Category Archives: Sin
Sins of Scripture IV: Homosexuality
Former Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong (or is it bishop emeritus?) writes next about the treatment of gays in his book The Sins of Scripture. I agree that the church has treated gays and lesbians unfairly. But I disagree with Spong that homosexuality is no sin. Clearly condemned in multiple places, the sin of homosexuality has become some sort of “super-sin” to evangelicals.
The only “super-sin” is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Homosexuality, therefore, should be treated as any other sin. The sinner should be confronted about it, and walked through the Scriptures that condemn the practice. If he or she refuses to repent, I don’t think that ostracizing the poor chap is the answer–although a case could certainly be made for it. I think that prayer is the answer, like we would do for any other sin. Of course such a person would be excluded from church leadership, again, the same as with any sin.
Bishop Spong, however, believes that homosexuality is an inborn characteristic and as such is perfectly acceptable. What Spong fails to deal with, however, is that rage and alcoholism are also inborn characteristics. But no one would ever seriously argue that those two things are good, so why is homosexuality any different?
I also happen to believe that we are born with our sexual orientation. It fits perfectly with Jesus’ teaching to deny ourselves in order to follow him. Everyone has sin in their lives that they must deal with. The homosexual person has an orientation that is offensive to God, and he or she must deal with that sin just as the rest of us deal with ours. They shouldn’t get a free pass just because society is coming around to accept homosexuality for the first time in 10,000 years of human history.
Spong deals with three texts of the Bible that are used to condemn homosexuality: the holiness code of Leviticus, the story of Sodom, and Paul’s letters. Throughout his treatment, Spong uses emotionally loaded terms like “bigotry” and “homophobia” to describe people that hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that homosexuality is a sin. He often states that Bible-defenders get angry or upset when confronted with arguments in favor of homosexuality. What he never does is present an argument, or even a concise summary of his opponents’ views.
Sins of Scripture III: Women
In his book The Sins of Scripture, John Shelby Spong echoes almost every sentiment of detractors of Christianity in his own beliefs, and gives them credence by declaring himself to be a committed Christian. He believes that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife according to Scripture, and that her place at Jesus’ side is his model for the new place that women should occupy in church leadership. I believe that women have been mistreated not by a literal reading of Scripture (as Spong believes), but by a misreading of Scripture.
Women share with men the distinction of being made in the image of God (according to Gen 1:27), despite Spong’s claim that the Bible subordinates women to men. This was never the original intent. That came after the Fall, which distorts the original intent of God’s creation. Women are now functionally subordinate to men, but they are still made of the same stuff and therefore ontologically equal to men.
Women were not the source of sin, as Spong proclaims. The Bible teaches that it was man who was that source: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom 5:12, emphasis added). It was no sin for Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, it was only a sin when Adam ate the fruit, since God gave the command not to Eve but to Adam.
I am not going to dispute Spong that there is a history of sexism in the church, nor am I going to dispute him that some of the Mosaic laws make no sense in regard to women. But we are not bound to the law anymore; we are free in Christ. Spong hits on the one verse that is very important for this discussion–Galatians 3:28. This verse means that the arguments over gender and sex roles are worthless, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
It isn’t necessary to cast Scripture aside in order to arrive at these conclusions; instead one only has to read the Scriptures for what they say. Spong isn’t doing that. But one wonders why Spong attempts to recast Scripture at all since he is on record as believing that it is not the Word of God.
The Sins of Scripture II: Ecotheology
John Shelby Spong’s first sin of Scripture is the environmental havoc that we have wrecked on this planet. I agree with him here that it is a tragedy how we have treated our fragile environment, and share with him a desire to see humans correct this awful behavior. What I don’t share with Spong is a conviction that the Bible as it stands encourages this sort of behavior, nor do I believe that an entirely new concept of God is necessary to effect this change.
Spong believes that the Bible’s command to be fruitful and multiply is at the heart of the overpopulation. I think not. I think that the heart of the problem is irresponsible sexual behavior, a thing which Spong shows no desire to curb in human beings. Instead, he’d rather throw birth control at the problem.
Now don’t get me wrong. Birth control is a part of the solution in my point of view. But only when combined with solid morality. That means that sex is reserved for marriage. Spong seems to join critics of Christianity in believing that the only solution to this problem is to surrender to our urges because of better available birth control technology.
Spong wrongly believes that a solution to the pollution problem lies in reinventing God. As commenter Bradford pointed out:
To him [Spong] the bible is sexist and homophobic, and we should not judge sin or reprove the sinner; no, we shouldn’t judge at all just love and tolerate and never say sin is wrong especially if it disagrees with anything a woman wants to do with her body or any alternative lifestyle one wants to live.
Spong has already created an idol for himself; a deity who doesn’t judge anyone and for whom sin is not a problem. Reinventing God is Spong’s solution for every problem. So what sort of deity does Spong conceive of? The answer is a nature deity, or rather, Nature Itself. Spong would worship Nature Itself as a deity rather than a deity outside of nature. In Spong’s mind, a deity outside of nature–in whose image we are made–creates the impression that we are somehow above or around nature. That we owe the environment no allegiance since we are above it.
This is a wholly false picture of Christianity. True, we are created in teh image of God, and therefore outside of nature. But God owns everything; ultimately we are just stewards. Therefore, in that frame of mind, we should be responsible stewards and turn the planet over to him in the same condition that he gave it to us.
It isn’t necessary to invent an entirely new concept of God that denigrates him to become part of his own creation. He transcends creation according to his Word, and we should revere him that way. It is only necessary to properly frame our understanding of God’s relationship to man–that we are stewards over his creation, and that he is coming back and expects to find it in the same condition it was left in.
With Spong’s weak and judgment-impaired deity, it is no wonder that he needs to create a new concept of God to give us incentive to control the environment. They say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom (Ps 111:10; Prv 1:7). Since no one can fear Spong’s “god,” it is no wonder that Spong has neither knowledge nor wisdom.
The Sins of Scripture
It wasn’t long ago that I tossed aside my copy of Why Christianity Must Change or Die after reading only to chapter three, never to pick it up again. Author and former Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong remains a person of interest to me, if only to answer the question, “Why does he still call himself Christian?” Spong denies all of the essential truths of the Christian faith, yet calls himself a passionate believer.
I’ve started to read another Spong book, The Sins of Scripture, figuring (incorrectly) that I would agree with Spong on a few points. I’m curious to see how he presents the Bible, because the inside flap promises a new way to read Scripture. It is this curiosity that will keep me reading to the end, even though I already have the desire to throw the book into the fire where it belongs.
In chapter two, a chapter that would make any atheist proud of Spong, the former bishop dissects a claim that cannot continue to stand: the claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God. He says:
My religious critics say to me that there can be no Christianity apart from the authority of the scriptures. They hear my attack on this way of viewing the Bible as an attack on Christianity itself. I want to say in response that the claim that the scriptures are either divinely inspired or are the ‘Word of God’ in any literal sense has been so destructive that I no longer want to be part of that kind of Christianity! I do not understand how anyone can saddle God with the assumptions that are made by the biblical authors, warped as they are both by their lack of knowledge and by the tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time. Do we honor God when we assume that the primitive consciousness found on the pages of scripture, even when it is attributed to God, is somehow righteous? (18)
He goes on to ask a few questions between pages 18 and 19 that I thought I’d address, as they are seriously misguided. I wonder how someone like Spong can study the Bible so much and yet learn so little about it, or the claims of the religion that he claims to hold dear.
The questions, along with my answers:
- Do we really want to worship a God who plays favorites, who chooses one people to be God’s people to the neglect of all others?
- When we portray the God of the Bible as hating everyone that the chosen people hate, is God well served?
It is true that God preserves for himself a people out of each generation, and he lovingly predestines those people to conform to Christ’s image (Eph 1:4-5, 11; Rom 8:29-30). It is further true that God chose the Israelites first, and that he hated others.
But this fundamentally misunderstands the Biblical definition of “hated.” In the sense the word was used, it described only people that God did not have a covenental relationship with. It revealed nothing of his disposition toward such people.
The rest of the Bible is pretty clear that God loves all people; cf. Jn 3:16; Acts 10; Gal 3:28, 5:6.
- Will our modern consciousness allow us to view with favor a God who could manipulate the weather in order to send the great flood that drowned all human lives save for Noah’s family because human life had become so evil God needed to destroy it? Can we imagine human parents relating to their wayward offspring in this manner?
This question betrays Spong’s concept of sin. Spong obviously doesn’t view sin with the same seriousness that God views sin. Sin isn’t just a sickness. Sin means death for the human race. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).
The verses preceding the Flood story paint mankind as corrupt and vile. “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). In light of this, I don’t see how any serious student of Scripture can see the Flood as anything short of a deserved punishment that man brought upon himself.
- Can we really worship the God found in the Bible who sent the angel of death across the land of Egypt to murder the firstborn males in every Egyptian household in order to facilitate the release of the chosen people?
- Can the Bible still be of God when it portrays Joshua as stopping the sun in the sky for the sole purpose of allowing him the time to slaughter more of his enemies, the Amorites (Josh 10:12-15)?
- Can the Bible be the “Word of God” when it has Samuel order King Saul in the name of God to “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1 Sam 15:3)?
The God that Spong is describing has no absolute right to judge his people as guilty of sin, and therefore no absolute right to pass judgment on his people.
- Is it the “Word of God” when the Psalmist writes about the Babylonians who have conquered Judah: “Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks” (Ps 137:8-9)?
All I have to say to this question is: Just because it is in the Bible, doesn’t automatically mean that it is condoned by God. The Psalms express the full range of human emotions, from happiness to despair, from joy to sadness. But that’s just what they describe-human emotion. This isn’t divine righteousness like the passages described above; this is a very human emotion. Anyone should be able to see the distinction.
In all, I think Spong paints God as a lightweight. One who doesn’t sit in judgment over sin, but instead tolerates and accepts it as human behavior. This isn’t the God that I worship.
The Nature of Sin
I’ve been reading on the nature of sin in John Stott’s Basic Christianity, and it has set me thinking. Then I read this post by a good friend, and I knew that I must post something on the nature of sin.
Sin is fun. Let’s face it: sin is more fun than the Christian lifestyle. But the pleasure sin brings is only for a season; and then the consequences set in. Yes, there are consequences for every sin, some more severe than others. No matter how much fun sin might be, it never outweighs the consequences.
At its heart, sin is loving self more than loving God. A healthy life is lived to please God, a selfish life is lived to please yourself. Only others-centered people are able to please God. The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are the servants, after all.
Despite what atheists think, good works are a central tenant of Christianity. The love of God will manifest in the life of the believer, and it will do so as the fruits of the Spirit, and inevitable good works will follow.
Which brings me to an interesting point. Why do some people draw close to God, while others don’t? It is a simple matter of lifestyle choices. The closer that one draws to God, the more aware of sin one is. This can become extremely uncomfortable for the sinner who loves his sin more than he loves God. As the sinner exposes his sin to himself, he becomes squeamish, realizing that in order to continue the journey closer to God, he must rid his life of this sin that he loves so much. Either he must continue down this road, shedding the sin, stall where he is and keep the sin, or turn tail and run the other direction, away from God.
The third option is what the atheist does. He invents 1000 intellectual objections to God, while the real reason he rejects God is that he couldn’t stand to see himself from God’s point of view. He couldn’t part with his sin.
Why are some able to draw near to God? Because they love God more than they love their sin. Those that can’t draw near to God love their sin more than they love God. These people want to live life their way instead of God’s way, assuming (pridefully) that their way is better.
Make no mistake: living in sin is much more fun than the Christian lifestyle. However, the long term consequences spell disaster for your life. It will lead to an early grave, for the wages of sin is death. Scientific studies prove that religious people have less stress, less depression, and more self-discipline than the nonreligious. Maybe this God guy knows what’s best for us after all!
What Do Christians Have to Live For?
A while back, Vjack of Atheist Revolution asked, “What do Christians have to live for?” He then proposed three ideas. First, he posits that we live for God. This is an excellent suggestion, though Vjack has no idea how it would be accomplished. Second, he thought that we might live for either the Rapture or the afterlife. This offers no incentive to take care of the planet since we are only on it for a short time. Third, he asks what incentive that there is for a Christian to be moral if all of his sins are paid for by Christ. Let’s address all three points.
First, how would a Christian go about living for God? One of the cries of the Reformation was soli Deo gloria, for God’s glory alone. The apostle Paul offers this as a suggestion in Romans–“Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” Living for God is simple: place God first in everything that you think, do, and say. Everything that you do should be an act of worship.
The second suggestion, living for the Rapture or the afterlife, is a terrible idea. Vjack nails the problem inherent in it; namely, that there is no incentive for taking care of this planet, since the Christian isn’t going to be around long enough for it to matter. But that overlooks that we are stewards of this planet and have been charged by God in Genesis to take care of the planet (Gen 1:28-30).
Finally, Vjack wonders why Christians don’t rape and murder at will because all of their sins are paid for by Christ. The apostle Paul anticipated this sort of mentality when he wrote to the Romans. After building his case for salvation by grace without works of law, he asks if we should go on sinning so that grace may abound all the more. He answers with a resounding NO! Then asks, “How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom 6:2) If we are in Christ, we are dead to sin and alive to God (Rom 6:11). We are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). People who are alive to God demonstrate the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control by the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Therefore:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Rom 6:12-14)
On Original Sin
Image via Wikipedia
Beowulf2k8 doesn’t believe that the doctrine of original sin is biblical in light of Ezekiel 18:20:
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Beowulf, in the comment section of this post, says:
Adam’s sin only brings physical death and the inclination towards sin. We do not inherit its guilt so as to be born or conceived damned, nor can we be damned for his sin since God explicitly states “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Physical death and the inclination toward sin are only two of the effects of the Fall. The other effect, the effect that Beowulf denies, is imputed sin. Craig French (aka Antipelagian) rightly points out the consequences of such a belief system:
If you want to reject our Fall in Adam, you must also reject our Salvation through the Second Adam. Denying federal representation cuts both ways…you reject original sin, you reject Christ’s atonement.
Let’s take a moment to look at the doctrine of imputed sin, then we’ll see why it is so important for the Atonement. First, we need to understand that we live in a individualist society and that the Bible was written by and to a collectivist society. Collectivist societies have a strong sense of identity with the family unit. This is woven all throughout the Bible. Consider the numerous genealogies that are given. The individual identity was never as important as the family, and the head of the family (the father) gave the entire family its reputation.
In this sort of society, the son would expect to suffer for the sins of his father.
Adam is the federal head of the human race. By blood, all of us are descended from Adam. We take our ultimate family identification from him. This means that, in a collectivist sense, we should expect to suffer the consequences of his sin, since he is the head of our race. In a collectivist society, this would be the norm and no one would have the problem that Beowulf has with it.
Adam’s sin is therefore imputed to us.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14, emphasis added)
Sin and death have entered the world through Adam, and have spread to all men. By both nature and choice, men are sinners. “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom 5:15, emphasis added). Through that one sin, many died. But there is good news:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:18-19, emphasis added)
Here the apostle is contrasting Adam’s act of disobedience with Christ’s act of obedience. Because of Adam’s disobedience, many were made sinners. But because of one act of obedience by Jesus Christ, many are justified before God and considered righteous. If you reject the first premise, then you are left with no basis for the second premise.
Put another way, if you reject Adam’s imputed sin, you have no basis for accepting Christ’s imputed righteousness. You may stand before God justified on your own merit. The Apostle Paul condemns such thinking when he writes:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added; see also 2 Tim 1:9; Tts 3:6; and Rom 3:20, 28)
I Don’t Believe in Atheists
Recently, I’ve started reading an excellent book by Chris Hedges with the provocative title I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges, no friend of either Christianity or the New Atheism, is systematically picking apart the claims of the New Atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins). The trick is that he is doing it from a secular perspective–he hates Christianity as much as the New Atheists do, and makes no bones about saying so. In fact, he’s written a book dismantling the position of Christianity called American Fascism, which I plan to read next.
What makes this book interesting is that Hedges hits the nail right on the head when he discusses the real problem with the God debate. The real problem is the failure of each side to acknowledge the problem of sin. Human beings are sinful by nature, argues Hedges, but both the Religious Right and the New Atheists see their position as sinless. Therefore, they try to offer humanity a utopian world but neither can deliver this promise because of their innate sinfulness.
Humanity progresses scientifically, but regresses morally. This is the root cause of our natural resource depletion, and our continued use of technology for warfare rather than the good of humanity. Hedges believes that any proposed solution to the impending economic, political, and environmental crises must consider the human element of sinfulness. It has to be more nuanced than the Religious Right’s solution of letting Jesus rebuild the earth and the New Atheist’s solution of getting rid of religion (which stands in the way of their god of reason).
I agree with Hedges insofar as a solution must be found for these impending crises. I believe with all of my heart that Jesus will return to earth to set up a new Kingdom upon it, but I believe that that Blessed Hope may be yet far off. Therefore, we must preserve what we have now and sustain the earth for our children. Jesus often portrays the relationship between God and man as a landowner to his stewards. The stewards are always held accountable by the landowner to how the owner’s property was treated while he was away. I believe that the same will be true when Jesus returns again: he will hold humankind accountable for the way we treated his property, the earth, while he was away.
I agree with Hedges that the Bible reveals spiritual truths. I agree with the problem of human sinfulness, and I agree that any solution offered to the complex human condition should be more nuanced than what the New Atheists and the Religious Right currently offer.
I disagree with Hedges in that I believe the Bible was written to reveal history, not just spiritual truths. I believe in a literal six day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. Hedges doesn’t believe in that stuff–he thinks that the Bible is only meant to convey spiritual truths through myths. I’m not sure if Hedges believes in a literal Jesus, but obviously I believe in that (having challenged interpretations to the contrary on this blog before).
So far, I’m hooked on this book and I hope that the rest is as good as the first chapter.
Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson
This is a call for V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, to resign is episcopate because of his unrepentant sin of homosexuality.
The apostle Paul said:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 9-10, emphasis added)
And:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)
Based on the Law’s prohibition on homosexuality (Lev 18:22) and the apostle Paul’s clear echo of it, I would say that homosexuality is wrong. Let’s look at the qualifications for a bishop (overseer):
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:2-7, emphasis added)
I am not considering Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s qualifications outside of the boldfaced terms. I hope he has been an good bishop in every other area and served his people well. However, he does not fit the qualifications of a bishop and should therefore resign his office.
Bishop Robinson is gay, and has joined in “marriage” to his long time partner. This is unacceptable. Homosexuality is a sin, and people who live in unrepentant sin should not serve in any capacity in ministry. This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his diocese, and he is “glorying in his shame” (Phil 3:19). This isn’t fair to the people of New Hampshire. Their spiritual leader can’t control his own sin, how is he supposed to counsel others to control their sins?
Until he repents of homosexuality, Bishop Robinson should not be permitted to continue in ministry.
“Odder Stories” Accuses Me of Racism
How, as a Christian apologist, do I gauge how well I’m doing? By this verse:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (Jn 15:19, emphasis added)
I figure if the secular world hates what I have to say, then I must be doing a pretty darn good job. Conversely, if the Christian world loves me, then I must also be doing a pretty good job. From the comments that I receive, I see compliments from Christians (HT: Murphy Klasing and Wickle), and denigration from the world.
The most recent worldly accusation against me is to accuse me of 18th century racism for an old post on homosexuality. Unlike most Christians, I am allowing for the possibility that homosexuality may not be a choice. But along the same regard, neither is alcoholism or rage. Those things are genetic, too. Does anyone believe that they are good things, or are they things that we may struggle with but ultimately should eliminate for the good of all? Odder Stories says:
If you see echoes of 18th century racism, you’re not alone. In what sense is homosexuality like an addiction or anger issues? Why is it a ‘corrupting influence’? For one reason only: the Bible tells us that it is. It’s against ‘God’s plan’. We must ’surrender to God through Jesus Christ’, in the process attempting to deaden a major part of ourselves. As any honest advocate of this process will admit, this does not get rid of homosexuality, it merely teaches you to live with it by giving yourself over to what, at times, is indistinguishable from a cult.
He is absolutely correct in everything that he states. Christianity asks us to die to our former selves, of which homosexuality may be a part for some people. Like me having to die to my anger issues and other more serious addictions, the homosexual in service to the Lord must die to his homosexuality.
I freely admit that the only reason to argue against homosexuality is that the Bible says that it is a sin. There are no secular grounds whatsoever for arguing against it.
I feel that I’m an honest advocate of that position since I admit that the feelings never go away. There is not a day where I don’t struggle with my more serious addiction. Not a single day. But I’m struggling with it because I know God does not permit it, and I know that He will give me the strength to endure to the end. The homosexual can find that strength, too, if he or she looks to Jesus Christ.
Back Rome Again 