Pages

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Scout's honor!


How do you teach God’s genocide to children?
In this “classic post” from my CP days I explore the thorny issue of how Christians introduce the darker parts of the biblical narrative — in particular the Joshua genocide — to a young readership. The answer seems to be: not very well.


i) To begin with, the Bible is not a children’s’ book. The Bible wasn't written to or for children. Not everything in Scripture is age-appropriate for children.

ii) The laws of warfare in Deut 20 were not a search-and-destroy mission. Israel was not commanded to pursue the Canaanites beyond the borders of the Holy Land.

iii) When Rauser turns his back on the word of God, he must reenter the world of God. Beyond the “darker parts” of Bible are the “darker parts” of the world.

How does he teach childhood leukemia to his 9-year-old daughter? How does he teach her that some kids are raped and murdered? That some kids live on the streets of Russia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Ethiopia, the Philippines, etc.? That some kids starve to death? That some kids die in war?

Liberals like Rauser have this strangely compartmentalized faith, where they reject the God of the Bible, but accept the God of the world. Yet you can parallel every terrible thing that happens in Scripture with something terrible outside of Scripture. That ultimately lands on God’s doorstep.

If theodicy is adequate to address terrible things that happen in the world, then theodicy is adequate to address terrible things than happen in the Bible. (Not that I think God’s commands are evil.)

But then it gets worse, for if the city refuses to surrender to the Israelites, all the men are to be slaughtered (v. 13), a practice condemned by the Third Geneva Convention and universally renounced by civilized nations today.

Rauser rejects the Bible as his moral authority, but he accepts the UN as his moral authority. The UN is such a beacon of idealism and virtue, you know.

It’s easy for someone living on a nice island like New Zealand to feign outrage at Deut 20:13. He makes no effort to project himself into the situation of ancient Israelites. Does he think the Israelites should send the Canaanite soldiers home after defeating them in battle? Where does he think they’d go?

Does he envision Canaanite soldiers promising (“Scout’s honor!”) not to attack the Israelites after they had a chance to regroup? 

4 comments:

  1. I put this post on Rauser's comment thread and it hasn't yet garnered a substantive response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, lack of substance is what I've come to expect from Rauser and his groupies. It's all about projecting a hip, cool image.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's this about New Zealand? You're not saying Rouser lives within driving distance of me, are you? I thought he was in the States.

    Now I'm worried that what he has is contagious. Looking around me, it's not all that improbable...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, I believe he's Canadian–which is where he lives and teaches.

    But he's been known to hobnob with some Kiwi philosopher/apologist types–who shall remain nameless.

    Anyway, I was using New Zealand as the modern equivalent of paradise, in contrast to the heathen ANE.

    ReplyDelete