruling dynasty. However, her canticle speaks of filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty and of bringing down the thrones of power that are currently afflicting Israel. If we remember back to Israel’s demand for a king and God’s reluctance to accept their demand, we will also recall what Samuel declared would happen when a king ruled:
He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen…He will take the best of your fields and vineyards…and give them to his courtiers…He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers…And in that day you will cry out because of your king. (1 Sam 8.4ff)

Now Jesus is going to rescue his afflicted people and restore God as king, who the people rejected. We must not think of this passage as merely a beautiful spiritual hymn, but also as stating the reality that Jesus brings a revolution unlike any the world has seen before. He is going to show mercy and scatter the proud while lifting up the lowly. This is the message of the prophets which the rulers had always rejected. Now Jesus will establish God’s kingdom which will contain role reversals from the world’s kingdom.

The Magnifact and the church
It is continually important that the church sings the words of Mary in their prayer and worship services. Coming from an Evangelical background and then converting to Catholicism I have realized the importance of this canticle. For the same reasons that Luke uses the canticle as a prelude to the ministry of Jesus, the church needs to sing it as a continuing prophecy that is already among us but not sufficiently fulfilled. We often forget about the life of Jesus while focusing on the death. I find the Magnificat a great way to start our time of worship by reminding us of the importance of God’s saving activity in that he is the God who does fill the hungry and sends the rich away empty. He is the God who flips the social norms of the world in order to show the might of his arm to every generation.
Typically the Magnificat is used in a solemn individualistic way. I think there are many positives to this way of praying the canticle. First, in this way we are reminded that just as Mary was chosen because of her lowliness, we too are chosen when we are broken before God, our savior. Second, it reminds us that God is our savior and it is his name which is holy. Third, often when praying the canticle in an individual way we still are attune, just as Mary, that these promises are for us individually and also extend far beyond what we can even see being fulfilled. As Mary could proclaim that God will have mercy on every generation that fears him, we too know that God will be merciful now and in the future to those who fear him.
However, I think we need to incorporate the canticle into our politics and liturgy, remembering that Mary also proclaimed a very real change which was incarnated in Christ and must now be incarnate in his church and in his disciples. Just as Jesus blessed the poor, we also must proclaim that God is filling the hungry with good things and sending the successful in the world’s eyes away empty. This canticle can bring us together in unity as we proclaim that these are the promises God made to our ancestors and Abraham’s descendents. We are not alone in magnifying the Lord, generations past, present and future join with us in our song of praise.
We should begin any telling of the gospel of Jesus Christ exactly where Luke begins, by proclaiming what God will do among us in the person of Jesus. It is fitting that Luke also ends where he began. In 24.44 Jesus tells his disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you- that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” I read this as a parallel and conclusion to Mary’s canticle. For Mary rejoices in the form of a psalm that God has done great things by helping his servant Israel, surely an illusion to the exodus is in mind here, and she proclaims the promises of the prophets that God would restore his kingdom.
Lastly, the Magnificat shows the importance of the OT for any sound understanding of the NT. For the true division in the bible is not between the OT and the NT but between Genesis 11 and 12. At the tower of Babel, God scattered the proud and then calls forth Abraham and promises to reunite every tribe, tongue and nation through the blessing of his children. Mary knows all these things and ponders them in her heart until she, in a sense, explodes with a song of joy which reminds us all of the merciful promises of God to never forsake his people.

My New Endeavor...Sex

I have decided to take a special interest into sexual morality. Why? I don't know. Maybe I just like the idea of sex and this seems to be the most moral way to be surrounded by it. In any case I am starting with three basic hypothesis.

First, it is my opinion as of now that the reason divorce rates are virtually the same within and without the church is because Christians in the U.S. simply accept the culture's view of what sex should be. There is too much emphasis on pleasure instead of love and procreation. When we seek sex merely to satisfy an urge, be it within or without of marriage, we reduce the other person to simply an object of our own use. Love requires us to treat the other as a person that must always be treated morally as an end and never a means. Sex is supposed to be pleasurable but pleasure should not be sought in and of itself. For it is fleeting and highly subjective. Surely not a quantity that can be measured in any tangible way as to make it the end of one of the most important acts humans can participate in.

Second, Christians too often have misguided ideas pertaining to the usefulness of sex. Typically when I ask a group at a dinner table discussion what sex is for I get a wide range of answers. Some say that sex in marriage completes us or makes us whole, in a sense more human. This is ridiculous, for this denys that Jesus was fully human for he was never "complete" or "whole" by this definition. Others will give the NIN answer and say that sex within a Christian marriage brings the couple into closer communion with God. Really? As if God is such a sexual being that he revels in delight as if our sex is incense offered up to the throne of God. Not that God doesn't like sex, he created it but not for the purpose that he could revel in our intercourse. Plus, again this means that Jesus as a human was not as close to God as he could have been had he been married. It boggles my mind that the idea that sex is for children hardly ever exits the mouths of those Christians I usually ask this question to. You mean God created sex for us to have children? What a novel idea.

Third, Christians too often believe that they understand all there is to know about sex. Not from an act standpoint but from an ontological standpoint. We enter into the marriage bringing with us our preconceived ideas of what sex is which has been more influenced by Desparate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy than by any substantive theological discourse. One of these misconceptions is that sex is always supposed to be fun. It simply isn't and if that is our expectation then we are in trouble. Not that I am talking from experience but I'm sure through the life of a marriage sex has its ups and downs. When sex fails to live up to the Hollywood standard we assume that either something is biologically wrong or that our partner doesn't love us enough or they would be a better sexual partner.

My concluded hypothesis is that we nee to revisit the idea of sex. Just as most people accept the norms of their culuture as right and good without examining the underlying ideological presuppostion, so we do with our culuture's view of sex and marriage. We typically think that the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian marriage is that one takes place in a church and the other doesn't. As Christians we need to ask ourselves, "Why did God create sex and why are we sexual beings?" Along with that we need to ask, "Why do we marry?" Most Christians if asked would say that they believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, but most would not be able to answer the question of why we live this way instead of another.

In other news, it seems that the universe's expansion is accelerating. This could possibly change a lot of what we assume about gravity and physics. At the same time I still put my pants on one leg at a time.

The Fine Line

Warning: this post is being written by a very irrate person.

If you have watched the news recently then you probably know that some Muslims have decided to prove the Pope wrong by killing Christians in the Middle East.

This is completely ridiculous. Several months back when Danish papers published cartoons of Mohammad being portrayed as a terrorist many Muslims did the same thing. "We're not terrorists and to prove it we are going to blow up churches."

The fine line I walk is that of the position somewhere left of a blanket "War on Terror" and somewhere right of "Islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion in any history we know. They have tried on several occasions to invade Europe only to be stopped at the last minute. Once in the Pyrenees, where their fast horses could not out flank the stocky European horses. And once at Vienna, where supply lines failed the Muslim advance.

It also does not make much sense to me as to why Muslims are allowed to still hold a grudge publicly against the West for the Crusades but the West is not allowed to hold a grudge for the Muslims taking the land in the first place. Islam did not peacefully convert the thousands of Christians living in Asia Minor, Palestine, and North Africa they slaughtered them. Obviously I don't think we should hold a grudge as we should forgive seventy times seven, but it is obvious that Islam remembers history much more vividly than Christians. (This is typified by most "evangelism maps" that repeatedly show no Christians living in the Mid East because western Protestants do not remember their historical ties to the Orthodox, Coptics, and Roman Catholics still living in the region).

The other thing I love is that the news always finds that Imam from Orange County who says that "true Islam" preaches peace and love. Really? That is true Islam? So you are telling me that those living where Islam originated and has thrived for the past 1400 years have it wrong and this white skinned Californian guy has it right? Maybe so but it is hardly convincing.

This Imam will go on to say things like, "Islam is not responsible for suicide bombers, they are derranged individuals." Maybe, but it sure seems like Islam has many more derranged individuals than any other religion in the world. What other force outside of Islam has so influenced Mid East culture that they strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up while no other culture in the world is doing it? Maybe it is the drinking water.

The fine line I walk as a Christian must love our enemy as ourselves but still have the capacity to label the enemy as an enemy. I don't want to go on a rampage against Muslims or support military action against Muslim countries. Neither am I going to pretend that the message of Isalm is not dangerous. I am not going to pretend that they have the same truth and worship the same God has I do, because they don't. Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God and together they are one God. Any understanding of God that falls short of this triune representation is inherently lacking a full picture of God.

We must develop a sense of unity with our Christian brothers and sisters in those regions where they are persecuted by Islam. Three Christians were killed today that were reported by the news. These are martyrs. Martyrs have always been venerated by the church sense the earliest times and yet we care more about our jobs, our houses, our cars, and our "way of life" than we do about them.

Sure, Islam preaches peace and love and cooperation, until they rule your country. I don't believe America is as directly threatened by this as our president would like for us to believe, but Europe is. Indonesia is. Africa is.

Are Muslims upset because the Pope was lying? Or were they upset because what he said was true and Islam wishes it wasn't? Muslims can say all the bad things they wish to say about the Pope, the president, Billy Graham, etc. but as soon as anyone in the West voices a concern about the dangerous ideology of Islam all hell breaks loose.

Islam is dangerous but I won't retaliate. The God I worship in the person of Jesus Christ is stronger and more powerful than the contingency of happenings on earth. Our King is already victorious and our battle already won. It is not wrong to feel anger, hurt and frustration over the loss of our fellow Christians' lives at the hands of a false religion. But I let that anger in for just a period of time, then I regroup and refocus in order to preach the peaceful kingdom of God through the person of Jesus Christ.

As Augustine taught so long ago as Rome fell, the goal is to make our enemy our brother in Christ not to annhilate them. I'm not going to apologize because I believe the only way to be truly human, to be truly peaceful, to be truly united to the one true God is through faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Possibly the Imam from Orange County is speaking on behalf of most Muslims. Perhaps Islam as a culture does wish to be truly peaceful. Yet it will be forever impossible as they only have their own good intentions to rely on and good intentions never reshaped a lost culture.