Fred Butler attempts to mount a first strike:
The review is long and exhausting, but it is worth reading every word, because Lyndon, in my mind, totally lays to waste the idea that Keener is some sort of trustworthy expert on the charismatic movement and modern day miracles.
Nicely illustrating Fred's confirmation bias.
It has always baffled me why otherwise sound-thinking people would latch onto Keener as the go-to “scholar” just because he wrote a 2 volume work on miracles.
Jason Engwer and I have both quoted many different sources on miracles. We were doing that before Keener published his monograph. And we continue to quote various sources in addition to Keener.
But if someone wants a recommendation for a single work that collates a great deal of material, along with trenchant analysis, Keener's monograph is a great place to start.
The first volume has some positive things to say against anti-supernaturalism, but as I have argued, and as Lyndon also argues in his latest review of Keener’s appendix, cessationists are not anti-supernatural. Never have been. Just because cessationists aren’t convinced some guy with a sore neck was healed at a tent revival doesn’t mean they are anti-supernatural.I realize a number of folksSteve Hays will complain that Keener’s research involves much more than recounting anecdotal stories about people, their sore knees, and getting healed at a tent revival, but honestly, that is exactly what Keener does. It’s a joke, really, and a waste of 40 bucks if you purchase the 2 volumes thinking he has documented some awe-inducing scholarly evidence proving modern day faith healers walk among us.
Notice the inability to even make an honest attempt at seriously characterizing the evidence presented in the book.
As Lyndon demonstrates in his review, the fact that Keener is willing to give a pass to the most outrageous and ridiculous charismatic nonsense is worrisome. His dismissal of the profound problems with African prosperity gospel charismaticism as being non-existent is also troubling, if not demonstrable of his naive, Pollyannish view of Pentecostalism in third world countries.
Does Keener dismiss the problem as "nonexistent"? Once again, notice the inability to even make an honest characterization.
Yet even more disturbing is how apologetic ministries like STR and even Triablogue, with whom I have gone a few rounds regarding charismaticism (and will more than likely respond to this very post), are so supportive of the guy as if he is unanswerable with rock solid argumentation.
i) Fred initially posted a few responses, before retreating into silence (except for sniping comments on Twitter) when the argument didn't go his way.
ii) Unlike MacArthurites, for whom cessationism is the all-important litmus test, I don't have to agree with everything a scholar says to find him useful. Unlike MacArthurites, I can be evenhanded.
iii) William Lane Craig has the reputation for being the premier Christian apologist of his generation, and up to a point, he's earned that distinction. Yet he's also been chided, not without some justification, for subordinating Scripture to philosophy.
By contrast, Keener is defending the Bible in a way that Craig does not. He's written mammoth commentaries on Matthew, John, and Acts, which uphold their historicity with great erudition. He's written a massive, erudite book defending the historical Jesus (The Historical Jesus of the Gospels). And his monograph on miracles (Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts) is a well-documented defense of NT miracles in the face of the methodological naturalism that infects broad swaths of Biblical scholarship. That's in addition to scholarly articles on the same topics. That's a tremendous service to the church.
Just as Muslims love to cite Bart Ehrman on the NT, it's a pity to see Fred Butler and Lyndon Unger become hired guns for militant atheists.
Steve --
ReplyDeleteAs a MacArthurite or sort, I need to ask: do you think that the choices are really limited to either one is an utter deist (or worse, as you say above: a "hired gun" [a slur indicating some kind of payment is made] for atheism) or else one must be some kind of charismatic? What if there are other options which allow God to be God who is creator and sustainer but we also don't have to abide charlatans, quacks, and people in it for a buck through credulous acceptance of all claims for the "miraculous" which present themselves?
Not sure if you've been following the debate(s) over the last few months or whatever?
DeleteBut the bottom line with your comment seems to me what you say is not the stated position of MacArthurites like Fred Butler. It's not the position their words commit them to.
Frank Turk
Delete"As a MacArthurite or sort, I need to ask: do you think that the choices are really limited to either one is an utter deist or else one must be some kind of charismatic?"
Can you quote me saying the choices are really limited to either one is an utter deist or else some sort of charismatic?
"(or worse, as you say above: a 'hired gun' [a slur indicating some kind of payment is made] for atheism)"
That's a metaphor, Frank. Surely you understand figurative discourse.
"What if there are other options which allow God to be God who is creator and sustainer but we also don't have to abide charlatans, quacks, and people in it for a buck through credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?"
Keep in mind that the immediate frame of reference is Keener's case for miracles. Are you suggesting Keener advocates "credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?"
For instance, when Keener provides medical verification for some miraculous healings, is that equivalent to "credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?"
Finally, cessationists rule out certain kinds of modern miracles in advance of the evidence. Their cessationism commits them to the position that miracles like that can't happen anymore, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Steve: the false dichotomy is not explicitly stated in this post. I'd say it's implicitly stated in the charges against Fred here as you trot out his "confirmation bias".
DeleteTo metaphors, I've nothing against them except when they are used either as a sly slander or is a haphazard way. The metaphor here ("hired gun") does not imply merely an advocate, but to be somehow compensated for dirty work done. It's meant to diminish Fred with a fault he doesn't have, and you should either own it (which means: prove it) or else find a better way to disagree with people. Calling them names didn't work for Loftus, and it doesn't suit you at all.
To Keener's lot in life, I'll opt for the single-word answer "yes," and see what you can do with it. My opinion is that because Keener is advocating for some iteration of the AoG view of miracles today, he is going to have to wear that jersey until he explicitly does something to separate himself from the pack.
To your final point, I'd like to meet those cessationists. I keep hearing about them, but I haven't seen anyone like that who was alive in the last 50 years. Can you introduce me?
Frank Turk
Delete"Steve: the false dichotomy is not explicitly stated in this post. I'd say it's implicitly stated in the charges against Fred here as you trot out his 'confirmation bias'".
i) Since I've posted my own position on more than one occasion, your attempt to read between the lines is both unnecessary and uninformed.
ii) In addition, it's a rhetorical tactic on your part.
"To metaphors, I've nothing against them except when they are used either as a sly slander or is a haphazard way. The metaphor here ('hired gun') does not imply merely an advocate, but to be somehow compensated for dirty work done. It's meant to diminish Fred with a fault he doesn't have, and you should either own it (which means: prove it) or else find a better way to disagree with people."
i) I'm more than happy to own my metaphor. That doesn't give you the prerogative to dictate the intended scope of the metaphor. When a writer employs a metaphor, not all connotations of the metaphor are in play. He intends some connotations rather than others. Surely I don't need to explain that to you.
ii) Fred and other MacArthurites resort to stock atheist debunker objections to reported miracles. I've documented that in detail. Who needs atheist debunkers when MacArthurites do it for them?
Of course, they then try to arbitrarily restrict stock atheist debunker objections to the charismatic movement.
"My opinion is that because Keener is advocating for some iteration of the AoG view of miracles today, he is going to have to wear that jersey until he explicitly does something to separate himself from the pack."
You're changing horses in midstream. You originally said "but we also don't have to abide charlatans, quacks, and people in it for a buck through credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?"
Where is your textual evidence that Keener advocates "credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?" Notice that your allegation imputes two key accusations: (i) *credulous* acceptance (ii) of *all* miraculous claims.
Now, however, you're shifting to "he must explicitly separate himself from the AoG pack." Whether or not he needs to do so is irrespective of how you originally framed your objection.
"To your final point, I'd like to meet those cessationists. I keep hearing about them, but I haven't seen anyone like that who was alive in the last 50 years. Can you introduce me?"
Surely you jest. Cessationists routinely contend that NT miracles served a unique redemptive-historical purpose in establishing the church. As such, they had a built-in expiration date. Having served their purpose, those kinds of miracles cannot recur, because that would be contrary to Scripture–as cessationists interpret the function of NT miracles. There's a long list of cessationists who explicitly cast the issue in precisely those terms, viz. Warfield, Gaffin, O. P. Robertson, Dan Wallace, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Robert Thomas, Tom Pennington, Thomas R. Edgar.
That, in turn, precommits them to denying certain kinds of postapostolic miracles. To the extent that there's prima facie empirical evidence to the contrary, they will explain that away. This is something I've documented in detail.
Frank Turk
Delete"To metaphors, I've nothing against them except when they are used either as a sly slander or is a haphazard way. The metaphor here ('hired gun') does not imply merely an advocate, but to be somehow compensated for dirty work done. It's meant to diminish Fred with a fault he doesn't have, and you should either own it (which means: prove it) or else find a better way to disagree with people. Calling them names didn't work for Loftus, and it doesn't suit you at all."
Well, since you bring it up, how about this statement (from last October):
***Quote***
Frank Turk @Frank_Turk
@BibChr @Fred_Butler very weird things afoot at T-Blog. Not sure why they are running with scissors ...
***End-quote***
Someone might be forgiven in thinking that was meant to "diminish" Tblog. Indeed, someone might even be forgiven in supposing that amounts to "name-calling." Feel free to either own it (which means: prove it) or else find a better way to disagree with people.
It was meant to diminish Tblog -- and I own it. When I use a metaphor, I ask myself if that's what I really meant, and in that case, I did: how could I say that I think the fellows at TBlog, who in the past have seemed to be decent fellows, suddenly seem to be adopting dangerous and sort of careless affirmations? Ah yes: they are running with scissors.
DeleteI own it: I don't pretend it doesn't do what I intended.
If you mean someone has somehow traded something with Fred so that Fred will do their dirty deeds, play on. If instead you mean that Fred has somehow been duped into propping up an atheist standard, try again. A smart person like you should be at least that sensitive to slandering people he has, in the past, shared some affinity with.
And .. bloody Google/Blogger just ate my second reply on the other issues. Bummer.
DeleteFrank Turk
Delete"It was meant to diminish Tblog -- and I own it."
Yet you initially said:
"Calling them names didn't work for Loftus, and it doesn't suit you at all."
So does that mean calling names suits you and Loftus rather than me? I'm flattered.
"When I use a metaphor, I ask myself if that's what I really meant, and in that case, I did: how could I say that I think the fellows at TBlog, who in the past have seemed to be decent fellows, suddenly seem to be adopting dangerous and sort of careless affirmations? Ah yes: they are running with scissors."
What "dangerous" and "careless" affirmations have we "suddenly" adopted?
"I own it: I don't pretend it doesn't do what I intended."
That makes two of us.
"If you mean someone has somehow traded something with Fred so that Fred will do their dirty deeds, play on."
"Traded something"? If you're that ham-handed in how you squeeze my little metaphor, I'd hate to see you exegete Bunyan or T. S. Eliot.
"If instead you mean that Fred has somehow been duped into propping up an atheist standard, try again."
No, not duped.
"A smart person like you should be at least that sensitive to slandering people he has, in the past, shared some affinity with."
I'd suggest you shift your concern to all the Christians Fred and his ilk have "slandered" by comparing them to alien abductees when they report a miracle.
You win, Steve. The phrase "hired gun" has nothing to do with "hiring" or "gunning," Keener is has nothing to do with the AoG and therefore is not trying to let their Statement of Faith ride on the coat-tails of his small sample of documented miracles, and you are not somehow on a very deep slide against people who have been long-term supporters of your work.
DeleteHere are your scissors. Enjoy yourself.
Frank Turk said:
Delete"The phrase "hired gun" has nothing to do with 'hiring' or 'gunning'"
But you only come to this conclusion based on an overly literalistic reading of the metaphor.
Heck, you yourself use scare quotes with "hiring" and "gunning" so presumably you don't think a "hired gun" is necessarily, for instance, someone literally sent to assassinate someone else. A hired gun could simply be someone sent to lobby for a cause and who does so willingly and without monetary compensation, for example.
"you are not somehow on a very deep slide against people who have been long-term supporters of your work"
So if Steve doesn't perfectly agree with the MacArthurites on cessationism, even though he's not a charismatic either and has been very critical of them too, then he's "on a very deep slide against" the MacArthurites? If you're not for us, then you're against us?
"Here are your scissors. Enjoy yourself."
Of course, you haven't (as you yourself laid out should be the case) "proven it" to be the case against Steve. As such, how is this "running with scissors" bit not "meant to diminish [Steve] with a fault he doesn't have"? Which is precisely the same charge you originally leveled against Steve for what he said about Fred.
@Frank Turk
Delete"you are not somehow on a very deep slide against people who have been long-term supporters of your work"
At best, this strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
(I say this figuratively though. Not literally.)
DeleteFrank Turk
Delete"You win, Steve. The phrase 'hired gun' has nothing to do with 'hiring' or 'gunning,' Keener is has nothing to do with the AoG and therefore is not trying to let their Statement of Faith ride on the coat-tails..."
It's ironic that in the very next sentence you interject your own idiomatic metaphor. Do you think that "riding coat-tails" involves literal "riding" or literal "coat-tails"?
Fact is, there's nothing obscure about what I meant. Frank isolates "hired gun" from the sentence it belongs to. But in the sentence, it's part of a comparison:
Delete"Just as Muslims love to cite Bart Ehrman on the NT, it's a pity to see Fred Butler and Lyndon Unger become hired guns for militant atheists. "
The analogy is epexegetical. On the subject of miracles, MacArthurites are becoming to atheism what Bart Ehrman is to Islam.
Muslim apologists traditionally accuse Christian scribes of tampering with the Bible. And in Bart Ehrman, they've found an ally of great propaganda value. He's making their argument for them. And it's all the more useful coming from a non-Muslim.
Of course, he exaggerates, but we're discussing propaganda.
Likewise, what MacArthurites say about the charismata is what atheists say about miracles in general. And that would be of great propaganda value to atheists if they got wind of this intramural Christian debate. Imagine atheists exclaiming: "See! Don't take our word for it. These Christian fundamentalists are just as skeptical about reported miracles as we are. They don't think the observers are any more believable than we do!"
For the record, my view of God in this context is open for review:
ReplyDeletehttp://notebookluncheon.blogspot.com/2014/04/q13-for-frank-whos-afraid-of-holy-spirit.html
Frank, you're prevaricating.
ReplyDelete"The phrase 'hired gun' has nothing to do with 'hiring' or 'gunning.'"
Used as a *metaphor*, "hired gun" has nothing to do with *literal* hiring or *literal* gunning. Do you really need me to explain the nature of figurative imagery to you?
"You are not somehow on a very deep slide against people who have been long-term supporters of your work."
One could just as well say you and Fred et al. are on a very deep slide against my work.
"Keener is has nothing to do with the AoG and therefore is not trying to let their Statement of Faith ride on the coat-tails of his small sample of documented miracles."
i) On what basis do you claim he has a "small sample" of documented miracles?
ii) Inasmuch as cessationism stipulates a universal negative (i.e. certain kinds of postapostolic miracles never happen), a "small sample of documented miracles" could well be sufficient to disprove cessationism.
iii) It's revealing that you refuse to defend your original claim about "credulous acceptance of all claims for the 'miraculous' which present themselves?"
Metaphors are not that difficult:
ReplyDeletehired gun means someone who does the dirty work for another. Frank is being accused of doing dirty work for atheists. Frank does not agree with the atheists. Whereas atheists deny all supernaturalism, Frank only denies contemporary charismatic manifestations that point towards the continuation of NT gifted persons. He doesn't deny that God will heal through prayer nor that God doesn't daily do supernatural things. You've lumped him in with atheists in the wrong way. there is a only a small subset of supernatural activities that Frank and atheists agree upon.
I understand "running with scissors" as a metaphor. It means to do something that is dangerous and can have cataclysmic consequences.
I understand "riding on coat tails" as a metaphor. It means to gain some advantage by being closely associated with someone who has privilege or access.
I understand Frank's metaphors and agree that he used them correctly. I agree that hired gun was used inappropriately in this context.
Now, can you guys get back to the keener discussion about Keener?
@Kirby
Delete"Frank is being accused of doing dirty work for atheists"
No, not in the original post. The original comparison was with Fred Butler and Lyndon Unger - not Frank.
I suppose Frank could consider himself part of the comparison "As a MacArthurite or [sic] sort," but that would be to expand on the original comparison which wasn't about Frank.
Read the very last paragraph of Steve's post.
"Frank does not agree with the atheists."
Again, the immediate context involved Fred and Lyndon, not Frank.
"I understand 'running with scissors' as a metaphor."
Well, that's good for you, of course, but you're not the one with whom we've been interacting in the combox.
"I understand 'riding on coat tails' as a metaphor."
Well, that's good for you, of course, but you're not the one with whom we've been interacting in the combox.
"I understand Frank's metaphors and agree that he used them correctly.
Again, the issue wasn't over "Frank's metaphors." Rather, Frank was the one who took issue with Steve's metaphor.
At this point, I have to say it seems more like you didn't bother to read the post or the comments, or you didn't read them carefully enough.
I sure hope you didn't decide to comment just to blindly support Frank. That would be a fairly unreasonable action to take.
"I agree that hired gun was used inappropriately in this context."
Earlier you said: "hired gun means someone who does the dirty work for another."
What's funny about this is that, if what you say is true, it would actually agree with Steve's point that Fred and Lyndon are helping make the argument against miracles for atheists. Hence you would be in agreement with Steve, not Frank, Fred, or Lyndon.
"Now, can you guys get back to the keener discussion about Keener?"
You should direct this at Frank, for he was the one who originally took issue with the "hired gun" metaphor, and thus segued the discussion away from Keener.
Frank, have you even read Keener's books on miracles?
ReplyDelete