The liberal media has tried its best to puff Cindy Sheehan. What’s so striking is how little difference there now is between the New York Times and the Neonazis.
***QUOTE***
Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke
Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.
In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel, and to safeguard our own democracy, not the democracy of some foreign nation that neither wants nor needs it. In advancing this war for Israel, government and media advocates obviously couldn’t get Americans behind the war by saying it was a war for Israel. They had to make up bogus reasons for the war, such as saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to America and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now that these lies have been exposed, they have changed the rationale for the war to “fighting for democracy” and “fighting against terrorism.” Here’s a short list showing why Cindy Sheehan is right!
It was criminal for Cindy Sheehan’s son to die for Israel rather than for the true interests of America.
From the beginning, this war was orchestrated from top to bottom by Jewish Neocons that saw the war as one for Israel’s strategic objectives. They ramped up the war through Jews such as Perle and Wolfowitz, the false intelligence through CIA analyst Stuart Cohen and by Israel’s Mossad, and had a compliant Jewish-dominated media to cheer on the war. The truth is the Iraq War has inflicted incredible damage on America and the American people. It is war against America rather than in defense of America.
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350#more-350
***END-QUOTE***
For more of the same:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.php?s=a4ba7a780f184601f6e7b1e27cf7bbe1&do=getinfo&day=2005-8-28&e=244&c=1
Pages
▼
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
Beyond-Being Being
Several times now, I’ve commented on the danger of theological refinements which outpace revelation. For this admonition, I’ve been branded a heretic by Jonathan Prejean.
If you want a textbook illustration of what I mean, just read the following example, and ask yourself what possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim.
***QUOTE***
There is no distinction between the divine being and the energies. This is a misunderstanding of the position. God’s “essence” is not being in any sense at all. As Gregory Palamas says, either God is being and we are not or we are being and He is not. We say that God is hyperousios ousios, and hyperousios is no adjective modifying ousios. The scholastics read Dionysius as God standing above all finite being, and hence their being an epistemic and metaphysical continuity between God and finite beings (the analogy of being). When we say God is hyperousios ousios, it means that God’s ‘essence’ “stands above his own being producing cause of all beings, that is, God as the divine energy.” (John D. Jones, Marquette) Furthermore, when we say “God’s essence”, it is only as a reference point as a causal designation. Quoting Jones again, “On this view, despite the grammatical form of hyperousios ousia, ousia is not a noun referring to a divine ‘essence’ characterized as hyperousios in one sense and as ousiopoios (being producing) in another. Rather, hyperousios “indicates” the Godhead as uncoordinated with all and, thus, beyond all names whatsoever; ousia, however, refers to God as manifested…in the divine energy.”–John D. Jones. “Manifesting Beyond-Being Being (hyperousios ousia): The Divine Essenc-Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.” St. Louis Philosophy Department Colloquium. April 15, 2005.
http://www.energeticprocession.com/
***END-QUOTE***
Perhaps Prejean will favor us with an empirical proof.
If you want a textbook illustration of what I mean, just read the following example, and ask yourself what possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim.
***QUOTE***
There is no distinction between the divine being and the energies. This is a misunderstanding of the position. God’s “essence” is not being in any sense at all. As Gregory Palamas says, either God is being and we are not or we are being and He is not. We say that God is hyperousios ousios, and hyperousios is no adjective modifying ousios. The scholastics read Dionysius as God standing above all finite being, and hence their being an epistemic and metaphysical continuity between God and finite beings (the analogy of being). When we say God is hyperousios ousios, it means that God’s ‘essence’ “stands above his own being producing cause of all beings, that is, God as the divine energy.” (John D. Jones, Marquette) Furthermore, when we say “God’s essence”, it is only as a reference point as a causal designation. Quoting Jones again, “On this view, despite the grammatical form of hyperousios ousia, ousia is not a noun referring to a divine ‘essence’ characterized as hyperousios in one sense and as ousiopoios (being producing) in another. Rather, hyperousios “indicates” the Godhead as uncoordinated with all and, thus, beyond all names whatsoever; ousia, however, refers to God as manifested…in the divine energy.”–John D. Jones. “Manifesting Beyond-Being Being (hyperousios ousia): The Divine Essenc-Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.” St. Louis Philosophy Department Colloquium. April 15, 2005.
http://www.energeticprocession.com/
***END-QUOTE***
Perhaps Prejean will favor us with an empirical proof.
Incommensurable criteria
At the risk of horning in on Prejean’s debate with Engwer, a couple of Prejean’s objections caught my eye:
***QUOTE***
That's ridiculous. If they don't have commensurable reasons for believing X, then they don't even really have the same belief.
***END-QUOTE***
Hmm. So if Jason believes in 9/11 because he saw the planes strike the Twin Towers on TV, and Prejean believes in 9/11 because he saw the planes strike the Twin Towers in a vision or a dream, then they don't even really have the same belief because their reasons for believing in 9/11 differ?
Their "reasons" are incommensurable, as involving "incommensurable" modes of knowledge—as between observation and revelation. But does that mean they don’t share the same belief?
In fact, a fair amount of Scripture consists in visionary revelation. The seer believes in the event because he saw it in a dream or vision, whereas a Christian believes in the event because he read the record of the dream or vision.
Let us suppose that Jason and Jonathan both saw 9/11 on TV, but they happen to differ in their epistemology. Maybe Jason is a direct realist whereas is an indirect realist. So do they not both believe in 9/11?
One problem is that Prejean is confusing ontological conditions with epistemic criteria. Even if the criteria are incommensurable, it scarcely follows that their respective truth-conditions are incompatible.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
My point has always been that what Christians believed was the process for developing binding doctrine ought to be the guide for what is apostolic, what Christianity is. Jason thinks that we ought to be looking for what the Apostles literally taught.
***END-QUOTE***
An obvious problem with this "paradigm" is that the process for developing a dogmatic guide is itself an ongoing process of development. It took a long time for this process to evolve. So the process of development is taking you further away from the time of the sources, given the amount of time the process underwent to develop into a doctrinal guide. It is moving in the wrong direction—not nearer to the event, but ever more distant from living memory and eyewitness testimony.
***QUOTE***
That's ridiculous. If they don't have commensurable reasons for believing X, then they don't even really have the same belief.
***END-QUOTE***
Hmm. So if Jason believes in 9/11 because he saw the planes strike the Twin Towers on TV, and Prejean believes in 9/11 because he saw the planes strike the Twin Towers in a vision or a dream, then they don't even really have the same belief because their reasons for believing in 9/11 differ?
Their "reasons" are incommensurable, as involving "incommensurable" modes of knowledge—as between observation and revelation. But does that mean they don’t share the same belief?
In fact, a fair amount of Scripture consists in visionary revelation. The seer believes in the event because he saw it in a dream or vision, whereas a Christian believes in the event because he read the record of the dream or vision.
Let us suppose that Jason and Jonathan both saw 9/11 on TV, but they happen to differ in their epistemology. Maybe Jason is a direct realist whereas is an indirect realist. So do they not both believe in 9/11?
One problem is that Prejean is confusing ontological conditions with epistemic criteria. Even if the criteria are incommensurable, it scarcely follows that their respective truth-conditions are incompatible.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
My point has always been that what Christians believed was the process for developing binding doctrine ought to be the guide for what is apostolic, what Christianity is. Jason thinks that we ought to be looking for what the Apostles literally taught.
***END-QUOTE***
An obvious problem with this "paradigm" is that the process for developing a dogmatic guide is itself an ongoing process of development. It took a long time for this process to evolve. So the process of development is taking you further away from the time of the sources, given the amount of time the process underwent to develop into a doctrinal guide. It is moving in the wrong direction—not nearer to the event, but ever more distant from living memory and eyewitness testimony.
Prejean's freak-mutant philosophy
One of the greatest oddities in Prejean’s many odd objections to the position of Engwer and me is his insistence on an empiricist epistemology, with which, so he says, the GHM fails to comply.
What is so odd about this is the relation between his epistemology and his Christology. For his Greco-Patristic Christology presupposes a Neoplatonic ontology. Don’t take my word for it. Prejean’s sidekick, Perry Robinson, is quite defensive on that very point.
Now, one’s ontology logically selects for one’s epistemology. Neoplatonism selects for a rationalist epistemology and coherence theory of truth, as over against an empiricist epistemology and correspondence theory of truth.
So Prejean finds himself in the exceedingly awkward position of trying to graft an empiricist epistemology onto a Neoplatonist ontology.
And if that were not bad enough, Prejean has also gone on record as saying that if two parties “don't have commensurable reasons for believing X, then they don't even really have the same belief.”
But the Neoplatonic theory of knowledge espoused by the Greek Fathers is, of course, classically incommensurable with an empiricist theory of knowledge—not to mention the even deeper mismatch between the orders of knowing and being in Prejean’s hybrid Neoplatonic ontology-cum-empiricist epistemology.
All things considered, Prejean would do well to stick with the practice of law.
What is so odd about this is the relation between his epistemology and his Christology. For his Greco-Patristic Christology presupposes a Neoplatonic ontology. Don’t take my word for it. Prejean’s sidekick, Perry Robinson, is quite defensive on that very point.
Now, one’s ontology logically selects for one’s epistemology. Neoplatonism selects for a rationalist epistemology and coherence theory of truth, as over against an empiricist epistemology and correspondence theory of truth.
So Prejean finds himself in the exceedingly awkward position of trying to graft an empiricist epistemology onto a Neoplatonist ontology.
And if that were not bad enough, Prejean has also gone on record as saying that if two parties “don't have commensurable reasons for believing X, then they don't even really have the same belief.”
But the Neoplatonic theory of knowledge espoused by the Greek Fathers is, of course, classically incommensurable with an empiricist theory of knowledge—not to mention the even deeper mismatch between the orders of knowing and being in Prejean’s hybrid Neoplatonic ontology-cum-empiricist epistemology.
All things considered, Prejean would do well to stick with the practice of law.
What's your pastor reading?
If you’re wondering what’s wrong with the church, here’s a good place to start:
***QUOTE***
Survey Reveals The Books and Authors That Have Most Influenced Pastors
May 30, 2005
(Ventura, CA) – Books sales and book influence are two different factors. While bestseller lists identify the books that generate the greatest revenue, a new survey by The Barna Group, conducted among a nationwide, representative sample of Protestant pastors, shows that the most influential books often fail to reach the bestseller lists. That’s one of several key findings drawn from the list of books that pastors say have influenced them the most in the past three years. The survey also found that a relative handful of authors have the most consistent influence on pastors, and that a dozen or so books have had the most widespread impact during that time frame.
When pastors were asked to identify the three books that had been most helpful to them as a ministry leader during the past three years, more than two hundred different books were listed. However, only nine books were listed by at least 2% of all pastors; just ten authors were identified by at least 2% of pastors, and just three categories of books were named by at least 10% of the church leaders interviewed.
Most Helpful Books
Two books emerged as the most helpful of all: The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church, both written by Rick Warren. Purpose Driven Life topped the list, with one out of every five Senior Pastors (21%) naming it as one of the most helpful books they have read in the last three years. The larger a pastor’s church was, the more likely the pastor was to include this book among their top three. Demographically, the book had twice the appeal among pastors born during the Baby Boom generation as among pastors from the Baby Bust cohort.
Not far behind was The Purpose Driven Church, an earlier volume by Pastor Warren that was listed by 15%. Its appeal was pretty consistent across all pastoral segments except Baby Bust pastors, among whom only 3% included this book among their top picks.
The rest of the list of invaluable books was a broad selection of more than 200 other titles. Only seven additional books gained recognition from at least 2% of pastors – and each of those seven publications was chosen by 2%. Those books were What’s So Amazing About Grace? by Phillip Yancey; Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire by Jim Cymbala; Wild At Heart by John Eldredge; Courageous Leadership by Bill Hybels; Spiritual Leadership by Henry Blackaby; Next Generation Leader by Andy Stanley; and the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell.
Most Influential Authors
Although the numerous books cited by pastors were authored by dozens of writers, there were only ten authors who were listed by at least 2% of the pastors interviewed. Not surprisingly, Rick Warren was king-of-the-hill in this listing, as his books were mentioned by 30% of the pastors. John Maxwell was the runner-up, with books listed as among the most helpful by 5% of pastors. Five writers were mentioned by 3% of the nation’s church leaders: Henry Blackaby, Jim Cymbala, Bill Hybels, Andy Stanley, and Phil Yancey. The other influential authors were George Barna, John Eldredge and John Piper, each of whom was mentioned by 2%.
Another outcome of the research concerned the authors who had the greatest number of influential books listed by pastors. Six authors stood out as having multiple volumes that have helped large numbers of pastors. Researcher George Barna, who had ten influential books identified by pastors, headed the list. Following him were Max Lucado and John Maxwell, with nine books each; Charles Swindoll and John MacArthur, each with six books; and Phillip Yancey, with four acclaimed books.
Most Useful Types of Books
When the books designated as the most helpful were categorized, there were three types of books that pastors found to be most profitable. A majority of pastors (54%) listed at least one book regarding discipleship or personal spiritual growth. Books about church growth, congregational health or ministry dynamics were the next most prolific, listed by 23% of pastors. Leadership books were equally valued, identified by 22%. No other category was cited by at least 10% of the sample.
Less influential types of books included those about theology (9%), evangelism and outreach (6%), pastoring (6%), and prayer (5%). Books regarding charismatic perspectives (5%), trends and cultural conditions (4%), and preaching (3%) also generated noteworthy interest.
Different Segments Like Divergent Books
The size of the congregation led by a pastor was related to the types of books mentioned. Pastors of small congregations not only read fewer books than did pastors of larger churches, but also had more restricted categorical tastes. Discipleship books were their clear favorite, listed by half of the small church pastors, but no other category of books was mentioned by even one out of every five of those leaders. Specific leadership books were identified as among the most helpful by four out of ten pastors of large churches and by three out of ten mid-sized church leaders, but by only one out of every eight pastors of small congregations. In fact, small-church pastors were only half as likely as those from large congregations to include The Purpose Driven Life among their influential books.
Pastors of mainline churches were more than twice as likely as their colleagues from non-mainline Protestant churches to cite specific theology books while being less than half as likely to list a volume related to evangelism or outreach. Mainline pastors were also less than half as likely to mention any books regarding leadership thinking or practices.
Pastors who lead charismatic or Pentecostal congregations were by far the least likely to include books on theology among their chosen titles: only 2% did so.
The age of the pastor had a clear impact on the books they regarded most highly. Pastors in their mid-fifties or older were only one-third as likely as their younger colleagues to mention any leadership books. The oldest pastors also showed a preference for authors from their own generation, including men such as Dallas Willard, Charles Stanley and Warren Wiersbe among their favorites, although those writers did not make the national list.
Pastors under the age of 40, meanwhile, were more than twice as likely to mention books on prayer; only half as likely to include The Purpose Driven Life; and just one-sixth as likely to place The Purpose Driven Church in their top-ranked volumes. In fact, while one-third of all pastors over 40 mentioned at least one book by Rick Warren, just 14% of those under 40 did so.
The under-40 pastors championed several authors who were not ranked highly by older church leaders. Those authors included business consultant James Collins, seminary professor Thom Rainer, nineteenth century Seventh-Day Adventist icon Ellen White, and pastor John Ortberg.
Male and female pastors share many views, but there were some differences. Male pastors were twice as likely to include leadership books among their favorites, twice as likely to include theology volumes, and three times more likely to name books about evangelism and outreach. The list of most influential authors among female pastors took on a different shape, incorporating Henri Nouwen, Tommy Tenney and Leonard Sweet along with Barna, Cymbala, Lucado, Stanley, Yancey and Warren. However, Blackaby, Eldredge, Hybels and Maxwell were not included in the female rankings.
The Role of Books in Leadership
“One of the most interesting outcomes is the different taste of younger pastors,” pointed out research director George Barna, “Given the divergent points of view that they consider most helpful and influential, it seems likely we will continue to see new forms and strategies emerge in their churches. They lean toward books and authors that extol adventure, shared experiences, visionary leadership, supernatural guidance and relational connections. If their choices in reading are any indication, they seem less obsessed with church size and more interested in encounters with the living God. They are also less prone to identifying the most popular books in favor of those that are known for their passionate tone. The fact that less than half as many young pastors considered the Purpose Driven books to be influential in their ministry suggests that the new legion of young pastors may be primed to introduce new ways of thinking about Christianity and church life.”
Research Source and Methodology
The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 614 Senior Pastors of Protestant churches conducted in December 2004. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with that sample is ±4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Pastors in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of churches in the sample reflects the proportion of the churches from that denomination among all Protestant churches in the U.S. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a statistically reliable distribution of pastors.
“Mainline” churches are those associated with the American Baptist Churches/U.S.A.; United Church of Christ; Episcopal Church; United Methodist Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
In this report, “small churches” were defined as those that attract less than 100 adults to their weekend events on a typical weekend. “Mid-sized churches” in this study were those that attract 100 to 250 adults; large churches were those attracting 250 or more adults.
Baby Busters are adults born from 1965-1983; Baby Boomers were born from 1946-1964; Elders are a combination of two generations, and represent those born prior to 1946.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=189
***END-QUOTE***
***QUOTE***
Survey Reveals The Books and Authors That Have Most Influenced Pastors
May 30, 2005
(Ventura, CA) – Books sales and book influence are two different factors. While bestseller lists identify the books that generate the greatest revenue, a new survey by The Barna Group, conducted among a nationwide, representative sample of Protestant pastors, shows that the most influential books often fail to reach the bestseller lists. That’s one of several key findings drawn from the list of books that pastors say have influenced them the most in the past three years. The survey also found that a relative handful of authors have the most consistent influence on pastors, and that a dozen or so books have had the most widespread impact during that time frame.
When pastors were asked to identify the three books that had been most helpful to them as a ministry leader during the past three years, more than two hundred different books were listed. However, only nine books were listed by at least 2% of all pastors; just ten authors were identified by at least 2% of pastors, and just three categories of books were named by at least 10% of the church leaders interviewed.
Most Helpful Books
Two books emerged as the most helpful of all: The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church, both written by Rick Warren. Purpose Driven Life topped the list, with one out of every five Senior Pastors (21%) naming it as one of the most helpful books they have read in the last three years. The larger a pastor’s church was, the more likely the pastor was to include this book among their top three. Demographically, the book had twice the appeal among pastors born during the Baby Boom generation as among pastors from the Baby Bust cohort.
Not far behind was The Purpose Driven Church, an earlier volume by Pastor Warren that was listed by 15%. Its appeal was pretty consistent across all pastoral segments except Baby Bust pastors, among whom only 3% included this book among their top picks.
The rest of the list of invaluable books was a broad selection of more than 200 other titles. Only seven additional books gained recognition from at least 2% of pastors – and each of those seven publications was chosen by 2%. Those books were What’s So Amazing About Grace? by Phillip Yancey; Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire by Jim Cymbala; Wild At Heart by John Eldredge; Courageous Leadership by Bill Hybels; Spiritual Leadership by Henry Blackaby; Next Generation Leader by Andy Stanley; and the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell.
Most Influential Authors
Although the numerous books cited by pastors were authored by dozens of writers, there were only ten authors who were listed by at least 2% of the pastors interviewed. Not surprisingly, Rick Warren was king-of-the-hill in this listing, as his books were mentioned by 30% of the pastors. John Maxwell was the runner-up, with books listed as among the most helpful by 5% of pastors. Five writers were mentioned by 3% of the nation’s church leaders: Henry Blackaby, Jim Cymbala, Bill Hybels, Andy Stanley, and Phil Yancey. The other influential authors were George Barna, John Eldredge and John Piper, each of whom was mentioned by 2%.
Another outcome of the research concerned the authors who had the greatest number of influential books listed by pastors. Six authors stood out as having multiple volumes that have helped large numbers of pastors. Researcher George Barna, who had ten influential books identified by pastors, headed the list. Following him were Max Lucado and John Maxwell, with nine books each; Charles Swindoll and John MacArthur, each with six books; and Phillip Yancey, with four acclaimed books.
Most Useful Types of Books
When the books designated as the most helpful were categorized, there were three types of books that pastors found to be most profitable. A majority of pastors (54%) listed at least one book regarding discipleship or personal spiritual growth. Books about church growth, congregational health or ministry dynamics were the next most prolific, listed by 23% of pastors. Leadership books were equally valued, identified by 22%. No other category was cited by at least 10% of the sample.
Less influential types of books included those about theology (9%), evangelism and outreach (6%), pastoring (6%), and prayer (5%). Books regarding charismatic perspectives (5%), trends and cultural conditions (4%), and preaching (3%) also generated noteworthy interest.
Different Segments Like Divergent Books
The size of the congregation led by a pastor was related to the types of books mentioned. Pastors of small congregations not only read fewer books than did pastors of larger churches, but also had more restricted categorical tastes. Discipleship books were their clear favorite, listed by half of the small church pastors, but no other category of books was mentioned by even one out of every five of those leaders. Specific leadership books were identified as among the most helpful by four out of ten pastors of large churches and by three out of ten mid-sized church leaders, but by only one out of every eight pastors of small congregations. In fact, small-church pastors were only half as likely as those from large congregations to include The Purpose Driven Life among their influential books.
Pastors of mainline churches were more than twice as likely as their colleagues from non-mainline Protestant churches to cite specific theology books while being less than half as likely to list a volume related to evangelism or outreach. Mainline pastors were also less than half as likely to mention any books regarding leadership thinking or practices.
Pastors who lead charismatic or Pentecostal congregations were by far the least likely to include books on theology among their chosen titles: only 2% did so.
The age of the pastor had a clear impact on the books they regarded most highly. Pastors in their mid-fifties or older were only one-third as likely as their younger colleagues to mention any leadership books. The oldest pastors also showed a preference for authors from their own generation, including men such as Dallas Willard, Charles Stanley and Warren Wiersbe among their favorites, although those writers did not make the national list.
Pastors under the age of 40, meanwhile, were more than twice as likely to mention books on prayer; only half as likely to include The Purpose Driven Life; and just one-sixth as likely to place The Purpose Driven Church in their top-ranked volumes. In fact, while one-third of all pastors over 40 mentioned at least one book by Rick Warren, just 14% of those under 40 did so.
The under-40 pastors championed several authors who were not ranked highly by older church leaders. Those authors included business consultant James Collins, seminary professor Thom Rainer, nineteenth century Seventh-Day Adventist icon Ellen White, and pastor John Ortberg.
Male and female pastors share many views, but there were some differences. Male pastors were twice as likely to include leadership books among their favorites, twice as likely to include theology volumes, and three times more likely to name books about evangelism and outreach. The list of most influential authors among female pastors took on a different shape, incorporating Henri Nouwen, Tommy Tenney and Leonard Sweet along with Barna, Cymbala, Lucado, Stanley, Yancey and Warren. However, Blackaby, Eldredge, Hybels and Maxwell were not included in the female rankings.
The Role of Books in Leadership
“One of the most interesting outcomes is the different taste of younger pastors,” pointed out research director George Barna, “Given the divergent points of view that they consider most helpful and influential, it seems likely we will continue to see new forms and strategies emerge in their churches. They lean toward books and authors that extol adventure, shared experiences, visionary leadership, supernatural guidance and relational connections. If their choices in reading are any indication, they seem less obsessed with church size and more interested in encounters with the living God. They are also less prone to identifying the most popular books in favor of those that are known for their passionate tone. The fact that less than half as many young pastors considered the Purpose Driven books to be influential in their ministry suggests that the new legion of young pastors may be primed to introduce new ways of thinking about Christianity and church life.”
Research Source and Methodology
The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 614 Senior Pastors of Protestant churches conducted in December 2004. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with that sample is ±4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Pastors in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of churches in the sample reflects the proportion of the churches from that denomination among all Protestant churches in the U.S. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a statistically reliable distribution of pastors.
“Mainline” churches are those associated with the American Baptist Churches/U.S.A.; United Church of Christ; Episcopal Church; United Methodist Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
In this report, “small churches” were defined as those that attract less than 100 adults to their weekend events on a typical weekend. “Mid-sized churches” in this study were those that attract 100 to 250 adults; large churches were those attracting 250 or more adults.
Baby Busters are adults born from 1965-1983; Baby Boomers were born from 1946-1964; Elders are a combination of two generations, and represent those born prior to 1946.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=189
***END-QUOTE***
Early retirement
It appears that Prejean is going to resume his “retirement”—for now, at least.
***QUOTE***
The discussion that I've been having with Steve Hays and Jason Engwer highlights the relatively huge difficulty in having any kind of meaningful discussion between Catholics and Protestants. Both sides have views of revealed meaning that are completely alien to one another, which means its impossible to debate on any of those premises meaningfully.
***END-QUOTE***
Wrong again. The problem isn’t the absence of common ground between Catholics and Protestants, but common ground between Prejean and Protestants. As I’ve documented from Catholic sources, the GHM is common ground between the two groups. Prejean is the holdout.
***QUOTE***
Astute readers will notice exactly what it is that I've been trying to do, which is appeal to areas in which there are shared premises to reason into areas where there aren't.
***END-QUOTE***
He has done nothing of the kind. To the contrary, he has appealed to allegorical exegesis, apostolic succession, and sacramental realism.
***QUOTE***
The problem is that we are looking at exactly the same point, and Hays is seeing the GHM as binding and limiting (which is exactly how a Protestant sees the GHM), while a Catholic sees the GHM as a starting point for further analysis, which is exactly the point of the PBC document. The point isn't that we have to accept the GHM uncritically, but that we need to take it into account as a factor, which is all that any Catholic ever said. The GHM isn't exclusive of other forms of interpretation, except in Hays's mind. Catholics see it as an empirical method, to be judged like other empirical methods based on reliability, and Hays sees it as a "hermenutic" for finding "truth." Those two views simply are not compatible for one another.
***END-QUOTE***
No, what’s incommensurable isn’t a case of Catholic and Protestant hermeneutics, but Catholic and Prejeanian hermeneutics.
All the Prejean has done here is to substitute his tendentious summary of the PBC document for the actual wording of the document--as well as my own argumentation.
i) The PBC document does not say that we merely need to take the GHM into account as a factor. To the contrary, it treats GHM as the primary factor and the benchmark for further analysis.
ii) In addition, as I also documented by quoting directly from the PBC guidelines, allegorical exegesis is consigned to obsolescence.
iii) The PBC says nothing about “empiricism,” either expressly or implicitly. That’s Prejean’s contraband.
iv) As I explicitly said, the argument is not predicated on the “binding” force of the PBC guidelines. Rather, it goes to the burden of proof.
Prejean has repeatedly faulted Engwer and me for begging the question by failing to make a case for GHM. Now, aside from the fact that both of us have, indeed, make a case for the GHM, the further point is that, for purposes of interfaith dialogue, we don’t need to mount a separate argument for GHM inasmuch as that is already accorded a necessary and principial status in Catholic hermeneutics by the PBC guidelines, with the blessing of the Pope and the Prefect.
As far as the burden of proof is concerned, it needn’t be binding to be justified. The mere fact that it is acceptable—indeed, is sanction by his ecclesiastical superiors—is warrant enough. The onus is on Prejean to exempt himself from duty.
***QUOTE***
As a ressourcement theologian, Pope Benedict is hardly incompatible with my own view of the relative compatibility of Catholicism and Orthodoxy; indeed, he's come out on record in agreement with my explanation on several communion-separating matters (notably original sin and the filioque) based on patristic exegesis.
***END-QUOTE***
A complete non-sequitur. And I pointed out before, and Prejean agreed, a Catholic commentator is even free to deny that Scripture teaches a given dogma as long as he doesn’t deny the dogma itself. He refers that development to the progress of dogma.
Hence, agreement on such matters as original sin and the filioque-clause does not entail agreement on the school of exegesis since it does not depend on fine-points of exegesis at all.
Indeed, Prejean himself has said:
***QUOTE***
But agreement on a conclusion doesn't amount to agreement on a method. We can both think that a conclusion is "probable" for entirely different reasons, which is what you seem to be impervious to understanding.
***END-QUOTE***
At the same time, it’s quite possible for Benedict to be inconsistent. He was not speaking ex cathedra, was he? Indeed, he’s only been Pope for a few months.
***QUOTE***
the misreading is yours, not mine.
***END-QUOTE***
No. The difference is not between Prejean’s reading and mine. Rather, the difference is between reading and non-reading. I stick to the actual wording of the PBC guidelines, whereas Prejean indulges in weightless summaries with no textual warrant to undergird his conclusions.
***QUOTE***
Notice that your Protestant cohorts all think that you are exactly right, and your Catholic opponents are repeatedly saying you are completely wrong; that's a powerful sign of worldview incompatibility.
***END-QUOTE***
When my Catholic opponents run away from the actual wording of their own Catholic source materials, that’s a powerful sign of incompatibility with their chosen communion.
***QUOTE***
Genre is a question of method.
***END-QUOTE***
Now he’s equivocating. I guess the suppressed premise is that our hermeneutical method is used to identify the literary genre of a document. But that’s a turnaround that circles back to my own position.
To begin with, there is no basic difference in genre analysis between the way in which Catholic scholars classify the books of the Bible or this or that pericope, and their Protestant counterparts.
In addition, the church fathers certainly classify Scripture as a theological document.
Likewise, we all agree on the theological genre of creeds and councils.
There’s nothing method-dependent, in a specialized, competitive sense, about the classification of Scripture as a theological document.
In addition, it’s simple-minded to say that genre is question of method, for one could just as well say that method is a question of genre. When we interpret a parable or poem or poem of epistle or historical narrative, we make methodological allowances for the conventions proper to each. Method is adaptive to form and content.
***QUOTE***
And once again, I understand that you believe this and that it is an assumption of your worldview, but I don't agree with this distinction as being a meaningful one. I'm a metaphysical realist; I believe in a fundamental correspondence between rational concepts and the way things are in reality. My entire theory of interpretation is based on that notion, so it wouldn't make sense to separate "truth" from "meaning" in this way. That's why I consider all interpretive methods fundamentally empirical method; it's an artifact of German phenomenology (specifically, Heidegger's rejection of ontotheology) that they are separable in this way. I'm not Heideggerian; I don't share the premise.
***END-QUOTE**
He’s raised this objection before, and I answered him at the time. The problem is that he has failed to interact with my arguments.
I used the example of fiction. One doesn’t have to be a German phenomenologist to affirm that Alice in Wonderland is meaningful, but deny that Alice in Wonderland is descriptive of the way things are in the real world.
If Prejean’s grasp of reality is so tenuous that he can’t tell the difference, then I’m grateful that he chose the legal profession over engineering or neuroscience since I’d cringe at the thought of neurosurgeon or electrical engineer with a such a blurry-eyed vision of thoughts in relation to things.
On second thought, a Supreme Court justice who regarded the Cheshire Cat as an empirical object might be even more dangerous than a neurosurgeon or electrical engineer with the same philosophical leanings.
***QUOTE***
We don't agree on how to draw theological conclusions from a historical record.
***END-QUOTE***
And one reason for this is your false antithesis. A document can be both a theological document and a historical record. More precisely, it can be the interpretive account of redemptive events. That’s known as narrative theology. A great deal of Scripture consists in narrative theology. The record isn’t one thing, and the conclusion another.
***QUOTE***
you are not operating based on the most recent historical research of what Chalcedon said.
***END-QUOTE***
And a century from now, your more recent historical research will be out of date. That’s one of the hazards when men like your navigate your boat by the comet of historical relativity.
***QUOTE***
Indeed, the role of faith for most theists is to establish certainty despite epistemic uncertainty, not to argue that God would cure epistemic uncertainty if you trust Him to do so.
***END-QUOTE***
That’s not the role of faith for a theist, but for a fideist. It treats faith as a makeweight.
That’s a popular, but irrational concept of faith. In Scripture, the distinction is not between faith and knowledge, but faith and sight. Put another way, between direct and indirect knowledge, partial and complete knowledge.
We know certain things on the basis of revelation rather than observation or reason. Revelation is, itself, a form of reason—a disclosure of divine reason to the mind of man.
We don’t have all the answer, but we have some of the answers, and we know who has the rest of the answers.
Distinctions are also to be drawn between evidence and argument, tacit knowledge and formal proof. Christian faith is founded on evidence, and Christian faith is never underdetermined by the evidence. If anything, it’s overdetermined by the evidence due to the sheer variety of the evidence.
***QUOTE***
The discussion that I've been having with Steve Hays and Jason Engwer highlights the relatively huge difficulty in having any kind of meaningful discussion between Catholics and Protestants. Both sides have views of revealed meaning that are completely alien to one another, which means its impossible to debate on any of those premises meaningfully.
***END-QUOTE***
Wrong again. The problem isn’t the absence of common ground between Catholics and Protestants, but common ground between Prejean and Protestants. As I’ve documented from Catholic sources, the GHM is common ground between the two groups. Prejean is the holdout.
***QUOTE***
Astute readers will notice exactly what it is that I've been trying to do, which is appeal to areas in which there are shared premises to reason into areas where there aren't.
***END-QUOTE***
He has done nothing of the kind. To the contrary, he has appealed to allegorical exegesis, apostolic succession, and sacramental realism.
***QUOTE***
The problem is that we are looking at exactly the same point, and Hays is seeing the GHM as binding and limiting (which is exactly how a Protestant sees the GHM), while a Catholic sees the GHM as a starting point for further analysis, which is exactly the point of the PBC document. The point isn't that we have to accept the GHM uncritically, but that we need to take it into account as a factor, which is all that any Catholic ever said. The GHM isn't exclusive of other forms of interpretation, except in Hays's mind. Catholics see it as an empirical method, to be judged like other empirical methods based on reliability, and Hays sees it as a "hermenutic" for finding "truth." Those two views simply are not compatible for one another.
***END-QUOTE***
No, what’s incommensurable isn’t a case of Catholic and Protestant hermeneutics, but Catholic and Prejeanian hermeneutics.
All the Prejean has done here is to substitute his tendentious summary of the PBC document for the actual wording of the document--as well as my own argumentation.
i) The PBC document does not say that we merely need to take the GHM into account as a factor. To the contrary, it treats GHM as the primary factor and the benchmark for further analysis.
ii) In addition, as I also documented by quoting directly from the PBC guidelines, allegorical exegesis is consigned to obsolescence.
iii) The PBC says nothing about “empiricism,” either expressly or implicitly. That’s Prejean’s contraband.
iv) As I explicitly said, the argument is not predicated on the “binding” force of the PBC guidelines. Rather, it goes to the burden of proof.
Prejean has repeatedly faulted Engwer and me for begging the question by failing to make a case for GHM. Now, aside from the fact that both of us have, indeed, make a case for the GHM, the further point is that, for purposes of interfaith dialogue, we don’t need to mount a separate argument for GHM inasmuch as that is already accorded a necessary and principial status in Catholic hermeneutics by the PBC guidelines, with the blessing of the Pope and the Prefect.
As far as the burden of proof is concerned, it needn’t be binding to be justified. The mere fact that it is acceptable—indeed, is sanction by his ecclesiastical superiors—is warrant enough. The onus is on Prejean to exempt himself from duty.
***QUOTE***
As a ressourcement theologian, Pope Benedict is hardly incompatible with my own view of the relative compatibility of Catholicism and Orthodoxy; indeed, he's come out on record in agreement with my explanation on several communion-separating matters (notably original sin and the filioque) based on patristic exegesis.
***END-QUOTE***
A complete non-sequitur. And I pointed out before, and Prejean agreed, a Catholic commentator is even free to deny that Scripture teaches a given dogma as long as he doesn’t deny the dogma itself. He refers that development to the progress of dogma.
Hence, agreement on such matters as original sin and the filioque-clause does not entail agreement on the school of exegesis since it does not depend on fine-points of exegesis at all.
Indeed, Prejean himself has said:
***QUOTE***
But agreement on a conclusion doesn't amount to agreement on a method. We can both think that a conclusion is "probable" for entirely different reasons, which is what you seem to be impervious to understanding.
***END-QUOTE***
At the same time, it’s quite possible for Benedict to be inconsistent. He was not speaking ex cathedra, was he? Indeed, he’s only been Pope for a few months.
***QUOTE***
the misreading is yours, not mine.
***END-QUOTE***
No. The difference is not between Prejean’s reading and mine. Rather, the difference is between reading and non-reading. I stick to the actual wording of the PBC guidelines, whereas Prejean indulges in weightless summaries with no textual warrant to undergird his conclusions.
***QUOTE***
Notice that your Protestant cohorts all think that you are exactly right, and your Catholic opponents are repeatedly saying you are completely wrong; that's a powerful sign of worldview incompatibility.
***END-QUOTE***
When my Catholic opponents run away from the actual wording of their own Catholic source materials, that’s a powerful sign of incompatibility with their chosen communion.
***QUOTE***
Genre is a question of method.
***END-QUOTE***
Now he’s equivocating. I guess the suppressed premise is that our hermeneutical method is used to identify the literary genre of a document. But that’s a turnaround that circles back to my own position.
To begin with, there is no basic difference in genre analysis between the way in which Catholic scholars classify the books of the Bible or this or that pericope, and their Protestant counterparts.
In addition, the church fathers certainly classify Scripture as a theological document.
Likewise, we all agree on the theological genre of creeds and councils.
There’s nothing method-dependent, in a specialized, competitive sense, about the classification of Scripture as a theological document.
In addition, it’s simple-minded to say that genre is question of method, for one could just as well say that method is a question of genre. When we interpret a parable or poem or poem of epistle or historical narrative, we make methodological allowances for the conventions proper to each. Method is adaptive to form and content.
***QUOTE***
And once again, I understand that you believe this and that it is an assumption of your worldview, but I don't agree with this distinction as being a meaningful one. I'm a metaphysical realist; I believe in a fundamental correspondence between rational concepts and the way things are in reality. My entire theory of interpretation is based on that notion, so it wouldn't make sense to separate "truth" from "meaning" in this way. That's why I consider all interpretive methods fundamentally empirical method; it's an artifact of German phenomenology (specifically, Heidegger's rejection of ontotheology) that they are separable in this way. I'm not Heideggerian; I don't share the premise.
***END-QUOTE**
He’s raised this objection before, and I answered him at the time. The problem is that he has failed to interact with my arguments.
I used the example of fiction. One doesn’t have to be a German phenomenologist to affirm that Alice in Wonderland is meaningful, but deny that Alice in Wonderland is descriptive of the way things are in the real world.
If Prejean’s grasp of reality is so tenuous that he can’t tell the difference, then I’m grateful that he chose the legal profession over engineering or neuroscience since I’d cringe at the thought of neurosurgeon or electrical engineer with a such a blurry-eyed vision of thoughts in relation to things.
On second thought, a Supreme Court justice who regarded the Cheshire Cat as an empirical object might be even more dangerous than a neurosurgeon or electrical engineer with the same philosophical leanings.
***QUOTE***
We don't agree on how to draw theological conclusions from a historical record.
***END-QUOTE***
And one reason for this is your false antithesis. A document can be both a theological document and a historical record. More precisely, it can be the interpretive account of redemptive events. That’s known as narrative theology. A great deal of Scripture consists in narrative theology. The record isn’t one thing, and the conclusion another.
***QUOTE***
you are not operating based on the most recent historical research of what Chalcedon said.
***END-QUOTE***
And a century from now, your more recent historical research will be out of date. That’s one of the hazards when men like your navigate your boat by the comet of historical relativity.
***QUOTE***
Indeed, the role of faith for most theists is to establish certainty despite epistemic uncertainty, not to argue that God would cure epistemic uncertainty if you trust Him to do so.
***END-QUOTE***
That’s not the role of faith for a theist, but for a fideist. It treats faith as a makeweight.
That’s a popular, but irrational concept of faith. In Scripture, the distinction is not between faith and knowledge, but faith and sight. Put another way, between direct and indirect knowledge, partial and complete knowledge.
We know certain things on the basis of revelation rather than observation or reason. Revelation is, itself, a form of reason—a disclosure of divine reason to the mind of man.
We don’t have all the answer, but we have some of the answers, and we know who has the rest of the answers.
Distinctions are also to be drawn between evidence and argument, tacit knowledge and formal proof. Christian faith is founded on evidence, and Christian faith is never underdetermined by the evidence. If anything, it’s overdetermined by the evidence due to the sheer variety of the evidence.
Wartime & peacetime
***QUOTE***
August 23, 2005
Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace
It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.
This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.
The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.
One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?
How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?
Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?
We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.
Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.
The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.
What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.
It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011443.php
***END-QUOTE***
August 23, 2005
Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace
It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.
This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.
The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.
One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?
How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?
Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?
We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.
Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.
The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.
What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.
It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011443.php
***END-QUOTE***
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Prejean's customized Catholicism
Another reply from Prejean:
***QUOTE***
I'm supposedly required by a PBC document to accept the GHM. Apart from the non-binding status of the PBC (a matter on which several Catholics have corrected Hays),
***END-QUOTE***
Several problems.
i) If he remembers that I’ve been “corrected” several times on this matter, then he also remembers that I’ve responded several times to this very charge. So while he mentions the “correction,” he omits the response. The only good reason for this omission is that he doesn’t know how to handle the response.
ii) Yes, I’m well aware of the casuistic evasion. As I’ve said before, the word for this is plausible deniability. It is employed by organizations—ordinarily organized crime—in order to have a fall-guy to pin the blame on.
iii) No, Prejean isn’t “bound” by the PBC document. But I guess he’s hoping and praying that the reader won’t compare what he says with what I said. This is my original statement:
***QUOTE***
Back in 1993, the PCB issued The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. You can find this document posted at the Vatican’s own website, along with approving remarks by the late JP2 and the now Benedict XVI.
***END-QUOTE***
So, at the very least, when Jason and I are arguing with a devout Catholic, we do not need to mount a separate argument to justify the GHM if the GHM meets with the approval of the Pope and the Prefect. That may not be good enough for Prejean, but if it’s good enough for the number one man and the number two man at the Vatican, then it is certainly good enough to discharge our burden of proof when debating with a Catholic over the propriety of the method.
Back to Prejean:
***QUOTE***
there's a real simple matter of the quoted language:
Hence the absolute necessity of a hermeneutical theory which allows for the incorporation of the methods of literary and historical criticism within a broader model of interpretation.
I'll capitalize that bolded phrase so no one misses it: WITHIN A BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION
To avoid, then, purely subjective readings, an interpretation valid for contemporary times will be founded on the study of the text, and such an interpretation will constantly submit its presuppositions to verification by the text.
Guess which model is used to submit interpretations for verification by the text. Hmmm, perhaps the BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION. This is not rocket science. Catholicism is not picky about how you choose to reconcile the GHM with your overall theological model of revelation, so long as you don't dispute the magisterial teaching authority in the apostolic succession. There is room for Raymond Brown and Karl Rahner and Joe Fitzmyer and me, all of whom have different broad models of interpretation that include the GHM in different ways. The point is not submission to a common interpretive method, but submission to a common set of actual human beings as authoritative and communion with those human beings as a requirement established by God.
Nor is allegorical exegesis an alternative method to the GHM; rather, it is a supplemental method, and moreover, an accurate method in its proper context. Nothing in any part of the quote statement criticizes "allegorical exegesis as a well-meaning, but obsolete convention," as Hays asserts. Rather, it simply stresses the additional methods we have today. Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu are right here; try to find anything that contradicts me.
***END-QUOTE***
Nice try, but notice, once again, that Prejean is omitting the key supporting material which I quoted verbatim. To repeat myself:
***QUOTE***
Ancient exegesis, which obviously could not take into account modern scientific requirements, attributed to every text of Scripture several levels of meaning. The most prevalent distinction was that between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. Medieval exegesis distinguished within the spiritual sense three different aspects…
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
Modern attempts at actualization should keep in mind both changes in ways of thinking and the progress made in interpretative method.
Actualization presupposes a correct exegesis of the text, part of which is the determining of its Persons engaged in the work of actualization who do not themselves have training in exegetical procedures should have recourse to good introductions to Scripture, this will ensure that their interpretation proceeds in the right direction.
***END-QUOTE***
Guess which model ISN’T used to submit interpretations for verification by the text? Hmmm, Guess what is NOT the BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION?
You’re right, Jonathan. This isn’t rocket science. Get with the program! Read the fine print. The GHM is in, the allegorical method is out.
One of Prejean's problems is that, in deference to Robinson, he's trying to finesse a via media between Rome and Constantinople. The Eastern church never had a Vatican II, so patristic methods remain the norm.
Again, Jonathan, if you want to run away from the Pope and the Prefect, that’s your choice. But it certainly suffices for purposes of interfaith dialogue that the Evangelical dialogue partner is playing by the same rules as the Pope in the Prefect. If you want to be the odd man out, then be our guest.
***QUOTE***
No. I operate within that standard where I think that standard is applicable.
***END-QUOTE***
Yep, that’s exactly how he operates, all right—where he happens to think it’s applicable, not anyone else, including his ecclesiastic superiors.
But let us note the final irony. Although Prejean is not a patrologist in his own right, he is constantly straining to pull rank of Engwer by alluding to some patrologist or another.
Yet when it comes to a commission headed by the Prefect, issuing a document which was requested by the Pope, was submitted to the Pope for his approval, and was rewarded with the public blessing of Pope and Prefect alike, Prejean suddenly goes cowboy on us.
So, yes, Prejean is free to pick and choose. But what he is not at liberty to do is to pick and choose for himself while insisting that Engwer or I defer to his cherry-picking, or that we present a separate argument for the GHM when, in fact, that method has already been sanctioned by the Pope and the Prefect. You don’t get to pull rank and go AWOL all at the same time.
***QUOTE***
I agree with the use of the GHM on uninspired, fallible, non-authoritative statements from one human being to another. I see no reason that the GHM should apply as an exclusive criterion for binding theological meaning with respect to inspired or authoritative statements.
***END-QUOTE***
This is a complete non-sequitur. The method is not what makes the meaning binding or nonbinding. That’s not a question of method, but genre. If you exegete an inspired or authoritative text, then what makes the meaning normative is not the method, but the genre of the text so exegeted—assuming, of course, that the method you employ is, in fact, extracting the sense of the text, and not foisting some surplus sense on the text.
***QUOTE***
Did you or did you not just accuse me of tacitly operating with the very standard I deny? If that's done knowingly, it's the definition of hypocrisy. So do you think that I am an idiot or a hypocrite? I can see no third option.
***END-QUOTE***
In his desperation, Prejean is now resorting to the same tragedy queen histrionics as Armstrong. Whether he’s consciously or unconsciously inconsistent is not for me to decide, and is wholly irrelevant to any demonstrable evidence of inconsistency.
You were the one who used the word “hypocrisy,” not me—and not to mention other abusive language you used over at Crowhill, so stop acting like a big sissy, and just stick to the argument.
***QUOTE***
Note Hays's tactic here. He identifies the revealed meaning with the original meaning, which is exactly what I reject, and then says that messages that don't agree with the "revealed meaning" are "non-revelatory." Of course, I reject the idea that the revealed meaning is limited to the original meaning, so in appealing to later developments, I am not appealing to a "non-revelatory message" except by Hays's own disputed standards for what revealed meaning is. Sheer circularity.
***END-QUOTE***
Note Prejean’s tactic here, in omitting his own usage, which I was bouncing off of. This is what he originally said, which I quoted and responded to:
***QUOTE***
They [an Egyptologist or Assyriologist] may have an advantage on what it means in the original context…
***END-QUOTE***
But, hey, I don’t have to play semantic games with Prejean. Once again, this is what the PBC document says:
***QUOTE***
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
***END-QUOTE***
The identification which I am making between original and revealed meaning is exactly the same equation made by the PBC, which issued its report at the request of the Pope, under the supervision of the Prefect, and which received the Pope’s public commendation. Notice, too, that the PBC is also citing other Catholic authorities, viz., Aquinas, Pius XII.
So these are hardly my standards alone. I’m taking my cue from Prejean’s ecclesiastical superiors. And my aces trump his deuces.
***QUOTE***
Where the assumptions of the method indicate it will apply! How hard is this? Yes, there are two different standards for mundane documents and dogmatically binding documents. I don't consider the GHM sufficient as an exclusive method to arrive at inspired meaning. That's a reasonable decision; it's not unverifiable by any commonly accepted meaning of the term. Unless you can come up with some actual argument for why it is inconsistent of me to apply different methods for ontologically different documents, then why are you even talking to me
***END-QUOTE***
Not, it’s not reasonable, because it fails to distinguish between method and genre. That argument has been given on several occasions now. How hard is this for Prejean to grasp?
“it's not unverifiable by any commonly accepted meaning of the term”? And how does he determine the commonly accepted meaning?
For purposes of our interfaith dialogue, I’ve defined the commonly accepted meaning by reference to the Pope, the Prefect, and the PBC.
Far from “commonly accepted,” Prejean is the one operating as a maverick.
***QUOTE***
I hadn't lost my patience before now, but this is just exasperating.
***END-QUOTE***
People lose patience when they’re losing the argument.
***QUOTE***
The entire argument is that the only way we can know the original meaning of documents with any reasonable certainty is the GHM, that this is the "ordinary hermeneutical principle" as it were, and that this is the only "publicly verifiable" criterion, and yet now, suddenly, we are supposed to presume that Hays isn't arguing that God provides us with sufficient epistemic certainty to be assured of our faith?
***END-QUOTE***
This is wrong on several counts:
i) Once again, Prejean is confounding the probability of a hermeneutical method with the probability of an apologetical method. This distinction has been repeatedly explained to him. I went into extra detail in my very last post on the subject. Truth and meaning are two different things, with methods adapted to each.
Now, Jason has also said that, hypothetically speaking, someone could be the recipient private revelation, but Catholicism formally denies continuous revelation, so what we’re all stuck with is a public historical revelation, the meaning of which is ascertainable, if at all, by public historical exegesis (the GHM).
Related to this, but distinct from this, is the further question of why we should believe the exegetical results so derived. Why should we believe in the revelatory status of Scripture? And Jason appeals to historical evidence for that as well, although he does not limit himself to historical evidence alone when it comes to apologetic verification, in distinction to exegesis. That, at least, is what I take him to mean. And I agree.
Finally, Jason applies the same hermeneutical criteria and apologetical criteria to other historical truth-claims, such as apostolic succession, or the Assumption of Mary.
However, Jason and I are not clones, even if Prejean treats us as a Borgian collective. So there may be variants between his position and mine.
ii) We have not predicated the GHM on a predetermined level of certitude. Rather, we have argued that the GHM is the only wheel in town. There is no other way of ascertaining the meaning of Scripture—short of private revelation
Some interpretations of some verses enjoy a higher probability than others. But the warrant for the GHM doesn’t depend on its being more probable than the alternatives. Rather, its warrant depends on the absence of any genuine alternatives. The contrast is not between probability and certainty, but probability and impossibility.
iii) Now, as a matter of fact, we also believe that the GHM does suffice to tell us what we need to know. And one reason for this is that we are merely emulating the practice of Christ, the Apostles and prophets.
And, and the risk of repeating myself, that is a conclusion which is shared in common with the PBC—as I’ve already documented.
Prejean goes on to challenge some of my other statements to like effect, but since it’s been established that Engwer and I are on the same page as the Pope, the Prefect, and the PBC, his argument is not with us, but with his ecclesiastical superiors.
If that’s not binding on him, so be it. But it that event, he’s in no position to impose on us a burden of proof which has already been discharged by the Magisterium (Pope and Prefect). Even if it’s not mandatory, it is certainly acceptable—indeed, the mainstream methodology.
***QUOTE***
An argument would give specific and concrete content to a vague term like "widely attested," which I don't concede in the least.
***END-QUOTE***
If he’s looking for an argument, a logical place to start would be for him to go to the Vatican’s official website, find the PBC document, (or an English version), then scroll down to passages like this:
***QUOTE***
The most sure and promising method for arriving at a successful actualization is the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, especially in the case of the texts of the Old Testament which have been reread in the Old Testament itself…
***END-QUOTE***
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
I presumed you must, since you're arguing that Chalcedon is not Cyrillene, and it canonized "unscriptural refinements."
***END-QUOTE***
For a man who butters his bread reading the fine print, this is very odd. I never said that Chalcedon canonized unscriptural refinements. To the contrary, what I said was that Chalcedon doesn’t canonize all of the specialized refinements of a voluminous writer like Cyril, and that we should avoid the temptation to be more precise than Scripture in our dogmatic formulations. I have no problem with the creed Chalcedon. Not that I’m aware of.
***QUOTE***
There's that purely subjective term "ascertain" again, the way that Evangelicals attempt to get around cognitive limitations by trusting in God to give them what they need. Note also that "theological document" is a subjective judgment about intent, "authoritative" is a subjective determination as well, and the fact that it will "ascertain normative theological conclusions" is assumed without any empirical demonstration. In a word, this is an attempt to foist Hays's peculiar subjective preferences as necessities.
***END-QUOTE***
I’ve already offered an argument regarding our cognitive limitations:
i) The providence of God.
ii) The providence of God as multiply-attested in Scripture, so that it does not depend on the interpretative certainty of any one verse.
iii) The impossibility of grounding knowledge apart from providence.
iv) The fact that Catholicism is in the same boat, whether it’s a Scriptural text or patristic text or Magisterial text.
v) The fact that Catholicism also subscribes to the providence of God.
Even unbelievers grant that Scripture is a theological document. Indeed, that’s one reason they’re unbelievers. They don’t believe in God, so they don’t believe in theological documents. Hence, this identification is the common coin of believer and unbeliever alike.
Whether Scripture is deemed to be authoritative is, indeed, personal-variable. But I’m debating a devout Catholic, not an atheist, right? Or is Prejean a closet infidel?
I’ve already argued against his empirical criterion, which confuses hermeneutics with apologetics.
***QUOTE***
I'm supposedly required by a PBC document to accept the GHM. Apart from the non-binding status of the PBC (a matter on which several Catholics have corrected Hays),
***END-QUOTE***
Several problems.
i) If he remembers that I’ve been “corrected” several times on this matter, then he also remembers that I’ve responded several times to this very charge. So while he mentions the “correction,” he omits the response. The only good reason for this omission is that he doesn’t know how to handle the response.
ii) Yes, I’m well aware of the casuistic evasion. As I’ve said before, the word for this is plausible deniability. It is employed by organizations—ordinarily organized crime—in order to have a fall-guy to pin the blame on.
iii) No, Prejean isn’t “bound” by the PBC document. But I guess he’s hoping and praying that the reader won’t compare what he says with what I said. This is my original statement:
***QUOTE***
Back in 1993, the PCB issued The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. You can find this document posted at the Vatican’s own website, along with approving remarks by the late JP2 and the now Benedict XVI.
***END-QUOTE***
So, at the very least, when Jason and I are arguing with a devout Catholic, we do not need to mount a separate argument to justify the GHM if the GHM meets with the approval of the Pope and the Prefect. That may not be good enough for Prejean, but if it’s good enough for the number one man and the number two man at the Vatican, then it is certainly good enough to discharge our burden of proof when debating with a Catholic over the propriety of the method.
Back to Prejean:
***QUOTE***
there's a real simple matter of the quoted language:
Hence the absolute necessity of a hermeneutical theory which allows for the incorporation of the methods of literary and historical criticism within a broader model of interpretation.
I'll capitalize that bolded phrase so no one misses it: WITHIN A BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION
To avoid, then, purely subjective readings, an interpretation valid for contemporary times will be founded on the study of the text, and such an interpretation will constantly submit its presuppositions to verification by the text.
Guess which model is used to submit interpretations for verification by the text. Hmmm, perhaps the BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION. This is not rocket science. Catholicism is not picky about how you choose to reconcile the GHM with your overall theological model of revelation, so long as you don't dispute the magisterial teaching authority in the apostolic succession. There is room for Raymond Brown and Karl Rahner and Joe Fitzmyer and me, all of whom have different broad models of interpretation that include the GHM in different ways. The point is not submission to a common interpretive method, but submission to a common set of actual human beings as authoritative and communion with those human beings as a requirement established by God.
Nor is allegorical exegesis an alternative method to the GHM; rather, it is a supplemental method, and moreover, an accurate method in its proper context. Nothing in any part of the quote statement criticizes "allegorical exegesis as a well-meaning, but obsolete convention," as Hays asserts. Rather, it simply stresses the additional methods we have today. Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu are right here; try to find anything that contradicts me.
***END-QUOTE***
Nice try, but notice, once again, that Prejean is omitting the key supporting material which I quoted verbatim. To repeat myself:
***QUOTE***
Ancient exegesis, which obviously could not take into account modern scientific requirements, attributed to every text of Scripture several levels of meaning. The most prevalent distinction was that between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. Medieval exegesis distinguished within the spiritual sense three different aspects…
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
Modern attempts at actualization should keep in mind both changes in ways of thinking and the progress made in interpretative method.
Actualization presupposes a correct exegesis of the text, part of which is the determining of its
***END-QUOTE***
Guess which model ISN’T used to submit interpretations for verification by the text? Hmmm, Guess what is NOT the BROADER MODEL OF INTERPRETATION?
You’re right, Jonathan. This isn’t rocket science. Get with the program! Read the fine print. The GHM is in, the allegorical method is out.
One of Prejean's problems is that, in deference to Robinson, he's trying to finesse a via media between Rome and Constantinople. The Eastern church never had a Vatican II, so patristic methods remain the norm.
Again, Jonathan, if you want to run away from the Pope and the Prefect, that’s your choice. But it certainly suffices for purposes of interfaith dialogue that the Evangelical dialogue partner is playing by the same rules as the Pope in the Prefect. If you want to be the odd man out, then be our guest.
***QUOTE***
No. I operate within that standard where I think that standard is applicable.
***END-QUOTE***
Yep, that’s exactly how he operates, all right—where he happens to think it’s applicable, not anyone else, including his ecclesiastic superiors.
But let us note the final irony. Although Prejean is not a patrologist in his own right, he is constantly straining to pull rank of Engwer by alluding to some patrologist or another.
Yet when it comes to a commission headed by the Prefect, issuing a document which was requested by the Pope, was submitted to the Pope for his approval, and was rewarded with the public blessing of Pope and Prefect alike, Prejean suddenly goes cowboy on us.
So, yes, Prejean is free to pick and choose. But what he is not at liberty to do is to pick and choose for himself while insisting that Engwer or I defer to his cherry-picking, or that we present a separate argument for the GHM when, in fact, that method has already been sanctioned by the Pope and the Prefect. You don’t get to pull rank and go AWOL all at the same time.
***QUOTE***
I agree with the use of the GHM on uninspired, fallible, non-authoritative statements from one human being to another. I see no reason that the GHM should apply as an exclusive criterion for binding theological meaning with respect to inspired or authoritative statements.
***END-QUOTE***
This is a complete non-sequitur. The method is not what makes the meaning binding or nonbinding. That’s not a question of method, but genre. If you exegete an inspired or authoritative text, then what makes the meaning normative is not the method, but the genre of the text so exegeted—assuming, of course, that the method you employ is, in fact, extracting the sense of the text, and not foisting some surplus sense on the text.
***QUOTE***
Did you or did you not just accuse me of tacitly operating with the very standard I deny? If that's done knowingly, it's the definition of hypocrisy. So do you think that I am an idiot or a hypocrite? I can see no third option.
***END-QUOTE***
In his desperation, Prejean is now resorting to the same tragedy queen histrionics as Armstrong. Whether he’s consciously or unconsciously inconsistent is not for me to decide, and is wholly irrelevant to any demonstrable evidence of inconsistency.
You were the one who used the word “hypocrisy,” not me—and not to mention other abusive language you used over at Crowhill, so stop acting like a big sissy, and just stick to the argument.
***QUOTE***
Note Hays's tactic here. He identifies the revealed meaning with the original meaning, which is exactly what I reject, and then says that messages that don't agree with the "revealed meaning" are "non-revelatory." Of course, I reject the idea that the revealed meaning is limited to the original meaning, so in appealing to later developments, I am not appealing to a "non-revelatory message" except by Hays's own disputed standards for what revealed meaning is. Sheer circularity.
***END-QUOTE***
Note Prejean’s tactic here, in omitting his own usage, which I was bouncing off of. This is what he originally said, which I quoted and responded to:
***QUOTE***
They [an Egyptologist or Assyriologist] may have an advantage on what it means in the original context…
***END-QUOTE***
But, hey, I don’t have to play semantic games with Prejean. Once again, this is what the PBC document says:
***QUOTE***
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
***END-QUOTE***
The identification which I am making between original and revealed meaning is exactly the same equation made by the PBC, which issued its report at the request of the Pope, under the supervision of the Prefect, and which received the Pope’s public commendation. Notice, too, that the PBC is also citing other Catholic authorities, viz., Aquinas, Pius XII.
So these are hardly my standards alone. I’m taking my cue from Prejean’s ecclesiastical superiors. And my aces trump his deuces.
***QUOTE***
Where the assumptions of the method indicate it will apply! How hard is this? Yes, there are two different standards for mundane documents and dogmatically binding documents. I don't consider the GHM sufficient as an exclusive method to arrive at inspired meaning. That's a reasonable decision; it's not unverifiable by any commonly accepted meaning of the term. Unless you can come up with some actual argument for why it is inconsistent of me to apply different methods for ontologically different documents, then why are you even talking to me
***END-QUOTE***
Not, it’s not reasonable, because it fails to distinguish between method and genre. That argument has been given on several occasions now. How hard is this for Prejean to grasp?
“it's not unverifiable by any commonly accepted meaning of the term”? And how does he determine the commonly accepted meaning?
For purposes of our interfaith dialogue, I’ve defined the commonly accepted meaning by reference to the Pope, the Prefect, and the PBC.
Far from “commonly accepted,” Prejean is the one operating as a maverick.
***QUOTE***
I hadn't lost my patience before now, but this is just exasperating.
***END-QUOTE***
People lose patience when they’re losing the argument.
***QUOTE***
The entire argument is that the only way we can know the original meaning of documents with any reasonable certainty is the GHM, that this is the "ordinary hermeneutical principle" as it were, and that this is the only "publicly verifiable" criterion, and yet now, suddenly, we are supposed to presume that Hays isn't arguing that God provides us with sufficient epistemic certainty to be assured of our faith?
***END-QUOTE***
This is wrong on several counts:
i) Once again, Prejean is confounding the probability of a hermeneutical method with the probability of an apologetical method. This distinction has been repeatedly explained to him. I went into extra detail in my very last post on the subject. Truth and meaning are two different things, with methods adapted to each.
Now, Jason has also said that, hypothetically speaking, someone could be the recipient private revelation, but Catholicism formally denies continuous revelation, so what we’re all stuck with is a public historical revelation, the meaning of which is ascertainable, if at all, by public historical exegesis (the GHM).
Related to this, but distinct from this, is the further question of why we should believe the exegetical results so derived. Why should we believe in the revelatory status of Scripture? And Jason appeals to historical evidence for that as well, although he does not limit himself to historical evidence alone when it comes to apologetic verification, in distinction to exegesis. That, at least, is what I take him to mean. And I agree.
Finally, Jason applies the same hermeneutical criteria and apologetical criteria to other historical truth-claims, such as apostolic succession, or the Assumption of Mary.
However, Jason and I are not clones, even if Prejean treats us as a Borgian collective. So there may be variants between his position and mine.
ii) We have not predicated the GHM on a predetermined level of certitude. Rather, we have argued that the GHM is the only wheel in town. There is no other way of ascertaining the meaning of Scripture—short of private revelation
Some interpretations of some verses enjoy a higher probability than others. But the warrant for the GHM doesn’t depend on its being more probable than the alternatives. Rather, its warrant depends on the absence of any genuine alternatives. The contrast is not between probability and certainty, but probability and impossibility.
iii) Now, as a matter of fact, we also believe that the GHM does suffice to tell us what we need to know. And one reason for this is that we are merely emulating the practice of Christ, the Apostles and prophets.
And, and the risk of repeating myself, that is a conclusion which is shared in common with the PBC—as I’ve already documented.
Prejean goes on to challenge some of my other statements to like effect, but since it’s been established that Engwer and I are on the same page as the Pope, the Prefect, and the PBC, his argument is not with us, but with his ecclesiastical superiors.
If that’s not binding on him, so be it. But it that event, he’s in no position to impose on us a burden of proof which has already been discharged by the Magisterium (Pope and Prefect). Even if it’s not mandatory, it is certainly acceptable—indeed, the mainstream methodology.
***QUOTE***
An argument would give specific and concrete content to a vague term like "widely attested," which I don't concede in the least.
***END-QUOTE***
If he’s looking for an argument, a logical place to start would be for him to go to the Vatican’s official website, find the PBC document, (or an English version), then scroll down to passages like this:
***QUOTE***
The most sure and promising method for arriving at a successful actualization is the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, especially in the case of the texts of the Old Testament which have been reread in the Old Testament itself…
***END-QUOTE***
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
I presumed you must, since you're arguing that Chalcedon is not Cyrillene, and it canonized "unscriptural refinements."
***END-QUOTE***
For a man who butters his bread reading the fine print, this is very odd. I never said that Chalcedon canonized unscriptural refinements. To the contrary, what I said was that Chalcedon doesn’t canonize all of the specialized refinements of a voluminous writer like Cyril, and that we should avoid the temptation to be more precise than Scripture in our dogmatic formulations. I have no problem with the creed Chalcedon. Not that I’m aware of.
***QUOTE***
There's that purely subjective term "ascertain" again, the way that Evangelicals attempt to get around cognitive limitations by trusting in God to give them what they need. Note also that "theological document" is a subjective judgment about intent, "authoritative" is a subjective determination as well, and the fact that it will "ascertain normative theological conclusions" is assumed without any empirical demonstration. In a word, this is an attempt to foist Hays's peculiar subjective preferences as necessities.
***END-QUOTE***
I’ve already offered an argument regarding our cognitive limitations:
i) The providence of God.
ii) The providence of God as multiply-attested in Scripture, so that it does not depend on the interpretative certainty of any one verse.
iii) The impossibility of grounding knowledge apart from providence.
iv) The fact that Catholicism is in the same boat, whether it’s a Scriptural text or patristic text or Magisterial text.
v) The fact that Catholicism also subscribes to the providence of God.
Even unbelievers grant that Scripture is a theological document. Indeed, that’s one reason they’re unbelievers. They don’t believe in God, so they don’t believe in theological documents. Hence, this identification is the common coin of believer and unbeliever alike.
Whether Scripture is deemed to be authoritative is, indeed, personal-variable. But I’m debating a devout Catholic, not an atheist, right? Or is Prejean a closet infidel?
I’ve already argued against his empirical criterion, which confuses hermeneutics with apologetics.
Chalcedon
No, not the creed, the organization.
I've become a weekly op-ed writer for Chalcedon.edu. Go over there to check out my stuff as well as all the other goodies.
I've become a weekly op-ed writer for Chalcedon.edu. Go over there to check out my stuff as well as all the other goodies.
On missing the point
As Frank Turk would have it: “Did you notice that Hays hedged his bets? Seems like he's missing the point.”
Perhaps he’d like to enlighten me as to what point I’m missing. To begin with, I withheld comment until I had the full text of Robertson’s remarks. That, I regard, as a preliminary to responsible criticism--a quaint notion, I know.
I then proceeded to sort through his arguments, one-by-one, sifting the good from the bad—rather than, as so many others have done, simply emoting in a fit of inchoate pique.
What he is pleased to call “hedging my bets,” I am pleased to call rational analysis—as in actually engaging the arguments put forward by the individual in question.
Perhaps he’d like to enlighten me as to what point I’m missing. To begin with, I withheld comment until I had the full text of Robertson’s remarks. That, I regard, as a preliminary to responsible criticism--a quaint notion, I know.
I then proceeded to sort through his arguments, one-by-one, sifting the good from the bad—rather than, as so many others have done, simply emoting in a fit of inchoate pique.
What he is pleased to call “hedging my bets,” I am pleased to call rational analysis—as in actually engaging the arguments put forward by the individual in question.
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.
According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.
One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."
Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.
On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.
But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."
The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.
"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.
"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.
The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."
Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.
"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.
"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.
But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.
According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.
One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."
Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.
On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.
But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."
The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.
"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.
"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.
The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."
Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.
"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.
"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.
But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050825a.html
"Peace Mom"
***QUOTE***
Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died in Sadr City last year, and that fact is supposed to put her beyond reproach. For as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd informed us: ''The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
Really? Well, what about those other parents who've buried children killed in Iraq? There are, sadly, hundreds of them: They honor their loved ones' service to the nation, and so they don't make the news. There's one Cindy Sheehan, and she's on TV 'round the clock. Because, if you're as heavily invested as Dowd in the notion that those "killed in Iraq" are "children," then Sheehan's status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza.
They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.
I get many e-mails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes like she's auditioning for a minor supporting role in ''Sex And The City.''
The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.
I resisted writing about "Mother Sheehan" (as one leftie has proposed designating her), as it seemed obvious that she was at best a little unhinged by grief and at worst mentally ill. It's one thing to mourn a son's death and even to question the cause for which he died, but quite another to roar that he was "murdered by the Bush crime family."
Also: "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana . . . You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine."
And how about this? "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for." That was part of her warm-up act for a speech by Lynne Stewart, the "activist" lawyer convicted of conspiracy for aiding the terrorists convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
You can see why Lynne's grateful to Sheehan. But why is Elizabeth Edwards sending out imploring letters headlined "Support Cindy Sheehan's Right To Be Heard"? The politics of this isn't difficult: The more Cindy Sheehan is heard the more obvious it is she's thrown her lot in with kooks most Americans would give a wide berth to.
Don't take my word for it, ask her family. Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins put out the following statement:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Ah, well, they're not immediate family, so they lack Cindy's "moral authority." But how about Casey's father, Pat Sheehan? Last Friday, in Solano County Court, Casey's father Pat Sheehan filed for divorce. As the New York Times explained Cindy's "separation," "Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized."
Toppling Saddam and the Taliban (Mrs. Sheehan opposes U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, too), destroying al-Qaida's training camps and helping 50 million Muslims on the first steps to free societies aren't worth the death of a single soldier. But Cindy Sheehan's hatred of Bush is worth the death of her marriage. Watching her and her advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on TV, I feel the way I felt about that mentally impaired Aussie concert pianist they got to play at the Oscars a few years.
Yet in the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, they have family in the military, and they don't believe in dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., to desert.
Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He re-enlisted for a second tour, and he died after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, and it was his decision.
His mother has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say the same about his mom's new friends.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html
***END-QUOTE***
Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died in Sadr City last year, and that fact is supposed to put her beyond reproach. For as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd informed us: ''The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
Really? Well, what about those other parents who've buried children killed in Iraq? There are, sadly, hundreds of them: They honor their loved ones' service to the nation, and so they don't make the news. There's one Cindy Sheehan, and she's on TV 'round the clock. Because, if you're as heavily invested as Dowd in the notion that those "killed in Iraq" are "children," then Sheehan's status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza.
They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.
I get many e-mails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes like she's auditioning for a minor supporting role in ''Sex And The City.''
The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.
I resisted writing about "Mother Sheehan" (as one leftie has proposed designating her), as it seemed obvious that she was at best a little unhinged by grief and at worst mentally ill. It's one thing to mourn a son's death and even to question the cause for which he died, but quite another to roar that he was "murdered by the Bush crime family."
Also: "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana . . . You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine."
And how about this? "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for." That was part of her warm-up act for a speech by Lynne Stewart, the "activist" lawyer convicted of conspiracy for aiding the terrorists convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
You can see why Lynne's grateful to Sheehan. But why is Elizabeth Edwards sending out imploring letters headlined "Support Cindy Sheehan's Right To Be Heard"? The politics of this isn't difficult: The more Cindy Sheehan is heard the more obvious it is she's thrown her lot in with kooks most Americans would give a wide berth to.
Don't take my word for it, ask her family. Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins put out the following statement:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Ah, well, they're not immediate family, so they lack Cindy's "moral authority." But how about Casey's father, Pat Sheehan? Last Friday, in Solano County Court, Casey's father Pat Sheehan filed for divorce. As the New York Times explained Cindy's "separation," "Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized."
Toppling Saddam and the Taliban (Mrs. Sheehan opposes U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, too), destroying al-Qaida's training camps and helping 50 million Muslims on the first steps to free societies aren't worth the death of a single soldier. But Cindy Sheehan's hatred of Bush is worth the death of her marriage. Watching her and her advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on TV, I feel the way I felt about that mentally impaired Aussie concert pianist they got to play at the Oscars a few years.
Yet in the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, they have family in the military, and they don't believe in dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., to desert.
Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He re-enlisted for a second tour, and he died after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, and it was his decision.
His mother has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say the same about his mom's new friends.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn21.html
***END-QUOTE***
WHY GAZA? WHY NOW?
***QUOTE***
Even when Ariel Sharon hands them a great “victory”, some Palestinians can’t stop blowing themselves up long enough to celebrate it. I’ve never subscribed to the notion that this or that people “deserve” a state - a weird and decadent post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty, even if it weren’t so erratically applied (how about the Kurds then?). The United States doesn’t exist because the colonists “deserved” a state, but because they went out and fought for one. The same with the Irish Republic. By contrast the world deemed Palestinians “deserving” of a state ten, three, six, eight decades ago, and they’ve absolutely no interest in getting it up and running. Any honest visitor to the Palestinian Authority is struck by the complete absence of any enthusiasm for nation-building – compared with comparable pre-independence trips to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, or East Timor. Invited to choose between nation-building or Jew-killing, the Palestinians prioritise Jew-killing – every time.
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=24
***END-QUOTE***
Even when Ariel Sharon hands them a great “victory”, some Palestinians can’t stop blowing themselves up long enough to celebrate it. I’ve never subscribed to the notion that this or that people “deserve” a state - a weird and decadent post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty, even if it weren’t so erratically applied (how about the Kurds then?). The United States doesn’t exist because the colonists “deserved” a state, but because they went out and fought for one. The same with the Irish Republic. By contrast the world deemed Palestinians “deserving” of a state ten, three, six, eight decades ago, and they’ve absolutely no interest in getting it up and running. Any honest visitor to the Palestinian Authority is struck by the complete absence of any enthusiasm for nation-building – compared with comparable pre-independence trips to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, or East Timor. Invited to choose between nation-building or Jew-killing, the Palestinians prioritise Jew-killing – every time.
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=24
***END-QUOTE***
Karl Keating's hissy-fit
Karl Keating is having a hissy-fit over something that John MacArthur recently said:
***QUOTE***
In a June letter to his ministry's supporters, MacArthur wrote about John Paul II and the "amazing release of emotion" that accompanied his death. "From politicians and media pundits to Hollywood celebrities and everyday citizens, everyone had praise for John Paul II, his gentle ways and his social and political achievements as a world leader and statesman. I can understand that.
"What I cannot understand," continued MacArthur, "is the response of some Evangelicals to what matters most about the pope: his beliefs about God and the gospel. ... Influential leaders embraced the deceased pope as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination. ...
"During the Reformation, countless men and women died rather than deny the biblical truths of salvation. Countless others today are giving their lives as missionaries to people lost in the darkness and guilt of Catholicism."
MacArthur goes on to write about the "damning error" that is Catholicism and notes that he has released a new 90-minute lecture called "Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System." He says that "the church I pastor is loaded with people who were saved out of the Catholic church. ... A longtime Grace to You board member and dear friend of mine is a former Catholic. He speaks with great emotion about the bondage he and his wife lived under."
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050823.asp
***END-QUOTE***
And the problem with that is what, exactly? Sounds fine to me.
***QUOTE***
How many times have we heard these claims before? "The Catholic Church is not really Christian." "Catholics believe you 'earn' your salvation through good works." "Catholicism is based on guilt, not truth." "People are in 'bondage' to Catholicism--and we need to save them."
***END-QUOTE***
Actually, this is not something we hear that often anymore. Kudos to MacArthur for standing firm in a wobbly world.
***QUOTE***
Each Sunday 7,000 people attend MacArthur's church. This is what he tells them about an institution that was around for nineteen centuries before he was born and that is now headed by a man who shows not a hint of MacArthur's arrogance.
***END-QUOTE***
Keating is now begging the question. Has his church been around for 1900 years? Why does the most popular Catholic apologist of our day peddle assertions in lieu of arguments?
And what was arrogant in MacArthur’s statement? Remember, Keating makes his living as a full-time Catholic apologist. Is he saying that it’s arrogant to render value-judgments about who’s right and who’s wrong?
***QUOTE***
It is MacArthur who claims a divine commission: "I do have a mandate from God to compare what others teach to the gospel of the Bible." He says, "'Does the pope teach the gospel?' is a valid question."
***END-QUOTE***
And the problem with that is what, exactly? MacArthur is getting this from Scripture. If Keating disagrees, why not take issue with MacArthur’s exegesis or command of Catholic theology? Shouldn’t a professional apologist be able to compose an argument?
***QUOTE***
Rosalind Moss left John MacArthur's church because she realized that, yes, the pope really does teach the gospel--and that John MacArthur does not.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, the supporting argument is MIA.
***QUOTE***
The Grace to You ministry's letterhead has this slogan at the bottom: "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur." Benedict XVI is more modest in his claims. His letterhead does not have at the bottom "The Bible Teaching of Benedict XVI" because the Pope is not trying to push his own agenda.
***END-QUOTE***
More modest? MacArthur calls himself a Bible-teacher whereas Benedict XVI calls himself the Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter—Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, &c.
These are all official papal titles. Yes, modest to a fault.
I have no particular opinion on the moral character of the present pontiff. For all I know, he may be a very humble man in private. The fact, though, that he has chosen to seek diplomatic immunity to shield himself from official complicity in the Catholic sex scandal does not inspire my confidence in his personal integrity.
***QUOTE***
Instead, he is the custodian of what has been passed down through the centuries. His job is not to refashion the Bible in his own image but to convey to us what each of his predecessors conveyed to the people of their time.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, no argument is offered—just a self-serving claim. Where is the case for Catholicism?
***QUOTE***
Grace to You is built around one man. It may have many employees, but when John MacArthur dies, his ministry will die. His flock will scatter, taking with them the silly prejudices he has imbued them with.
When Benedict XVI dies there will be another pope to succeed him, and another, and another, until the end of time.
***END-QUOTE***
There may be some truth to this comparison, but in what direction is the comparison invidious?
What we have here is the difference between ascribed status and achieved status. Men like MacArthur and James Kennedy built their ministries from the ground up. They had no preexisting constituency. Folks follow them for what they say and do, not for what they are.
By contrast, the only reason that folks follow the Pope is because he’s the Pope. Who was reading the Bishop of Krakow before he became Pope? Who was reading the Bishop of Freising before he became the Prefect?
When looking for intellectual leadership, the intelligentsia was looking to the likes of Rahner, Brown, von Balthasar, and Maritain, and not their local bishop.
It is not for any intrinsic intellectual merit, but mere institutional standing that folks study what the Pope has to say. Like an incompetent five-star general, folks follow a Pope, however mediocre or corrupt, simply because he’s the Pope.
***QUOTE***
In a June letter to his ministry's supporters, MacArthur wrote about John Paul II and the "amazing release of emotion" that accompanied his death. "From politicians and media pundits to Hollywood celebrities and everyday citizens, everyone had praise for John Paul II, his gentle ways and his social and political achievements as a world leader and statesman. I can understand that.
"What I cannot understand," continued MacArthur, "is the response of some Evangelicals to what matters most about the pope: his beliefs about God and the gospel. ... Influential leaders embraced the deceased pope as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination. ...
"During the Reformation, countless men and women died rather than deny the biblical truths of salvation. Countless others today are giving their lives as missionaries to people lost in the darkness and guilt of Catholicism."
MacArthur goes on to write about the "damning error" that is Catholicism and notes that he has released a new 90-minute lecture called "Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System." He says that "the church I pastor is loaded with people who were saved out of the Catholic church. ... A longtime Grace to You board member and dear friend of mine is a former Catholic. He speaks with great emotion about the bondage he and his wife lived under."
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050823.asp
***END-QUOTE***
And the problem with that is what, exactly? Sounds fine to me.
***QUOTE***
How many times have we heard these claims before? "The Catholic Church is not really Christian." "Catholics believe you 'earn' your salvation through good works." "Catholicism is based on guilt, not truth." "People are in 'bondage' to Catholicism--and we need to save them."
***END-QUOTE***
Actually, this is not something we hear that often anymore. Kudos to MacArthur for standing firm in a wobbly world.
***QUOTE***
Each Sunday 7,000 people attend MacArthur's church. This is what he tells them about an institution that was around for nineteen centuries before he was born and that is now headed by a man who shows not a hint of MacArthur's arrogance.
***END-QUOTE***
Keating is now begging the question. Has his church been around for 1900 years? Why does the most popular Catholic apologist of our day peddle assertions in lieu of arguments?
And what was arrogant in MacArthur’s statement? Remember, Keating makes his living as a full-time Catholic apologist. Is he saying that it’s arrogant to render value-judgments about who’s right and who’s wrong?
***QUOTE***
It is MacArthur who claims a divine commission: "I do have a mandate from God to compare what others teach to the gospel of the Bible." He says, "'Does the pope teach the gospel?' is a valid question."
***END-QUOTE***
And the problem with that is what, exactly? MacArthur is getting this from Scripture. If Keating disagrees, why not take issue with MacArthur’s exegesis or command of Catholic theology? Shouldn’t a professional apologist be able to compose an argument?
***QUOTE***
Rosalind Moss left John MacArthur's church because she realized that, yes, the pope really does teach the gospel--and that John MacArthur does not.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, the supporting argument is MIA.
***QUOTE***
The Grace to You ministry's letterhead has this slogan at the bottom: "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur." Benedict XVI is more modest in his claims. His letterhead does not have at the bottom "The Bible Teaching of Benedict XVI" because the Pope is not trying to push his own agenda.
***END-QUOTE***
More modest? MacArthur calls himself a Bible-teacher whereas Benedict XVI calls himself the Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter—Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, &c.
These are all official papal titles. Yes, modest to a fault.
I have no particular opinion on the moral character of the present pontiff. For all I know, he may be a very humble man in private. The fact, though, that he has chosen to seek diplomatic immunity to shield himself from official complicity in the Catholic sex scandal does not inspire my confidence in his personal integrity.
***QUOTE***
Instead, he is the custodian of what has been passed down through the centuries. His job is not to refashion the Bible in his own image but to convey to us what each of his predecessors conveyed to the people of their time.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, no argument is offered—just a self-serving claim. Where is the case for Catholicism?
***QUOTE***
Grace to You is built around one man. It may have many employees, but when John MacArthur dies, his ministry will die. His flock will scatter, taking with them the silly prejudices he has imbued them with.
When Benedict XVI dies there will be another pope to succeed him, and another, and another, until the end of time.
***END-QUOTE***
There may be some truth to this comparison, but in what direction is the comparison invidious?
What we have here is the difference between ascribed status and achieved status. Men like MacArthur and James Kennedy built their ministries from the ground up. They had no preexisting constituency. Folks follow them for what they say and do, not for what they are.
By contrast, the only reason that folks follow the Pope is because he’s the Pope. Who was reading the Bishop of Krakow before he became Pope? Who was reading the Bishop of Freising before he became the Prefect?
When looking for intellectual leadership, the intelligentsia was looking to the likes of Rahner, Brown, von Balthasar, and Maritain, and not their local bishop.
It is not for any intrinsic intellectual merit, but mere institutional standing that folks study what the Pope has to say. Like an incompetent five-star general, folks follow a Pope, however mediocre or corrupt, simply because he’s the Pope.
Pat Robertson
Frank Turk has asked me and a few others to comment on Robertson’s remarks of a few days ago. Let’s begin with what appears to be the full text of his remarks:
***QUOTE***
ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006
***END-QUOTE***
This is quite a mixed bag.
If Chavez were indeed a “terrific danger” to the US, then I’d agree with Robertson, although we could still differ over the mechanism. I also agree that it makes more sense to off the guy giving the orders than the guy taking the orders. But is that the only choice?
The larger problem is with all of the unargued assumptions buried in his call to arms.
The fact that Latin America lies within our “sphere of influence” doesn’t, of itself, supply the moral warrant to assassinate Chavez.
If Chavez has, in fact, destroyed the Venezuelan economy, that’s an internal affair.
To my knowledge, we don’t buy our oil directly from Venezuela. Rather, that’s bought and sold on the world market.
As to the potential spread of Marxism, the current situation is totally different from it was during the heyday of the Cold War.
As to a launching-pad for Al-Qaeda, I’d like to see him lay out the evidence. There may be reason to destabilize the Chavez regime.
***QUOTE***
ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006
***END-QUOTE***
This is quite a mixed bag.
If Chavez were indeed a “terrific danger” to the US, then I’d agree with Robertson, although we could still differ over the mechanism. I also agree that it makes more sense to off the guy giving the orders than the guy taking the orders. But is that the only choice?
The larger problem is with all of the unargued assumptions buried in his call to arms.
The fact that Latin America lies within our “sphere of influence” doesn’t, of itself, supply the moral warrant to assassinate Chavez.
If Chavez has, in fact, destroyed the Venezuelan economy, that’s an internal affair.
To my knowledge, we don’t buy our oil directly from Venezuela. Rather, that’s bought and sold on the world market.
As to the potential spread of Marxism, the current situation is totally different from it was during the heyday of the Cold War.
As to a launching-pad for Al-Qaeda, I’d like to see him lay out the evidence. There may be reason to destabilize the Chavez regime.
Prejean's homegrown exegesis
Jason Engwer and I have been debating with Jonathan Prejean over the grammatico-historical method. One of his incessant demands is that we justify our own appeal to the GHM. Up to a point, there is nothing wrong with such a demand, and, in fact, both Jason and I have argued for our position.
However, as Jason explained early in the debate, it is unnecessary to mount a separate and independent argument for your own position if that is, or ought to be, a point of common ground between you and your opponent.
One of the persistent problems in our debate with Prejean is his failure to abide by the standards of his own denomination. He has simply gone into business for himself.
Back in 1993, the PCB issued The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. You can find this document posted at the Vatican’s own website, along with approving remarks by the late JP2 and the now Benedict XVI.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
Here are some pertinent excerpts from that document:
***QUOTE***
A. Historical-Critical Method
The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the "word of God in human language," has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.
At the different stages of their production, the texts of the Bible were addressed to various categories of hearers or readers living in different places and different times.
***END-QUOTE***
There is no necessity, therefore, for Jason or me to make our own case for the validity of the GHM when debating a devout Catholic.
Indeed, the above statement goes even further than the GHM in its espousal of Bible criticism.
I myself disagree with this document’s critical assumptions. But that’s beside point. I’m free to pick-and-choose what I agree with because I’m not a member of the communion which issued these guidelines. But Prejean does not enjoy the same latitude.
In addition, Prejean has been highly critical of what he takes to be the relationship between the GHM and phenomenonology. However, the same document, after reviewing the approach of Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Ricoeur, says the following:
***QUOTE***
Hence the absolute necessity of a hermeneutical theory which allows for the incorporation of the methods of literary and historical criticism within a broader model of interpretation. It is a question of overcoming the distance between the time of the authors and first addressees of the biblical texts, and our own contemporary age, and of doing so in a way that permits a correct actualization of the Scriptural message so that the Christian life of faith may find nourishment.
This meaning is expressed in the text. To avoid, then, purely subjective readings, an interpretation valid for contemporary times will be founded on the study of the text, and such an interpretation will constantly submit its presuppositions to verification by the text.
***END-QUOTE***
Again, the question is not whether I myself agree with the details of Franco-German phenomenology. Rather, the question is whether Prejean is in any position to attribute that position to adherents of the GHM, and then deny its legitimacy when his own communion affirms its legitimacy.
The remaining question is whether an alternative method like allegorical exegesis is acceptable as well.
***QUOTE***
Ancient exegesis, which obviously could not take into account modern scientific requirements, attributed to every text of Scripture several levels of meaning. The most prevalent distinction was that between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. Medieval exegesis distinguished within the spiritual sense three different aspects…
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
Modern attempts at actualization should keep in mind both changes in ways of thinking and the progress made in interpretative method.
Actualization presupposes a correct exegesis of the text, part of which is the determining of its Persons engaged in the work of actualization who do not themselves have training in exegetical procedures should have recourse to good introductions to Scripture, this will ensure that their interpretation proceeds in the right direction.
The most sure and promising method for arriving at a successful actualization is the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, especially in the case of the texts of the Old Testament which have been reread in the Old Testament itself…
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
***END-QUOTE***
Notice here that the document finds warrant for the GHM in the intertextual exegesis of Scripture itself, as I myself have argued.
Notice, too, the implicit criticism of allegorical exegesis as a well-meaning, but obsolete convention.
Now, since the document in question is a Catholic document, Prejean can find some statements supportive of some elements of his own position, just as I can find statements with which I disagree.
But that, again, is not the point. The point is the Prejean is being very selective and one-sided in his appeal to Catholic hermeneutics—at times even opposing the theory and practice of his own church.
However, as Jason explained early in the debate, it is unnecessary to mount a separate and independent argument for your own position if that is, or ought to be, a point of common ground between you and your opponent.
One of the persistent problems in our debate with Prejean is his failure to abide by the standards of his own denomination. He has simply gone into business for himself.
Back in 1993, the PCB issued The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. You can find this document posted at the Vatican’s own website, along with approving remarks by the late JP2 and the now Benedict XVI.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
Here are some pertinent excerpts from that document:
***QUOTE***
A. Historical-Critical Method
The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the "word of God in human language," has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.
At the different stages of their production, the texts of the Bible were addressed to various categories of hearers or readers living in different places and different times.
***END-QUOTE***
There is no necessity, therefore, for Jason or me to make our own case for the validity of the GHM when debating a devout Catholic.
Indeed, the above statement goes even further than the GHM in its espousal of Bible criticism.
I myself disagree with this document’s critical assumptions. But that’s beside point. I’m free to pick-and-choose what I agree with because I’m not a member of the communion which issued these guidelines. But Prejean does not enjoy the same latitude.
In addition, Prejean has been highly critical of what he takes to be the relationship between the GHM and phenomenonology. However, the same document, after reviewing the approach of Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Ricoeur, says the following:
***QUOTE***
Hence the absolute necessity of a hermeneutical theory which allows for the incorporation of the methods of literary and historical criticism within a broader model of interpretation. It is a question of overcoming the distance between the time of the authors and first addressees of the biblical texts, and our own contemporary age, and of doing so in a way that permits a correct actualization of the Scriptural message so that the Christian life of faith may find nourishment.
This meaning is expressed in the text. To avoid, then, purely subjective readings, an interpretation valid for contemporary times will be founded on the study of the text, and such an interpretation will constantly submit its presuppositions to verification by the text.
***END-QUOTE***
Again, the question is not whether I myself agree with the details of Franco-German phenomenology. Rather, the question is whether Prejean is in any position to attribute that position to adherents of the GHM, and then deny its legitimacy when his own communion affirms its legitimacy.
The remaining question is whether an alternative method like allegorical exegesis is acceptable as well.
***QUOTE***
Ancient exegesis, which obviously could not take into account modern scientific requirements, attributed to every text of Scripture several levels of meaning. The most prevalent distinction was that between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. Medieval exegesis distinguished within the spiritual sense three different aspects…
It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
Modern attempts at actualization should keep in mind both changes in ways of thinking and the progress made in interpretative method.
Actualization presupposes a correct exegesis of the text, part of which is the determining of its
The most sure and promising method for arriving at a successful actualization is the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, especially in the case of the texts of the Old Testament which have been reread in the Old Testament itself…
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
***END-QUOTE***
Notice here that the document finds warrant for the GHM in the intertextual exegesis of Scripture itself, as I myself have argued.
Notice, too, the implicit criticism of allegorical exegesis as a well-meaning, but obsolete convention.
Now, since the document in question is a Catholic document, Prejean can find some statements supportive of some elements of his own position, just as I can find statements with which I disagree.
But that, again, is not the point. The point is the Prejean is being very selective and one-sided in his appeal to Catholic hermeneutics—at times even opposing the theory and practice of his own church.
Prejean's hand-waving exercises
The exchange with Prejean seems to be winding down. I say that because Prejean is now resorting to the rhetorical gimmicks he used on Engwer after he ran out of things to say to Engwer. What he did at that point was to pepper what passed for his rebuttal with cutesy emoticons and the following little jingle:
***QUOTE***
You don't understand my argument. This statement is evidence that you don't understand my argument, because it's non-responsive. I'm not going to explain it to you again, because you either aren't interested in or aren't capable of understanding it.
***END-QUOTE***
What he’s done in his latest “reply” to be is a variation on that sophistry. This time his shtick is the charge of “hand-waving.” He pushes the auto-set "hand-waving" button throughout the course of his reply, partly as a prejudicial tactic, and partly to pad out the poverty of his argumentation. If you were to delete all of the “hand-waving” verbiage from his reply, there’d be precious little left.
Now, it’s fine with me if Prejean wishes to be intellectually frivolous. Frivolity is the fallback of bright minds that are running low on arguments. It was used to great effect by Voltaire and Bertrand Russell. But discerning readers will see the tactic for what it is.
***QUOTE***
Problem is that if you do it in front of people trained to spot the trick, it ain't gonna work. Grizzled old veterans of this kind of analytical endeavor, like Perry Robinson and myself, tend to catch it.
***END-QUOTE***
Frankly, this is the way in which losers console themselves on their losses. Robinson has a habit of leaving the table before the game is over. So he has no cause to claim victory—if, indeed, he is doing so. At the moment, I’m not hearing from Robinson, but Prejean.
I said:
***QUOTE***
Prejean is mashing together a couple of quite distinct issues: in particular, he is confounding a hermeneutical method with an apologetical method.
i) The hermeneutical question is the question of how we ascertaining the meaning of a document—especially a document from the past, whether the Bible or the church fathers or a church council or a papal encyclical, &c. That’s what the grammatico-historical method (GHM) has reference to.
ii) The apologetical question is how we verify or falsify the truth-claims of a document.
Historical evidence (evidentialism) may figure in the answer, especially in the case of historical revelation, but that is not at all the same thing as GHM.
iii) GHM and evidentialism may intersect at various points. This can happen, for instance, when GHM is used to ascertain the meaning of a documentary truth-claim, while evidentialism is then used to verify or falsify that truth-claim.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
Of course, this all fails to account for the fact that I completely reject the notion that the GHM is anything other than an empirically grounded method. In other words, my point is exactly that the hermeneutical question IS an evidential question, so the distinction Hays draws is spurious. Moreover, by abstracting the GHM into some hermeneutical principle that stands above evidential reliability, Hays has effectively immunized his view from evidential criticism, something that he is quick to accuse others of doing. So this isn't an answer, it's simply a reassertion of exactly what I reject. No proof, no argument, nothing.
***END-QUOTE***
i) I have offered several arguments for GHM. And I have also interacted with his empiricist version. So I’ve done much more than merely reassert my position. I’ve offered supporting arguments for my position, as well as fielding his objections along the way.
The fact that he continues to reject my explanation is irrelevant unless and until he can show what is wrong with my arguments for GHM and my counter-arguments against his eccentric version thereof.
ii) In addition, when I’m arguing with someone as clever as Prejean, I admittedly take certain things for granted, such as the distinction between meaning and truth. So I hope that my readers will forgive me if I must now belabor the obvious.
Let’s take the case of fiction to illustrate the distinction in its sharpest terms. Is there a character of a Cheshire Cat, and another character of a Mock Turtle, in The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland?
By what hermeneutical method would we ascertain the meaning of the Cheshire Cat-propositions and the Mock Turtle-propositions? Allegory, or the GHM?
Now, I maintain that this sort of hermeneutical question is entirely distinct from the factual or alethic question of whether there really is a Cheshire Cat or Mock Turtle. Indeed, these questions are obviously separable inasmuch the story-book characters are purely imaginary.
Moving, now, from fiction to falsehood, there is likewise a distinction between ascertaining what someone meant, and ascertaining the truth of what he said. For example, some men are liars. But you could only establish that fact if you distinguish between meaning and truth and, in this case, oppose the two.
***QUOTE***
What this hand-wave does is to sneak in the astrological hermeneutic based on the evidential reliability of the GHM.
***END-QUOTE***
The “astrological hermeneutic based on the evidential reliability of the GHM” is Prejean’s construct, not mine. He’s the one who’s trying to sneak this in as a substitute for my own understanding of the GHM. And that’s not the only time when he will conflate his own position with mine.
***QUOTE***
Problem is that it doesn't show that the evidential reliability of the GHM is applicable in this case, nor does it demonstrate that the conclusions drawn are within the scope of the GHM's reliable area.
***END-QUOTE***
Since I’ve already argued against the relevance of that condition, it isn’t a problem for me that I haven’t shown something which is unnecessary to my own position. Once again, Prejean is projecting.
***QUOTE***
Similarly, "self-witness" is used equivocally; it assumes that the self-witness is what results from the application of the method.
***END-QUOTE***
What, exactly, is Prejean trying to deny here? Is he denying that the GHM can arrive at the self-witness of Scripture regarding its inspiration? Is he affirming that it can do so, but denying the propriety of that application? Is he saying that an alternative method can or cannot arrive at the same results?
I said:
***QUOTE***
To repeat: there are two distinct issues here:
i) The identification of a truth-claim, and:
ii) The verification of a truth-claim.
(i) is a prerequisite for (ii).
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
Note the artistry in this simple hand-wave. By putting (i) apart from (ii), he effectively takes the verification of his method for identifying truth-claims outside of the scope of evidentialism, which is simply reasserting the same distinction that I reject.
***END-QUOTE***
I have a better idea. Note that Prejean is tacitly operating with the very standard he denies. He assumes that he knows what I mean. He is taking authorial intent as his point of departure. He isn’t applying a “moderate allegorical” approach to my statement.
Then he distinguishes between what I meant and whether what I said was true. Indeed, he opposes the two. He regards what I said as erroneous.
***QUOTE***
I'm speaking strictly of the historical fact of whether that condemnation was directed at conclusions that were by historical fact derived from distinctive methods of the Antiochene school. Even apart from any value judgments involved on whether Constantinople is or ought to be persuasive (the significance of the historical facts), there is a historical question here that is well within the competence of the historical method.
***END-QUOTE***
The fails to distinguish the genre of document in question. For example, the Bible does make value-laden statements. When the GMH ascertains the meaning of Scripture, it is extracting value-laden statements from Scripture. And if Scripture is authoritative, then its value-judgments are authoritative. Some documents are inherently authoritative, while others are not.
***QUOTE***
Hays doesn't get to accuse people of being irrational, hypocritical, or inconsistent for reasonable objections.
***END-QUOTE***
What “people” are we talking about? I thought this was a debate between Prejean and me. Have I ever accused Prejean of being a hypocrite? As I recall, he was the one who accused Evangelicals of hypocrisy in his opening salvo over at Crowhill.
Or is he somehow identifying himself with the likes of Enloe? Perhaps his panpsychism is a logical consequence of Robinson’s Christology. If the Incarnation unites Christ to all of mankind, then we all united to teach other so that you are me and I am you. Is that how it works?
***QUOTE***
The hand-wave here is equivocation again. They [an Egyptologist or Assyriologist] may have an advantage on what it means in the original context, but that isn't necessarily an advantage on identifying what the "message" of Exodus is to the Christian community, which is exactly the subject under discussion.
***END-QUOTE***
This is an extremely telling statement in what it simultaneously affirms and denies. Scripture is the inspired record of divine revelation. The original meaning is the revealed meaning—the original context—time, place, culture, language--in which God chose to disclose his message.
To divorce the “message” from the revealed meaning is to identify a non-revelatory message in application to the Christian community.
***QUOTE***
But can he show it based on my premises?
***END-QUOTE***
Yes, I can—because a patrologist applies the GHM to the church fathers. Or does McGuckin, for one, employ a “moderate allegorical” method to interpret the primary sources?
***QUOTE***
That's been the big failure of Hays's replies both to Tim and to me.
***END-QUOTE***
It is quite illicit of Prejean to enlist the support of Enloe at this juncture. Although both Robison and Prejean have commented on my recent critique of Enloe, Enloe has not. Unless and until Enloe can show where I have failed, Prejean has no right to co-opt Enloe’s silence as consent.
***QUOTE***
No, that's not even one reason. As I said, it's fallacious to conclude that there is a viable alternative based on a perceived need for the method. "Ta da! I don't have to follow any reasonable standards of evidence!"
***END-QUOTE***
Not a “perceived” need, but an inescapable need. Prejean cannot do without it himself. At every turn, when he interprets what I say, or Engwer says, or McGuckin says, he is depending on the very principles which he denies.
I said:
***QUOTE***
For conservative evangelicals, their theology must agree with their exegesis.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
This is actually a bad thing. The necessity of theology and exegesis agreeing would, in my view, skew the objectivity of the interpreter's conclusions.
***END-QUOTE***
He seems to be inverting what I said, which was not: their exegesis must agree with their theology, but: their theology must agree with their exegesis. That follows from the assumption that Scripture is authoritative. Therefore, our exegetical findings should govern our theology.
***QUOTE***
That's why, despite there not being a principled ontological need for an objective interpreter, it certainly makes life better from a practical standpoint.
***END-QUOTE***
So he is now the one making the perceived need select for the methodology.
***QUOTE***
See how assertion of the GHM doesn't really resolve problems of epistemic fallibility.
***END-QUOTE***
Observe the sudden bait-and-switch tactic. Since when did I—or Engwer, for that matter—ever rest my case for the GHM on “resolving the problems of epistemic fallibility?
I said:
***QUOTE***
v) Without a doctrine of providence, we’re all up a creek without a paddle.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
I'd say that without the objective presence of God in the Church, we're up a creek without a paddle.
***END-QUOTE***
If he could extract that proposition from revelation, I’d agree with him.
***QUOTE***
Hand-wave again -- that word "uncertain" sneaks the astrological hermeneutic in without argument.
***END-QUOTE***
I agree that there’s some more hand-waving going on here—on Prejean’s part, that is. He’s the one who’s trying, yet again, to smuggle in his “astrological hermeneutic” is though that were a surrogate for my own.
***QUOTE***
This is a sneakier hand-wave; there's a real argument here that is not made explicit. Hays is arguing, based on his view of revelation as a fixed meaning at a fixed point in time, that later certainty is "new revelation." Since the disputed point is whether that is, in fact, what revelation is, it's begging the question (reasserting the disputed point).
***END-QUOTE***
Not at all. This follows from Prejean’s own position. This is what he originally said:
***QUOTE***
The difference between Catholics and Evangelicals on this point is obvious; Catholics don't apply the GHM outside of the area where it is necessarily persuasive. What we mean by the "literal sense" is exactly what the GHM applied in and of itself can tell us definitively and nothing more. No external criteria, nothing except what an ordinary, uninspired, first-century author (or set of authors, depending on one's pet theory of authorship) with that author's finite knowledge would have written on a particular subject trying to communicate from point A to point B. Beyond that point, the GHM just isn't "sure," and accordingly, the theology formed based on the GHM isn't "sure" either. Thus, you won't see Raymond Brown or Joe Fitzmyer *stopping* in their theological conclusions at the text; they isolate what they can definitively know from the text, and then they move on to how external church teachings can inform exegesis where the conclusions are not definitive.
***END-QUOTE***
So where the original revealed meaning is indefinitive, the church can upgrade that indefinitive meaning to something definitive. Hence, the input is less than the output. The definitive meaning is not the original revealed meaning, but something above and beyond the original revealed meaning—a surplus sense, which cannot be directly extracted from the original, but is supplied by the church. What we have here is a de facto doctrine of continuous revelation by another name.
***QUOTE***
And likewise, you are welcome to your opinion, but for myself, I see no reason to think that it was "good enough for Christ and the Apostles and prophets."
***END-QUOTE***
Compare this with his later admission:
***QUOTE***
No, Hays has asserted that the GHM is the method of Scripture itself. I can grant that there are numerous explanations of past times in a present context within Scripture and still deny the conclusions. That means Hays doesn't have an argument.
***END-QUOTE***
So even though the purpose and practice of the GHM is widely attested in Scripture itself, Prejean still refuses to apply this to himself or his own communion.
He also doesn’t explain what he means by an “argument.” To begin with, where there’s common ground, you don’t need to mount an argument.
In addition, if Scripture is an authoritive, and the method in question is widely attested in Scripture, in the practice of Christ and the Apostles and prophets, then that automatically authorizes the practice is question. You need no further argument unless the authority of Scripture itself is at issue. And even the Catholic church doesn’t deny the authority of Scripture.
***QUOTE***
And notice the failure to mention the historical argument I have for believing that.
***END-QUOTE***
He has not presented any argument to the effect that the Chalcedonian creed, about a paragraph long, incorporates every refinement of Cyrillic Christology.
***QUOTE***
This gives me a little bit of a laugh, because no one actually thought otherwise in the East the entire time. The West had an incentive to emphasize Leo's role, and that in turn influenced the compromise theories of Harnack and Grillmeier, but my entire point is that the West had this wrong the entire time. Far from being a case of the sources closest historically to the controversy being mistaken, it is exactly the later interpretation, distanced from the historical facts, that strikes me as inaccurate.
***END-QUOTE***
How does this help him in the least? He’s a member of the Western church.
BTW, I never said or implied that the primary sources were mistaken. The source of error is irrelevant. The salient point is that it took 1500 years for the Western church to correct itself--assuming that, in fact, McGuckin’s reconstruction has achieved official acceptance.
***QUOTE***
So are Gnostics and Arians and (in Hays's case) Donatists and Nestorians.
***END-QUOTE***
Is he attributing to me a Nestorian Christology? Where can he quote me to that effect? All I ever said is that we should avoid canonizing unscriptural refinements in any direction.
***QUOTE***
But this is all the more vigorous hand-waving on Hays's part. He hasn't shown that McGuckin departed from ordinary historical methods in making his argument and responding to objectors…
***END-QUOTE***
Completely misses the point. The fact that McGuckin makes use of the GHM in patrology, and Prejean’s relies on Mcguckin’s methodology, serves to confirm my position and disconfirm Prejean’s.
***QUOTE***
There is a difference between historical conclusions and theological conclusions drawn from those historical conclusions.
***END-QUOTE***
That, again, depends on the genre of the document. If the document is a theological document, then the application of the GHM will ascertain theological conclusions; and if the document is authoritative, then the GHM will ascertain normative theological conclusions.
***QUOTE***
I'm am thrilled to have the admission that the use of the GHM is immune to history, that it's a castle in the air that Hays believes because he believes it. Sundering Baptist/free-church ecclesiology from reality is very convenient for my arguments.
***END-QUOTE***
This characterization totters on a tendentious definition of history, by which he surreptitiously means the Catholic philosophy of church history.
***QUOTE***
You don't understand my argument. This statement is evidence that you don't understand my argument, because it's non-responsive. I'm not going to explain it to you again, because you either aren't interested in or aren't capable of understanding it.
***END-QUOTE***
What he’s done in his latest “reply” to be is a variation on that sophistry. This time his shtick is the charge of “hand-waving.” He pushes the auto-set "hand-waving" button throughout the course of his reply, partly as a prejudicial tactic, and partly to pad out the poverty of his argumentation. If you were to delete all of the “hand-waving” verbiage from his reply, there’d be precious little left.
Now, it’s fine with me if Prejean wishes to be intellectually frivolous. Frivolity is the fallback of bright minds that are running low on arguments. It was used to great effect by Voltaire and Bertrand Russell. But discerning readers will see the tactic for what it is.
***QUOTE***
Problem is that if you do it in front of people trained to spot the trick, it ain't gonna work. Grizzled old veterans of this kind of analytical endeavor, like Perry Robinson and myself, tend to catch it.
***END-QUOTE***
Frankly, this is the way in which losers console themselves on their losses. Robinson has a habit of leaving the table before the game is over. So he has no cause to claim victory—if, indeed, he is doing so. At the moment, I’m not hearing from Robinson, but Prejean.
I said:
***QUOTE***
Prejean is mashing together a couple of quite distinct issues: in particular, he is confounding a hermeneutical method with an apologetical method.
i) The hermeneutical question is the question of how we ascertaining the meaning of a document—especially a document from the past, whether the Bible or the church fathers or a church council or a papal encyclical, &c. That’s what the grammatico-historical method (GHM) has reference to.
ii) The apologetical question is how we verify or falsify the truth-claims of a document.
Historical evidence (evidentialism) may figure in the answer, especially in the case of historical revelation, but that is not at all the same thing as GHM.
iii) GHM and evidentialism may intersect at various points. This can happen, for instance, when GHM is used to ascertain the meaning of a documentary truth-claim, while evidentialism is then used to verify or falsify that truth-claim.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
Of course, this all fails to account for the fact that I completely reject the notion that the GHM is anything other than an empirically grounded method. In other words, my point is exactly that the hermeneutical question IS an evidential question, so the distinction Hays draws is spurious. Moreover, by abstracting the GHM into some hermeneutical principle that stands above evidential reliability, Hays has effectively immunized his view from evidential criticism, something that he is quick to accuse others of doing. So this isn't an answer, it's simply a reassertion of exactly what I reject. No proof, no argument, nothing.
***END-QUOTE***
i) I have offered several arguments for GHM. And I have also interacted with his empiricist version. So I’ve done much more than merely reassert my position. I’ve offered supporting arguments for my position, as well as fielding his objections along the way.
The fact that he continues to reject my explanation is irrelevant unless and until he can show what is wrong with my arguments for GHM and my counter-arguments against his eccentric version thereof.
ii) In addition, when I’m arguing with someone as clever as Prejean, I admittedly take certain things for granted, such as the distinction between meaning and truth. So I hope that my readers will forgive me if I must now belabor the obvious.
Let’s take the case of fiction to illustrate the distinction in its sharpest terms. Is there a character of a Cheshire Cat, and another character of a Mock Turtle, in The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland?
By what hermeneutical method would we ascertain the meaning of the Cheshire Cat-propositions and the Mock Turtle-propositions? Allegory, or the GHM?
Now, I maintain that this sort of hermeneutical question is entirely distinct from the factual or alethic question of whether there really is a Cheshire Cat or Mock Turtle. Indeed, these questions are obviously separable inasmuch the story-book characters are purely imaginary.
Moving, now, from fiction to falsehood, there is likewise a distinction between ascertaining what someone meant, and ascertaining the truth of what he said. For example, some men are liars. But you could only establish that fact if you distinguish between meaning and truth and, in this case, oppose the two.
***QUOTE***
What this hand-wave does is to sneak in the astrological hermeneutic based on the evidential reliability of the GHM.
***END-QUOTE***
The “astrological hermeneutic based on the evidential reliability of the GHM” is Prejean’s construct, not mine. He’s the one who’s trying to sneak this in as a substitute for my own understanding of the GHM. And that’s not the only time when he will conflate his own position with mine.
***QUOTE***
Problem is that it doesn't show that the evidential reliability of the GHM is applicable in this case, nor does it demonstrate that the conclusions drawn are within the scope of the GHM's reliable area.
***END-QUOTE***
Since I’ve already argued against the relevance of that condition, it isn’t a problem for me that I haven’t shown something which is unnecessary to my own position. Once again, Prejean is projecting.
***QUOTE***
Similarly, "self-witness" is used equivocally; it assumes that the self-witness is what results from the application of the method.
***END-QUOTE***
What, exactly, is Prejean trying to deny here? Is he denying that the GHM can arrive at the self-witness of Scripture regarding its inspiration? Is he affirming that it can do so, but denying the propriety of that application? Is he saying that an alternative method can or cannot arrive at the same results?
I said:
***QUOTE***
To repeat: there are two distinct issues here:
i) The identification of a truth-claim, and:
ii) The verification of a truth-claim.
(i) is a prerequisite for (ii).
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
Note the artistry in this simple hand-wave. By putting (i) apart from (ii), he effectively takes the verification of his method for identifying truth-claims outside of the scope of evidentialism, which is simply reasserting the same distinction that I reject.
***END-QUOTE***
I have a better idea. Note that Prejean is tacitly operating with the very standard he denies. He assumes that he knows what I mean. He is taking authorial intent as his point of departure. He isn’t applying a “moderate allegorical” approach to my statement.
Then he distinguishes between what I meant and whether what I said was true. Indeed, he opposes the two. He regards what I said as erroneous.
***QUOTE***
I'm speaking strictly of the historical fact of whether that condemnation was directed at conclusions that were by historical fact derived from distinctive methods of the Antiochene school. Even apart from any value judgments involved on whether Constantinople is or ought to be persuasive (the significance of the historical facts), there is a historical question here that is well within the competence of the historical method.
***END-QUOTE***
The fails to distinguish the genre of document in question. For example, the Bible does make value-laden statements. When the GMH ascertains the meaning of Scripture, it is extracting value-laden statements from Scripture. And if Scripture is authoritative, then its value-judgments are authoritative. Some documents are inherently authoritative, while others are not.
***QUOTE***
Hays doesn't get to accuse people of being irrational, hypocritical, or inconsistent for reasonable objections.
***END-QUOTE***
What “people” are we talking about? I thought this was a debate between Prejean and me. Have I ever accused Prejean of being a hypocrite? As I recall, he was the one who accused Evangelicals of hypocrisy in his opening salvo over at Crowhill.
Or is he somehow identifying himself with the likes of Enloe? Perhaps his panpsychism is a logical consequence of Robinson’s Christology. If the Incarnation unites Christ to all of mankind, then we all united to teach other so that you are me and I am you. Is that how it works?
***QUOTE***
The hand-wave here is equivocation again. They [an Egyptologist or Assyriologist] may have an advantage on what it means in the original context, but that isn't necessarily an advantage on identifying what the "message" of Exodus is to the Christian community, which is exactly the subject under discussion.
***END-QUOTE***
This is an extremely telling statement in what it simultaneously affirms and denies. Scripture is the inspired record of divine revelation. The original meaning is the revealed meaning—the original context—time, place, culture, language--in which God chose to disclose his message.
To divorce the “message” from the revealed meaning is to identify a non-revelatory message in application to the Christian community.
***QUOTE***
But can he show it based on my premises?
***END-QUOTE***
Yes, I can—because a patrologist applies the GHM to the church fathers. Or does McGuckin, for one, employ a “moderate allegorical” method to interpret the primary sources?
***QUOTE***
That's been the big failure of Hays's replies both to Tim and to me.
***END-QUOTE***
It is quite illicit of Prejean to enlist the support of Enloe at this juncture. Although both Robison and Prejean have commented on my recent critique of Enloe, Enloe has not. Unless and until Enloe can show where I have failed, Prejean has no right to co-opt Enloe’s silence as consent.
***QUOTE***
No, that's not even one reason. As I said, it's fallacious to conclude that there is a viable alternative based on a perceived need for the method. "Ta da! I don't have to follow any reasonable standards of evidence!"
***END-QUOTE***
Not a “perceived” need, but an inescapable need. Prejean cannot do without it himself. At every turn, when he interprets what I say, or Engwer says, or McGuckin says, he is depending on the very principles which he denies.
I said:
***QUOTE***
For conservative evangelicals, their theology must agree with their exegesis.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
This is actually a bad thing. The necessity of theology and exegesis agreeing would, in my view, skew the objectivity of the interpreter's conclusions.
***END-QUOTE***
He seems to be inverting what I said, which was not: their exegesis must agree with their theology, but: their theology must agree with their exegesis. That follows from the assumption that Scripture is authoritative. Therefore, our exegetical findings should govern our theology.
***QUOTE***
That's why, despite there not being a principled ontological need for an objective interpreter, it certainly makes life better from a practical standpoint.
***END-QUOTE***
So he is now the one making the perceived need select for the methodology.
***QUOTE***
See how assertion of the GHM doesn't really resolve problems of epistemic fallibility.
***END-QUOTE***
Observe the sudden bait-and-switch tactic. Since when did I—or Engwer, for that matter—ever rest my case for the GHM on “resolving the problems of epistemic fallibility?
I said:
***QUOTE***
v) Without a doctrine of providence, we’re all up a creek without a paddle.
***END-QUOTE***
He said:
***QUOTE***
I'd say that without the objective presence of God in the Church, we're up a creek without a paddle.
***END-QUOTE***
If he could extract that proposition from revelation, I’d agree with him.
***QUOTE***
Hand-wave again -- that word "uncertain" sneaks the astrological hermeneutic in without argument.
***END-QUOTE***
I agree that there’s some more hand-waving going on here—on Prejean’s part, that is. He’s the one who’s trying, yet again, to smuggle in his “astrological hermeneutic” is though that were a surrogate for my own.
***QUOTE***
This is a sneakier hand-wave; there's a real argument here that is not made explicit. Hays is arguing, based on his view of revelation as a fixed meaning at a fixed point in time, that later certainty is "new revelation." Since the disputed point is whether that is, in fact, what revelation is, it's begging the question (reasserting the disputed point).
***END-QUOTE***
Not at all. This follows from Prejean’s own position. This is what he originally said:
***QUOTE***
The difference between Catholics and Evangelicals on this point is obvious; Catholics don't apply the GHM outside of the area where it is necessarily persuasive. What we mean by the "literal sense" is exactly what the GHM applied in and of itself can tell us definitively and nothing more. No external criteria, nothing except what an ordinary, uninspired, first-century author (or set of authors, depending on one's pet theory of authorship) with that author's finite knowledge would have written on a particular subject trying to communicate from point A to point B. Beyond that point, the GHM just isn't "sure," and accordingly, the theology formed based on the GHM isn't "sure" either. Thus, you won't see Raymond Brown or Joe Fitzmyer *stopping* in their theological conclusions at the text; they isolate what they can definitively know from the text, and then they move on to how external church teachings can inform exegesis where the conclusions are not definitive.
***END-QUOTE***
So where the original revealed meaning is indefinitive, the church can upgrade that indefinitive meaning to something definitive. Hence, the input is less than the output. The definitive meaning is not the original revealed meaning, but something above and beyond the original revealed meaning—a surplus sense, which cannot be directly extracted from the original, but is supplied by the church. What we have here is a de facto doctrine of continuous revelation by another name.
***QUOTE***
And likewise, you are welcome to your opinion, but for myself, I see no reason to think that it was "good enough for Christ and the Apostles and prophets."
***END-QUOTE***
Compare this with his later admission:
***QUOTE***
No, Hays has asserted that the GHM is the method of Scripture itself. I can grant that there are numerous explanations of past times in a present context within Scripture and still deny the conclusions. That means Hays doesn't have an argument.
***END-QUOTE***
So even though the purpose and practice of the GHM is widely attested in Scripture itself, Prejean still refuses to apply this to himself or his own communion.
He also doesn’t explain what he means by an “argument.” To begin with, where there’s common ground, you don’t need to mount an argument.
In addition, if Scripture is an authoritive, and the method in question is widely attested in Scripture, in the practice of Christ and the Apostles and prophets, then that automatically authorizes the practice is question. You need no further argument unless the authority of Scripture itself is at issue. And even the Catholic church doesn’t deny the authority of Scripture.
***QUOTE***
And notice the failure to mention the historical argument I have for believing that.
***END-QUOTE***
He has not presented any argument to the effect that the Chalcedonian creed, about a paragraph long, incorporates every refinement of Cyrillic Christology.
***QUOTE***
This gives me a little bit of a laugh, because no one actually thought otherwise in the East the entire time. The West had an incentive to emphasize Leo's role, and that in turn influenced the compromise theories of Harnack and Grillmeier, but my entire point is that the West had this wrong the entire time. Far from being a case of the sources closest historically to the controversy being mistaken, it is exactly the later interpretation, distanced from the historical facts, that strikes me as inaccurate.
***END-QUOTE***
How does this help him in the least? He’s a member of the Western church.
BTW, I never said or implied that the primary sources were mistaken. The source of error is irrelevant. The salient point is that it took 1500 years for the Western church to correct itself--assuming that, in fact, McGuckin’s reconstruction has achieved official acceptance.
***QUOTE***
So are Gnostics and Arians and (in Hays's case) Donatists and Nestorians.
***END-QUOTE***
Is he attributing to me a Nestorian Christology? Where can he quote me to that effect? All I ever said is that we should avoid canonizing unscriptural refinements in any direction.
***QUOTE***
But this is all the more vigorous hand-waving on Hays's part. He hasn't shown that McGuckin departed from ordinary historical methods in making his argument and responding to objectors…
***END-QUOTE***
Completely misses the point. The fact that McGuckin makes use of the GHM in patrology, and Prejean’s relies on Mcguckin’s methodology, serves to confirm my position and disconfirm Prejean’s.
***QUOTE***
There is a difference between historical conclusions and theological conclusions drawn from those historical conclusions.
***END-QUOTE***
That, again, depends on the genre of the document. If the document is a theological document, then the application of the GHM will ascertain theological conclusions; and if the document is authoritative, then the GHM will ascertain normative theological conclusions.
***QUOTE***
I'm am thrilled to have the admission that the use of the GHM is immune to history, that it's a castle in the air that Hays believes because he believes it. Sundering Baptist/free-church ecclesiology from reality is very convenient for my arguments.
***END-QUOTE***
This characterization totters on a tendentious definition of history, by which he surreptitiously means the Catholic philosophy of church history.