Roger Overton interviewed Kim Riddlebarger on eschatology:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Riddlerbarger is the author of two books on Eschatology, A Case for Amillenialism and Man of Sin.
HT: JT
Friday, February 15, 2008
Information Theory (More To Follow Later)
Ever so often, I like to look at aspects of Darwinian theory that are overlooked, as a kind of vox populi. Right now that takes the form of studying various types of Information Theories. Examining information is important due to the fact that mutations occur within DNA. How DNA (and RNA) conveys information coded within its strands to build proteins and such, therefore, is necessary for a complete understanding of what Darwinians attempt to show. Hence my current examination of it.
The first thing I would like to examine is not obvious, however. Rather, it is a reproduction of a technique employed by some viruses coded via RNA. As with DNA, RNA is formed with amino acid bases that form three-letter “codons” that are then used to form the various viruses, such as HIV. Each three-letter codon, however, can be read more than one way depending on where one starts, which we will designate by the Roman numerals I, II, and III. Essentially, the first version will be the I, the second will be II, and the third III, as should be obvious.
Here it might help to see some examples. The RNA sequence might start with ACUGUGCAA, each of these letters referring to a specific nucleotide. (RNA uses Uracil (U) instead of Thymine (T) in the DNA codon.) Every codon has three nucleotides to code its amino acid compliment. Variations in the above sequence will depend on the starting point that you choose. One might be “ACU” (I) or “CUG” (II) or “UGU” (III) depending on if you start with the first, second, or third nucleotide in the RNA register. Several variations are therefore possible, each coding its own different type of amino acid, depending on where you begin each step. Many codons, it should be pointed out, actually form the same amino acid since three-letter codons give us 64 possibilities and there are only 20 amino acids that can be coded for.
Anyway, with the ability to code different amino acids it is possible to read the same RNA strand in two (or three) different manners, depending on if you start with I or with III. Obviously, if one can convey coherent information with fewer acid bases, more information can be put into single RNA strands. RNA that can be coherently read in various ways would take up fewer resources and thus should be selected for under the Darwinian scheme.
Or that is what we are told Natural Selection should be doing. However, this begs a crucial question too. When a single RNA strand conveys multiple information from various starting points the information value of the strand changes from a strand of equal length due to the fact that there is overlapped information in both the I and the II strands, not to mention the III. Even if we argued that RNA could come about naturally, we are still left with explaining how various strands can all be coherent simultaneously since a codon that can be read in alternate ways conveys more information that a singularly read codon. Moreover, it is rather simple to see that reading something in various ways is not itself as straightforward a task as that! One must know that the alternate strands are important too, since simply encoding the information is not enough. Not being able to decode it provides an insurmountable problem here.
Gathering it all together, then, we see that multiple coding RNA strands actually convey more information than three strands of the same RNA put together in sequences. Even though the multiple coding RNA strand is shorter, it is more complex and, as a result, the information value of that strand is more thorough. Herein lies a problem for the Darwinian theorizer. That multiple coding RNA exists in nature is true. Functionally, however, it becomes an insurmountable barrier to explain, outside of accepting ID. Once RNA is found to contain “hidden” meaning by reading it in alternate frames, and indeed since there are viruses that require this for their existence, it is overwhelmingly difficult to contemplate the amount of information condensed within the strand.
Even the simplest multi-coded strand hides complexity inside. Longer strands are subject to complexity that is just that much greater. Indeed, the complexity is enough to force Darwinism to succumb. Most Darwinists, of course, will not agree, and I do not expect them to. So instead I offer this very post, which not only gives an argument but an example too, demonstrating the complexity to the max. Eventually I will explain how this works, although for the time being I shall remain numb.
However, some may venture a guess already. That is your prerogative, and all I will say is: seek! Three different frames exist to this post’s “RNA.” Simply find them and you’ll see the nature of the complexity. Until this is seen in person, it’s obviously more difficult to comprehend it all.
RNA can be read in different frames, meaning there is more information than you’d recognize at first glance, and it’s no different in DNA. This hides complexity which requires some explanations. Those explanations are difficult to find if your philosophy is Naturalistic. Nevertheless, the conclusion that ID is sound may not be acceptable to you.
One, however, should embrace the truth rather than remaining dumb. Darwinism cannot explain complexity found in the alternate reading frame.
The first thing I would like to examine is not obvious, however. Rather, it is a reproduction of a technique employed by some viruses coded via RNA. As with DNA, RNA is formed with amino acid bases that form three-letter “codons” that are then used to form the various viruses, such as HIV. Each three-letter codon, however, can be read more than one way depending on where one starts, which we will designate by the Roman numerals I, II, and III. Essentially, the first version will be the I, the second will be II, and the third III, as should be obvious.
Here it might help to see some examples. The RNA sequence might start with ACUGUGCAA, each of these letters referring to a specific nucleotide. (RNA uses Uracil (U) instead of Thymine (T) in the DNA codon.) Every codon has three nucleotides to code its amino acid compliment. Variations in the above sequence will depend on the starting point that you choose. One might be “ACU” (I) or “CUG” (II) or “UGU” (III) depending on if you start with the first, second, or third nucleotide in the RNA register. Several variations are therefore possible, each coding its own different type of amino acid, depending on where you begin each step. Many codons, it should be pointed out, actually form the same amino acid since three-letter codons give us 64 possibilities and there are only 20 amino acids that can be coded for.
Anyway, with the ability to code different amino acids it is possible to read the same RNA strand in two (or three) different manners, depending on if you start with I or with III. Obviously, if one can convey coherent information with fewer acid bases, more information can be put into single RNA strands. RNA that can be coherently read in various ways would take up fewer resources and thus should be selected for under the Darwinian scheme.
Or that is what we are told Natural Selection should be doing. However, this begs a crucial question too. When a single RNA strand conveys multiple information from various starting points the information value of the strand changes from a strand of equal length due to the fact that there is overlapped information in both the I and the II strands, not to mention the III. Even if we argued that RNA could come about naturally, we are still left with explaining how various strands can all be coherent simultaneously since a codon that can be read in alternate ways conveys more information that a singularly read codon. Moreover, it is rather simple to see that reading something in various ways is not itself as straightforward a task as that! One must know that the alternate strands are important too, since simply encoding the information is not enough. Not being able to decode it provides an insurmountable problem here.
Gathering it all together, then, we see that multiple coding RNA strands actually convey more information than three strands of the same RNA put together in sequences. Even though the multiple coding RNA strand is shorter, it is more complex and, as a result, the information value of that strand is more thorough. Herein lies a problem for the Darwinian theorizer. That multiple coding RNA exists in nature is true. Functionally, however, it becomes an insurmountable barrier to explain, outside of accepting ID. Once RNA is found to contain “hidden” meaning by reading it in alternate frames, and indeed since there are viruses that require this for their existence, it is overwhelmingly difficult to contemplate the amount of information condensed within the strand.
Even the simplest multi-coded strand hides complexity inside. Longer strands are subject to complexity that is just that much greater. Indeed, the complexity is enough to force Darwinism to succumb. Most Darwinists, of course, will not agree, and I do not expect them to. So instead I offer this very post, which not only gives an argument but an example too, demonstrating the complexity to the max. Eventually I will explain how this works, although for the time being I shall remain numb.
However, some may venture a guess already. That is your prerogative, and all I will say is: seek! Three different frames exist to this post’s “RNA.” Simply find them and you’ll see the nature of the complexity. Until this is seen in person, it’s obviously more difficult to comprehend it all.
RNA can be read in different frames, meaning there is more information than you’d recognize at first glance, and it’s no different in DNA. This hides complexity which requires some explanations. Those explanations are difficult to find if your philosophy is Naturalistic. Nevertheless, the conclusion that ID is sound may not be acceptable to you.
One, however, should embrace the truth rather than remaining dumb. Darwinism cannot explain complexity found in the alternate reading frame.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
RC's on the BVM - Or - What's a Romanist To Do?
As reported here five cardinals of Rome have begun the process required to persuade the current Bishop of Rome to dogmatize certain Marian dogmas, thereby making them properly de fide. The "money quote" is as follows:
On the one hand, I think this is a good thing these folks are against it. On the other, I agree with Rhology, who stated he just as soon Rome go ahead and get it over with and then make her the 4th person of the Quaternity. Why?
I say this for the same reason I wish the people in the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, the UMC, and elsewhere would come clean about other issues. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory University, has openly admitted what few liberal Christian defenders of homosexuality will: "I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us."
I can respect that. I disagree with it, but at least it's honest. At least it's consistent. What I can't respect is duplicity. It's the same thing with Mormons who try to portray themselves as just another sort of Christian. Look, if I want to go out and get drunk tonight, I'm not going to dress it up and say it's okay for me but not okay for you. I won't pretend, when I'm doing it that I'm not willfully in sin.
That said, I think this presents an interesting conundrum for our Roman Catholic friends. So, I have a question. If Rome is, indeed as you say and defend on this blog and elsewhere, the One True Holy Apostolic Church, and this measure does indeed pass such that it become de fide. What will you do?
A. Will you change your views on this to comport with your ecclesiastical betters?
B. Will you quietly protest and remain in the pew?
C. Will you look elsewhere?
It seems to me that the only consistent answer is "A." In the words of "Andre."
The Roman Catholic apologetics community is divided at present. As James Swan reports, Art Sippo says "do it." While Patrick Madrid says otherwise. Carrie has noted that the CA forums are currently voting against this measure.
Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.
On the one hand, I think this is a good thing these folks are against it. On the other, I agree with Rhology, who stated he just as soon Rome go ahead and get it over with and then make her the 4th person of the Quaternity. Why?
I say this for the same reason I wish the people in the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, the UMC, and elsewhere would come clean about other issues. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory University, has openly admitted what few liberal Christian defenders of homosexuality will: "I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us."
I can respect that. I disagree with it, but at least it's honest. At least it's consistent. What I can't respect is duplicity. It's the same thing with Mormons who try to portray themselves as just another sort of Christian. Look, if I want to go out and get drunk tonight, I'm not going to dress it up and say it's okay for me but not okay for you. I won't pretend, when I'm doing it that I'm not willfully in sin.
That said, I think this presents an interesting conundrum for our Roman Catholic friends. So, I have a question. If Rome is, indeed as you say and defend on this blog and elsewhere, the One True Holy Apostolic Church, and this measure does indeed pass such that it become de fide. What will you do?
A. Will you change your views on this to comport with your ecclesiastical betters?
B. Will you quietly protest and remain in the pew?
C. Will you look elsewhere?
It seems to me that the only consistent answer is "A." In the words of "Andre."
It is not a matter of whether she ought to be elevated or not. If she is dogmatically pronounced as Co-Redemptrix, the decision will have come from Heaven,not from men, and so if Heaven wills her to be pronounced as such, let it be done according to His will.By the way, some of the other comments are interesting, particularly those that say that she "chose" to be Christ's mother. How acontextual a reading of Luke is that? She was chosen. She does not use her "free will" to accept an offer. She's told what is going to happen to her, and she rejoices in it. Roman Catholics make great Arminians...
The race is not to the swift
“The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all” (Eccl 9:11).
One of the sobering and fascinating features of life is that you can’t predict how someone will finish the race from how he began. Most of us, especially those of us who belong to the middle class or working class, are aware of the fact that life can be unfair. One of the running themes of Scripture is the way in which the rich and powerful frequently oppress the poor.
But Solomon is making a different point in this verse. He’s approaching the issue from the opposite end of the social spectrum. His point is that even folks who start out with every conceivable advantage may lose the race. And this goes to a more general theme in Scripture regarding the reversal of fortunes: the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
Although Solomon’s observation was made some 3000 years ago, we can observe the same phenomenon today. On the one hand, some folks in life get a head start. They have every advantage, in terms of health, wealth, and education. Yet they fall behind.
On the other hand, there are other folks who must overcome one hurdle after another. And yet they take the lead and win the race.
You can’t tell from how people start out in life how they will end. Timing is everything. Providential timing. As one commentator explains:
“The NIV’s ‘chance’ (pega) is an unhappy choice of translation, since this word connotes an impersonal and random forced, whereas Qohelet is clear throughout the book that human fates lies ultimately in God’s hands, no matter how random and impersonal what befalls us may appear. The verbal form pg means ‘to meet, encounter.’ A pega is simply something we encounter on the path of life—a circumstance or situation over which we have no control,” I. Provan, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs Zondervan 2001), 183n2.
We might illustrate this principle by the path of two different sons: Bill Murray and Frank Schaeffer. Both have written tell-all memories about their famous parents.
Along similar lines is the biography of Bertrand Russell by her only daughter: My Father, Bertrand Russell, by Katherine Tait.
Before I discuss the specifics, I’d like to say something about tell-all memoirs. From a Christian standpoint, is this appropriate?
As a rule, I think that families are entitled to a measure of privacy from the prying eyes of the outside world. A family should be a place where we can let down our guard. Where we don’t have to watch our back. That’s where we’re most vulnerable. This is also true for friendships. As a rule, I think it’s a betrayal of trust to broadcast this material to the outside world.
Frank Schaeffer justifies his policy on the grounds of candor. And, up to a point, candor is a good thing. But we need to qualify that virtue. For one thing, I have more right to be candid about myself than I have to be candid about the faults of another, like a mother or sister or father or brother or my best friend.
And while candor is a virtue, so is discretion. There are times when it’s admirable to cover for someone else. By that I don’t mean we should lie for them. But there’s a big difference between telling lies and keeping secrets. It’s a breach of confidence to divulge embarrassing details about the private life of a friend or family member in the name of candor. To humiliate them for all to see. Make a public spectacle of every little indignity.
There needs to be a special justification for violating someone’s private life in this way—especially someone who’s close to us, someone we should treat with reverence and respect. Part of friendship is a concern to protect your friend’s reputation, unless there’s an overriding obligation to the contrary.
However, some people do this to themselves. Some people are famous because they seek the public eye. They hanker to be celebrities. They may even take the initiative in publicizing their private lives. In that case, they’re not entitled to the same degree of privacy, although it may still be none of my business how they conduct their sordid little lives.
On the other hand, some people are famous in spite of themselves. They may be famous because they’re born to famous parents. They may resent their fishbowl existence. They may try their best to avoid the paparazzi. These people are entitled to privacy.
Schaeffer not only talks about his parents, but his siblings and in-laws. What did they ever do to ask for that exposure?
It also depends on what you’re famous for. In some cases, the message is inseparable from the messenger. Both Bertrand Russell and Madelyn Murray-O’Hair took the position that religion was the problem, not the solution. Original sin wasn’t the source of the problem. Just the opposite: belief in original sin was the source of the problem. Atheism was liberating. As soon as we learn to cast off these guilt-feelings and Victorian hang-ups, we will lead happy, healthy lives.
In that case, the mismatch between their hortatory words and their miserable lives is a test of their words. What was the practical result of their emancipation from all things Christian?
It’s not quite the same thing in the case of Christian celebrities. For the message of the Gospel is not that if you become a Christian, you will lead a frictionless existence.
There is also a difference between the failings of a charlatan and failings of true believer. We ought to discredit a religious charlatan. He is pretending to be something he’s not, and exploiting others in the process.
But it’s quite possible fall short of an ideal you sincerely believe in. That is not synonymous with hypocrisy.
There are folks who turn to Christianity because they’re morally flawed. They’re acutely aware of their besetting sins. That’s why the embrace the gospel. They hear the gospel talking about them.
The very titles of the books by Frank Schaeffer and Bill Murray are revealing: Crazy for God v. My Life Without God.
Murray and Schaeffer began at opposite ends of the theological spectrum, and they traded places. Murray ended up where Schaeffer began, while Schaeffer ended up where Murray began.
To judge by this article, Schaeffer has completed his journey from faith to infidelity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-huckabee-win-is-ameri_b_80150.html
I’ve read Murray’s book. I haven’t read Schaeffer’s. I’ve read Schaeffer give interviews about his book. One of the justifications that Schaeffer gives for his exposé is that there wasn’t much privacy at L’Abri. This was already out in the open. Other folks who lived and worked at L’Abri can confirm his recollections.
A difficulty with that claim is that Os Guinness, for one, takes issue with Schaeffer’s version of events:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200710250048
So it’s a problem when Schaeffer calls on other folks in the know to confirm his story, only to have a lead witness impeach his credibility. Testimony is a doubled-edged sword.
But let’s assume, for the same of argument, that his account is accurate. What would be the best way to handle this? For one thing, he could point out that his parents made a common mistake: they were so busy saving the world that they neglected their kids. That’s something that needs to be said. A warning to like-minded parents.
Some missionaries can be absentee parents. They warehouse their kids in boarding school while they rescue the perishing. In the meantime, their own kids are perishing for want of proper parenting. That reflects a misguided sense of priorities.
But Schaeffer could have made that point is less than 300 pages. An essay would do.
He could also make the point that his father was preaching to others out of his own spiritual need. Francis Schaeffer was a deeply flawed individual. No one knew that better than Francis Schaeffer. He was preaching from his own experience. From his own desperate need of the gospel. One parched soul offering the water of life to other parched souls. It takes a thirsty man to truly appreciate a cup of cold water. Francis Schaeffer was leading other desert-dwellers to the spiritual oasis he had discovered. As oasis he needed as much as anyone.
The problem with Frank Schaeffer is that, instead of improving on his parent’s example, instead of building on his advantages, his own journey has been spiritually retrograde. He starts with his parents and then goes backward instead of forward.
And one point he converted to the Orthodox church. I guess he’s still a member in good standing. And that wouldn’t be difficult.
The Orthodox church is very tolerant of liberal, Greek-American politicians and apparatchiks like Michael Dukakis, John Podesta, Art Agnos, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Tsongas, Paul Sarbanes, and John Sarbanes. Why were none of these men ever excommunicated for their social views?
Clearly, Christian ethics is a dead letter in Orthodoxy.
Frank Schaeffer has made a career for himself by tearing down everything his mother and father dedicated their lives to. Torching the good they did for others—out of mean-spirited envy.
By contrast, Bill Murray has seen it from the other side. He’s been there. Unlike Frank Schaeffer, Bill Murray has tried to improve on his parent’s example. Murray did more with less, while Schaeffer did less with more. Murray turned his disadvantage to spiritual advantage, while Schaeffer turned his advantage to spiritual disadvantage.
Two men. Two paths. Two starting lines. Two men crossing paths. From first to last and last to first.
One of the sobering and fascinating features of life is that you can’t predict how someone will finish the race from how he began. Most of us, especially those of us who belong to the middle class or working class, are aware of the fact that life can be unfair. One of the running themes of Scripture is the way in which the rich and powerful frequently oppress the poor.
But Solomon is making a different point in this verse. He’s approaching the issue from the opposite end of the social spectrum. His point is that even folks who start out with every conceivable advantage may lose the race. And this goes to a more general theme in Scripture regarding the reversal of fortunes: the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
Although Solomon’s observation was made some 3000 years ago, we can observe the same phenomenon today. On the one hand, some folks in life get a head start. They have every advantage, in terms of health, wealth, and education. Yet they fall behind.
On the other hand, there are other folks who must overcome one hurdle after another. And yet they take the lead and win the race.
You can’t tell from how people start out in life how they will end. Timing is everything. Providential timing. As one commentator explains:
“The NIV’s ‘chance’ (pega) is an unhappy choice of translation, since this word connotes an impersonal and random forced, whereas Qohelet is clear throughout the book that human fates lies ultimately in God’s hands, no matter how random and impersonal what befalls us may appear. The verbal form pg means ‘to meet, encounter.’ A pega is simply something we encounter on the path of life—a circumstance or situation over which we have no control,” I. Provan, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs Zondervan 2001), 183n2.
We might illustrate this principle by the path of two different sons: Bill Murray and Frank Schaeffer. Both have written tell-all memories about their famous parents.
Along similar lines is the biography of Bertrand Russell by her only daughter: My Father, Bertrand Russell, by Katherine Tait.
Before I discuss the specifics, I’d like to say something about tell-all memoirs. From a Christian standpoint, is this appropriate?
As a rule, I think that families are entitled to a measure of privacy from the prying eyes of the outside world. A family should be a place where we can let down our guard. Where we don’t have to watch our back. That’s where we’re most vulnerable. This is also true for friendships. As a rule, I think it’s a betrayal of trust to broadcast this material to the outside world.
Frank Schaeffer justifies his policy on the grounds of candor. And, up to a point, candor is a good thing. But we need to qualify that virtue. For one thing, I have more right to be candid about myself than I have to be candid about the faults of another, like a mother or sister or father or brother or my best friend.
And while candor is a virtue, so is discretion. There are times when it’s admirable to cover for someone else. By that I don’t mean we should lie for them. But there’s a big difference between telling lies and keeping secrets. It’s a breach of confidence to divulge embarrassing details about the private life of a friend or family member in the name of candor. To humiliate them for all to see. Make a public spectacle of every little indignity.
There needs to be a special justification for violating someone’s private life in this way—especially someone who’s close to us, someone we should treat with reverence and respect. Part of friendship is a concern to protect your friend’s reputation, unless there’s an overriding obligation to the contrary.
However, some people do this to themselves. Some people are famous because they seek the public eye. They hanker to be celebrities. They may even take the initiative in publicizing their private lives. In that case, they’re not entitled to the same degree of privacy, although it may still be none of my business how they conduct their sordid little lives.
On the other hand, some people are famous in spite of themselves. They may be famous because they’re born to famous parents. They may resent their fishbowl existence. They may try their best to avoid the paparazzi. These people are entitled to privacy.
Schaeffer not only talks about his parents, but his siblings and in-laws. What did they ever do to ask for that exposure?
It also depends on what you’re famous for. In some cases, the message is inseparable from the messenger. Both Bertrand Russell and Madelyn Murray-O’Hair took the position that religion was the problem, not the solution. Original sin wasn’t the source of the problem. Just the opposite: belief in original sin was the source of the problem. Atheism was liberating. As soon as we learn to cast off these guilt-feelings and Victorian hang-ups, we will lead happy, healthy lives.
In that case, the mismatch between their hortatory words and their miserable lives is a test of their words. What was the practical result of their emancipation from all things Christian?
It’s not quite the same thing in the case of Christian celebrities. For the message of the Gospel is not that if you become a Christian, you will lead a frictionless existence.
There is also a difference between the failings of a charlatan and failings of true believer. We ought to discredit a religious charlatan. He is pretending to be something he’s not, and exploiting others in the process.
But it’s quite possible fall short of an ideal you sincerely believe in. That is not synonymous with hypocrisy.
There are folks who turn to Christianity because they’re morally flawed. They’re acutely aware of their besetting sins. That’s why the embrace the gospel. They hear the gospel talking about them.
The very titles of the books by Frank Schaeffer and Bill Murray are revealing: Crazy for God v. My Life Without God.
Murray and Schaeffer began at opposite ends of the theological spectrum, and they traded places. Murray ended up where Schaeffer began, while Schaeffer ended up where Murray began.
To judge by this article, Schaeffer has completed his journey from faith to infidelity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-huckabee-win-is-ameri_b_80150.html
I’ve read Murray’s book. I haven’t read Schaeffer’s. I’ve read Schaeffer give interviews about his book. One of the justifications that Schaeffer gives for his exposé is that there wasn’t much privacy at L’Abri. This was already out in the open. Other folks who lived and worked at L’Abri can confirm his recollections.
A difficulty with that claim is that Os Guinness, for one, takes issue with Schaeffer’s version of events:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200710250048
So it’s a problem when Schaeffer calls on other folks in the know to confirm his story, only to have a lead witness impeach his credibility. Testimony is a doubled-edged sword.
But let’s assume, for the same of argument, that his account is accurate. What would be the best way to handle this? For one thing, he could point out that his parents made a common mistake: they were so busy saving the world that they neglected their kids. That’s something that needs to be said. A warning to like-minded parents.
Some missionaries can be absentee parents. They warehouse their kids in boarding school while they rescue the perishing. In the meantime, their own kids are perishing for want of proper parenting. That reflects a misguided sense of priorities.
But Schaeffer could have made that point is less than 300 pages. An essay would do.
He could also make the point that his father was preaching to others out of his own spiritual need. Francis Schaeffer was a deeply flawed individual. No one knew that better than Francis Schaeffer. He was preaching from his own experience. From his own desperate need of the gospel. One parched soul offering the water of life to other parched souls. It takes a thirsty man to truly appreciate a cup of cold water. Francis Schaeffer was leading other desert-dwellers to the spiritual oasis he had discovered. As oasis he needed as much as anyone.
The problem with Frank Schaeffer is that, instead of improving on his parent’s example, instead of building on his advantages, his own journey has been spiritually retrograde. He starts with his parents and then goes backward instead of forward.
And one point he converted to the Orthodox church. I guess he’s still a member in good standing. And that wouldn’t be difficult.
The Orthodox church is very tolerant of liberal, Greek-American politicians and apparatchiks like Michael Dukakis, John Podesta, Art Agnos, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Tsongas, Paul Sarbanes, and John Sarbanes. Why were none of these men ever excommunicated for their social views?
Clearly, Christian ethics is a dead letter in Orthodoxy.
Frank Schaeffer has made a career for himself by tearing down everything his mother and father dedicated their lives to. Torching the good they did for others—out of mean-spirited envy.
By contrast, Bill Murray has seen it from the other side. He’s been there. Unlike Frank Schaeffer, Bill Murray has tried to improve on his parent’s example. Murray did more with less, while Schaeffer did less with more. Murray turned his disadvantage to spiritual advantage, while Schaeffer turned his advantage to spiritual disadvantage.
Two men. Two paths. Two starting lines. Two men crossing paths. From first to last and last to first.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
When It Comes to NT Church Life: Function Follows Conversion
In the last blog entry on a similar topic on 2-11-08, I emphasized the fact that the form and structure of a local church naturally follows the Scriptural function of that local church. I noted that the necessary functions of a local church are (1) the glorification of the Triune God through the preaching of the gospel and (2) carrying out the 58 one-anothers that are a necessary part of the mutual ministry of NT church life. Thus, if your local church understands and implements the necessary functions of the church as laid out in the NT, then your church will be structured in such a way that it fulfills those functions. I also noted that this can happen in many different places such as rented buildings, living rooms, conference rooms, and (with tongue placed firmly-in-cheek), igloos. However, it is impossible for the two things above to happen if a critical piece is missing: the regeneration/conversion of people. In sum, you can have a beautiful and extravagant wineskin all day long, but if there's no wine in it, it isn't worth a hill of beans. Same goes with the Spirit of God. No Spirit of God indwelling a group of people equals no true church.
I constantly have to remind myself that regeneration is something that God does. Of course, when I say "remind", I'm not saying that I don't intellectually understand this doctrine. I do, and I've taught it publicly more times than I can remember. But, as an elder, I fail to consistently remind myself that I'm not the one who saves people. I still want to argue, philosophize, and drag people into the Kingdom by way of intellectual handcuffs. And so, I have to remind myself that I can't do anything to make a dead man drink spiritual water (Ephesians 2:1-5; John 7:37-38). That type of "drinking" is a sovereign, monergistic work of the Triune God alone (John 1:13; 3:3). I say what I do because I really believe that a large majority of the problems that I deal with when doing the work of an elder are often rooted in one problem: self-deceived unregenerate people thinking they are regenerated because at one time they said a prayer, walked an aisle, got emotional, etc., when in fact, there's no spiritual life within them.
This is sad but true. Don't believe me? Well, then, listen to my favorite living preacher expound upon it here:
When a person makes a new profession of faith in Jesus, there are several critical things that I think we should expect to happen pretty quickly after regeneration/conversion. Every truly regenerated new convert I've ever worked with exhibits the following three things almost immediately though not perfectly. Watching for the following things can help you get a general idea whether a professed conversion was true or false:
1. They have a new relationship with sin - they abhor their sin because it is no longer fun anymore but brings conviction and God's disciplining hand (1 John 3:9; Heb. 12:5-11).
2. They have a new relationship with the Scriptures - they have a strange new hunger for this book called the Bible, and they really can't explain why (Psalm 42:1; 1 Peter 2:2).
3. They have a new relationship with the Church - they love God's people because they are a natural Godlover themselves. They want to be around and serve God's people (1 John 3:14-16).
With all truly born again people, they will exhibit the above characteristics without fail over a period of time. It is part of their new nature. They can't help it, it just comes natural to them to do the above things. Paul said that ". . . if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17.
If you notice that these things aren't present over a period of several months, then you have a false convert. Our churches are loaded with people like this who claim to love Jesus yet don't exhibit the three things above. So, it's important to look for these things in professing new converts over the period of several months for the benefit of their souls and the benefit of your local church. After all, if form follows function and function follows true conversion, then you'd better strive for churches that seek true conversions lest you create a situation where you have false professors creating false functions and forms manifesting themselves as entertainment and other worldly enticements to keep the goats "herded" and the bills paid from week-to-week. After all, it's better to know where you stand eternally than be self-deceived because you had an emotional experience at an entertainment-fest. I'll finish with Paul in 2 Cor. 13:5,
"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?"
I constantly have to remind myself that regeneration is something that God does. Of course, when I say "remind", I'm not saying that I don't intellectually understand this doctrine. I do, and I've taught it publicly more times than I can remember. But, as an elder, I fail to consistently remind myself that I'm not the one who saves people. I still want to argue, philosophize, and drag people into the Kingdom by way of intellectual handcuffs. And so, I have to remind myself that I can't do anything to make a dead man drink spiritual water (Ephesians 2:1-5; John 7:37-38). That type of "drinking" is a sovereign, monergistic work of the Triune God alone (John 1:13; 3:3). I say what I do because I really believe that a large majority of the problems that I deal with when doing the work of an elder are often rooted in one problem: self-deceived unregenerate people thinking they are regenerated because at one time they said a prayer, walked an aisle, got emotional, etc., when in fact, there's no spiritual life within them.
This is sad but true. Don't believe me? Well, then, listen to my favorite living preacher expound upon it here:
When a person makes a new profession of faith in Jesus, there are several critical things that I think we should expect to happen pretty quickly after regeneration/conversion. Every truly regenerated new convert I've ever worked with exhibits the following three things almost immediately though not perfectly. Watching for the following things can help you get a general idea whether a professed conversion was true or false:
1. They have a new relationship with sin - they abhor their sin because it is no longer fun anymore but brings conviction and God's disciplining hand (1 John 3:9; Heb. 12:5-11).
2. They have a new relationship with the Scriptures - they have a strange new hunger for this book called the Bible, and they really can't explain why (Psalm 42:1; 1 Peter 2:2).
3. They have a new relationship with the Church - they love God's people because they are a natural Godlover themselves. They want to be around and serve God's people (1 John 3:14-16).
With all truly born again people, they will exhibit the above characteristics without fail over a period of time. It is part of their new nature. They can't help it, it just comes natural to them to do the above things. Paul said that ". . . if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." 2 Cor. 5:17.
If you notice that these things aren't present over a period of several months, then you have a false convert. Our churches are loaded with people like this who claim to love Jesus yet don't exhibit the three things above. So, it's important to look for these things in professing new converts over the period of several months for the benefit of their souls and the benefit of your local church. After all, if form follows function and function follows true conversion, then you'd better strive for churches that seek true conversions lest you create a situation where you have false professors creating false functions and forms manifesting themselves as entertainment and other worldly enticements to keep the goats "herded" and the bills paid from week-to-week. After all, it's better to know where you stand eternally than be self-deceived because you had an emotional experience at an entertainment-fest. I'll finish with Paul in 2 Cor. 13:5,
"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?"
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Heavenly Doorman
Genesis 20
Abraham and Abimelech
1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife." 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, "Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
Trying to draw more out of this passage.
Last time I tried to show that it appeared that the passage presupposed that blame could have been (read counterfactually) ascribed to Abimelech even if God had "kept him" from not sinning. And, secondly, the passage assumed Abimelech's freedom by referencing that he should not be blamed for what he did, even though out of the two paths, to sin or not to sin, one was closed off to him. Thus he was a morally responsible agent, who did what he did out of the integrity of his own mind, while having one of the options, out of two, closed off to him and thus no genuine alternative possibility.
But what of this notion of being "kept from" doing something. I think the Calvinist notion of decree fits best here.
If we do not assume that God had decreed Abimelech's actions from the foundation of the world, then perhaps God, in this case, was something like a bouncer in front of a door.
Abimelech could go into either door. The sin door or the not-sin door. If he tried to go into the sin door, God, the bouncer, would "keep him" from getting in. In this case Abimelech would have both, following Fischer, regulative and guidance control.
If this metaphor of God "keeping" Abimelech is close to the mark, then Abimelech retains his libertarian freedom. If the "keeping" takes the form of antecedent the divine decree, and if Abimelech is morally responsible, then he does not have libertarian freedom.
The problem I see it is that Abimelech says that he is "innocent" and has acted in an upright and morally virtuous way.
Now, perhaps he is wrong. He is fooling himself. The problem here would be that God agrees with Abimelech's judgment.
Since God does not praise or encourage mere moral formalism, why would he intimate that Abimelech was innocent? Would Abimelech really be innocent had he tried with all him might to enter the sin door only to be stopped after a struggle with the bouncer?
Continuing with the bouncer analogy. Say you had a hard day at work and you want to go out for a beer after work, before you go home. Enjoying a nice ale is just the thing you need before you go home and to your real job---that of husband and father! Now, you happen to run into some of your fellow construction workers at the bar, 'One More That's It,' is the name. You don't have too many beers, but enough to get a buzz, say, 4. Now, you inform your buddies that it's time for you to go home. After some slight ribbing about being whipped, they let you go. Now, on your way to your car you notice a strip club (no, not a steak house!). You have a moment of weakness (replace the story about the construction worker with a philosopher instead and you would call it 'akrasia'). You debate it with yourself for a couple of minutes and you convince yourself that it would be just the thing you need to forget about your worries (perhaps you're behind schedule and the foreman is really pushing you). (How to get the perfume off your close doesn't cross your mind at the time, chalk that up to the 4 beers.) So off you go.
When you get to the door the bouncer informs you that the club is at full capacity. You query as to why. He informs you that Misty Mountains is there, everyone wants to get in. You remember that before you got married you had quite the thing for Misty, but marriage, kids---not to mention that alter call you went down for at last year's rally at the stadium when you and 500 other people stood crying in front of the preacher who pulled all the right heart strings---had turned you around. Your wife would kill you. And you promised her you would never do anything like this. But it would be just a peak, you tell yourself. You had to see Misty. So, you formulate a plan. As soon as the bouncer turns his back you will try to do a low crawl into the building, bypassing the bouncer. The time comes and you go for it. The bouncer hears some scraping and shuffling down below, turns around, and sees your sorry self trying to commando crawl into the building. He picks you up by your belt and tosses you into a row of trash cans. Since he outweighs you by about 75 pounds, and you don't feel that tough with coffee grounds in your hair and a banana peel on your lap, you decide to go home. After you arrive home you wife asks where you've been, you simply tell your wife that you went out with some of the guys. She knows the pressure you're under, and fully understands. She tells you to sit down, put your feet up, and she'll get your dinner. She’s a good wife, what were you thinking, you say to yourself. So you resolve to keep her in the dark. No harm no foul. And besides, it would only hurt her. You technically didn't do anything wrong, you tell yourself. You strengthen your resolve. This will never happen again, you tell yourself.
It is three weeks later and you barely remember what happened. You take your wife out to dinner and a movie. Your mom is watching the kids. As you're out with your wife a couple of guys walk by and start laughing. They try to give you a high five. They're obviously drunk. You don't have a clue what's going on, and your wife looks a bit uncomfortable. They kept saying, "Dude! That was awesome. You made my night. That was the funniest thing I'd seen in a while." Just then a light goes on, you have a pretty good idea what they're referring to. You just hope they leave, playing dumb in from of your wife. She then begins to talk, you cringe. She asks them what they're talking about. One guy says, "This guy tried to sneak into a strip club a few weeks ago to see Misty Mountains. The bouncer totally trashed him. [Group laughs] Trashed him! Threw this guy [points to you] into the street and into a row of trash cans." "We got to hand it to you though," he turns to you, "that was one of the most daring moves I've seen in a while. Chopper, the bouncer, is a maniac. You're lucky he didn't gut you!" They laugh and walk away. Your wife stares at you. "What!?," she asks. "Is this true?" The rest of the story gets R-rated from here! Hell hath no furry, 'n all.
Given the above scenario, would the wife have felt better if you had said, "Yeah, but did you hear those guys? They said that the bouncer 'kept me' from getting in. I didn't see a stripper and therefore I'm innocent." Seems to me that doesn't make the man innocent of all charges. Thus we cannot view Abimelech or God this way.
The position that best makes sense of the Biblical data here is that of the Calvinist. God decreed what would happen, thus not allowing for for alternative possibilities, while Abimelech was a morally responsible agent. If only in this one instance we can have determination and moral responsibility, then the Christian libertarian's case crumbles. I say 'Christian' because I don't see this passage convincing atheistic libertarians, at least pre-consummation.
So, we cannot have God "violating" Abimelech's freedom since that wouldn't get a verdict of innocence if Abimelech had tried to sin yet was strong armed from accomplishing his task (similar to the question: Would Eve still have sinned if she had not eaten the fruit out of desire to keep her figure? The answer is: Yes). We have Abimelech as morally responsible, the subject of moral praise or blame. We have only one option as a live possibility for Abimelech (he was "kept from" the other), thus not allowing alternative possibilities to become geneuine. The "keeping" that God does is best seen as his prior, eternal decree which determined all events which take place in the actual world (possible worlds are different ways God could have decreed the events). I find this the most satisfying reading.
Abraham and Abimelech
1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife." 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, "Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
Trying to draw more out of this passage.
Last time I tried to show that it appeared that the passage presupposed that blame could have been (read counterfactually) ascribed to Abimelech even if God had "kept him" from not sinning. And, secondly, the passage assumed Abimelech's freedom by referencing that he should not be blamed for what he did, even though out of the two paths, to sin or not to sin, one was closed off to him. Thus he was a morally responsible agent, who did what he did out of the integrity of his own mind, while having one of the options, out of two, closed off to him and thus no genuine alternative possibility.
But what of this notion of being "kept from" doing something. I think the Calvinist notion of decree fits best here.
If we do not assume that God had decreed Abimelech's actions from the foundation of the world, then perhaps God, in this case, was something like a bouncer in front of a door.
Abimelech could go into either door. The sin door or the not-sin door. If he tried to go into the sin door, God, the bouncer, would "keep him" from getting in. In this case Abimelech would have both, following Fischer, regulative and guidance control.
If this metaphor of God "keeping" Abimelech is close to the mark, then Abimelech retains his libertarian freedom. If the "keeping" takes the form of antecedent the divine decree, and if Abimelech is morally responsible, then he does not have libertarian freedom.
The problem I see it is that Abimelech says that he is "innocent" and has acted in an upright and morally virtuous way.
Now, perhaps he is wrong. He is fooling himself. The problem here would be that God agrees with Abimelech's judgment.
Since God does not praise or encourage mere moral formalism, why would he intimate that Abimelech was innocent? Would Abimelech really be innocent had he tried with all him might to enter the sin door only to be stopped after a struggle with the bouncer?
Continuing with the bouncer analogy. Say you had a hard day at work and you want to go out for a beer after work, before you go home. Enjoying a nice ale is just the thing you need before you go home and to your real job---that of husband and father! Now, you happen to run into some of your fellow construction workers at the bar, 'One More That's It,' is the name. You don't have too many beers, but enough to get a buzz, say, 4. Now, you inform your buddies that it's time for you to go home. After some slight ribbing about being whipped, they let you go. Now, on your way to your car you notice a strip club (no, not a steak house!). You have a moment of weakness (replace the story about the construction worker with a philosopher instead and you would call it 'akrasia'). You debate it with yourself for a couple of minutes and you convince yourself that it would be just the thing you need to forget about your worries (perhaps you're behind schedule and the foreman is really pushing you). (How to get the perfume off your close doesn't cross your mind at the time, chalk that up to the 4 beers.) So off you go.
When you get to the door the bouncer informs you that the club is at full capacity. You query as to why. He informs you that Misty Mountains is there, everyone wants to get in. You remember that before you got married you had quite the thing for Misty, but marriage, kids---not to mention that alter call you went down for at last year's rally at the stadium when you and 500 other people stood crying in front of the preacher who pulled all the right heart strings---had turned you around. Your wife would kill you. And you promised her you would never do anything like this. But it would be just a peak, you tell yourself. You had to see Misty. So, you formulate a plan. As soon as the bouncer turns his back you will try to do a low crawl into the building, bypassing the bouncer. The time comes and you go for it. The bouncer hears some scraping and shuffling down below, turns around, and sees your sorry self trying to commando crawl into the building. He picks you up by your belt and tosses you into a row of trash cans. Since he outweighs you by about 75 pounds, and you don't feel that tough with coffee grounds in your hair and a banana peel on your lap, you decide to go home. After you arrive home you wife asks where you've been, you simply tell your wife that you went out with some of the guys. She knows the pressure you're under, and fully understands. She tells you to sit down, put your feet up, and she'll get your dinner. She’s a good wife, what were you thinking, you say to yourself. So you resolve to keep her in the dark. No harm no foul. And besides, it would only hurt her. You technically didn't do anything wrong, you tell yourself. You strengthen your resolve. This will never happen again, you tell yourself.
It is three weeks later and you barely remember what happened. You take your wife out to dinner and a movie. Your mom is watching the kids. As you're out with your wife a couple of guys walk by and start laughing. They try to give you a high five. They're obviously drunk. You don't have a clue what's going on, and your wife looks a bit uncomfortable. They kept saying, "Dude! That was awesome. You made my night. That was the funniest thing I'd seen in a while." Just then a light goes on, you have a pretty good idea what they're referring to. You just hope they leave, playing dumb in from of your wife. She then begins to talk, you cringe. She asks them what they're talking about. One guy says, "This guy tried to sneak into a strip club a few weeks ago to see Misty Mountains. The bouncer totally trashed him. [Group laughs] Trashed him! Threw this guy [points to you] into the street and into a row of trash cans." "We got to hand it to you though," he turns to you, "that was one of the most daring moves I've seen in a while. Chopper, the bouncer, is a maniac. You're lucky he didn't gut you!" They laugh and walk away. Your wife stares at you. "What!?," she asks. "Is this true?" The rest of the story gets R-rated from here! Hell hath no furry, 'n all.
Given the above scenario, would the wife have felt better if you had said, "Yeah, but did you hear those guys? They said that the bouncer 'kept me' from getting in. I didn't see a stripper and therefore I'm innocent." Seems to me that doesn't make the man innocent of all charges. Thus we cannot view Abimelech or God this way.
The position that best makes sense of the Biblical data here is that of the Calvinist. God decreed what would happen, thus not allowing for for alternative possibilities, while Abimelech was a morally responsible agent. If only in this one instance we can have determination and moral responsibility, then the Christian libertarian's case crumbles. I say 'Christian' because I don't see this passage convincing atheistic libertarians, at least pre-consummation.
So, we cannot have God "violating" Abimelech's freedom since that wouldn't get a verdict of innocence if Abimelech had tried to sin yet was strong armed from accomplishing his task (similar to the question: Would Eve still have sinned if she had not eaten the fruit out of desire to keep her figure? The answer is: Yes). We have Abimelech as morally responsible, the subject of moral praise or blame. We have only one option as a live possibility for Abimelech (he was "kept from" the other), thus not allowing alternative possibilities to become geneuine. The "keeping" that God does is best seen as his prior, eternal decree which determined all events which take place in the actual world (possible worlds are different ways God could have decreed the events). I find this the most satisfying reading.
The Mark of Cain
Jess wrote,
This comment is particularly relevant today in light of this article at the MRM blog today.
Jess said that her LDS faith,
This seems at odds, to me with statements like these:
I would hope, Jess, that you gave serious thought to these teachings. These aren't just opinions, these are your Scriptures and the teachings of your leaders.
Now, its true that Mormonism has tried to minimize these facts in recent years, particularly since 1978. It's also true that Evangelicals have serious problems with racism as well, as seen in the recent discussions around Dwight McKissic's statements about what the highest position occupied by an African American in the Nashville HQ of the SBC is currently (Head of Housekeeping). It's also true that men like John L. Dagg defended slavery.
As Amanda wrote in the comments at MRM:
By way of reply:
Slavery in that age emanated primarily from the Enlightenment not Evangelicalism. Amanda's history is skewed.
Evangelicals never said that blacks would not be equals in the coming kingdom. Indeed, they said they would be equals. Evangelicals, when they support racism, are acting against the Scriptures, not in accordance with them. That's a key point.
Some groups did segregate their congregations. For example, the Charleston Presbytery did that. Two churches would meet in one. The Moravians built separate meeting houses for blacks, both free and slave.
Baptists, however, met as one congregation under one roof, even while defending slavery in the South. True, the slaves sat in the gallery, but, unlike in other denominations, they made efforts to meet as one and not separately.
Today, one of the great tragedies in the South is the separation of Baptist congregations and Presbyterian congregations into "Black" and "White" churches. We all know this should be corrected, but folks on both sides are often reticent to address it. On MJK Sunday at a local AME Zion church here where I live, the pastor, to whom I was listening, said in the broadcast that it was a terrible thing that most the white folks had never been to East Winston (the primarily black neighborhood here), while the blacks left their homes to work in the white neighborhoods all the time. He's right.
However, the reason he's right is because the Bible says that there is no distinction between the races in either the Judgment or Salvation. We are one Church, one People, with One Spirit, One Lord, One Baptism. This is at variance with Mormon teaching.
Being a woman, of African descent, who happens to be Mormon, I have tried to keep the issues and the candidate’s qualifications in perspective. I have worked hard to to put affinities aside and focus on the issues. During this election, it does not seem people have studied out the issues and kept things in the proper perspective.
This comment is particularly relevant today in light of this article at the MRM blog today.
Jess said that her LDS faith,
has helped me realize that my Savior loves me, that I am of infinite worth and that he has a perfect plan in place... the plan of salvation.
This seems at odds, to me with statements like these:
“If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.” (Race Problems as they Affect the Church) (Mark Petersen, LDS Apostle, 1954)
“And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain [as evidenced by black skin] was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God.” (Journal of Discourses 22:304)
1 Nephi 12:23: 23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a adark, and loathsome, and a bfilthy people, full of cidleness and all manner of abominations.
Mormon 5:15: 15 And also that the seed of athis people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall bgo forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be cscattered, and shall dbecome a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
I would hope, Jess, that you gave serious thought to these teachings. These aren't just opinions, these are your Scriptures and the teachings of your leaders.
Now, its true that Mormonism has tried to minimize these facts in recent years, particularly since 1978. It's also true that Evangelicals have serious problems with racism as well, as seen in the recent discussions around Dwight McKissic's statements about what the highest position occupied by an African American in the Nashville HQ of the SBC is currently (Head of Housekeeping). It's also true that men like John L. Dagg defended slavery.
As Amanda wrote in the comments at MRM:
Actually, history has proven the evangelical tradition to be the racist tradition - in fact- Evangelicals throughout early American history used the bible to justify enslaving other human beings. So if we’re going to discuss racism…let’s not throw stones in your proverbial glass houses. This fact in history is only illuminated more when one visits the south even to this day. Many evangelicals that I have met are still very racist- in my husbands family- and they use the bible to justify their beliefs, beliefs they were taught at church. I have never encountered a teaching or a trend in my LDS upbringing that was even remotely racist.
By way of reply:
Slavery in that age emanated primarily from the Enlightenment not Evangelicalism. Amanda's history is skewed.
Evangelicals never said that blacks would not be equals in the coming kingdom. Indeed, they said they would be equals. Evangelicals, when they support racism, are acting against the Scriptures, not in accordance with them. That's a key point.
Some groups did segregate their congregations. For example, the Charleston Presbytery did that. Two churches would meet in one. The Moravians built separate meeting houses for blacks, both free and slave.
Baptists, however, met as one congregation under one roof, even while defending slavery in the South. True, the slaves sat in the gallery, but, unlike in other denominations, they made efforts to meet as one and not separately.
Today, one of the great tragedies in the South is the separation of Baptist congregations and Presbyterian congregations into "Black" and "White" churches. We all know this should be corrected, but folks on both sides are often reticent to address it. On MJK Sunday at a local AME Zion church here where I live, the pastor, to whom I was listening, said in the broadcast that it was a terrible thing that most the white folks had never been to East Winston (the primarily black neighborhood here), while the blacks left their homes to work in the white neighborhoods all the time. He's right.
However, the reason he's right is because the Bible says that there is no distinction between the races in either the Judgment or Salvation. We are one Church, one People, with One Spirit, One Lord, One Baptism. This is at variance with Mormon teaching.
When it Comes to NT Church Life: Form Follows Function
This past Saturday, I attended an all-day workshop appropriately titled "Wineskin Weekend" sponsored by the New Testament Reformation Fellowship (hereafter NTRF).I have appreciated much of what NTRF has had to say and have gleaned much profitable and helpful material from them over the years, especially when it has come to understanding the first-century practice of the Lord's Supper and the structure and function of the New Testament Church.
When I first encountered their website several years ago and read their multi-authored book Ekklesia, they pointed out that Paul commanded that we must not only heed what is written by letter but must also obey apostolic tradition, which they believe includes having the weekly church meeting in homes (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). My thinking is that if it is true that churches must meet in homes because this is part of what is commanded in apostolic tradition, then those churches that meet in any other venue than a home are breaking apostolic tradition and therefore are breaking what God commanded through Paul. Hence, my position is that if meeting as a house church necessarily equals part of apostolic tradition, and keeping apostolic tradition is a command of God, then it would logically follow that those churches that do not meet in homes are in sin. [Updated 4-9-08: The preceding paragraph was modified on 4-9-08 to show a distinction between what I believe logically follows if meeting as a house church is a necessary part of apostolic tradition versus what NTRF believes. This was done at the request of my dear friend Steve Atkerson, editor of Ekklesia and president of NTRF. Out of respect for my brothers in Christ at NTRF, it is very important to point out that they do not believe that churches that meet in some place other than a home are in sin.]
Sadly, when folks think that they've got some nugget of divine truth that the church has missed for nearly 2,000 years they often end up becoming the very thing they've attempted to avoid, namely, factious and schismatic people who portray the same attitude that God condemned in 1 Corinthians 1:10, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, I of Christ", which usually translates to, "I am of Calvin, I am of Luther, I am of Wesley, I am of the House-Church movement, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum." Of course, I certainly have no problem meeting in a home, but meeting in a home for the sake of meeting in a home misses the point and I think some of my house church brethren have missed the forest for the trees. I'm glad to hear that NTRF has backed off on this type of thinking, at least in their verbal presentations. Hopefully in the future, they'll demonstrate this in writing as well so as to provide further clarification about their position. I think Mike Adams' article linked above would be a great place to start.
Although NTRF representatives clearly stated several times during their presentations that they didn't believe that meeting in a home is necessarily a part of apostolic tradition, they did emphasize that they still prefer meeting in a home to other places because it is a form of meeting place that adequately suits what they believe to be the proper function of the NT church.
Meeting in a home is not the issue per se, because you can still have what you believe to be one of the best looking "wineskins" (church form and structure) but if the "wine" (The Spirit-filled body of Christ) isn't there and all you've focused on is the minutiae of the form (the structure of the church) rather than the weighter matters of the function of the church body itself (i.e., the propagation of the gospel and the carrying out the 58 one-anothers of the NT), then you may have traded in the wine for the empty wineskins. In other words, you'll have all form but no function. Since the study of the structure and function of the church is one of my personal interests (ecclesiology) I have thought long and hard about the form and function of the church. My studied opinion is that when we overly focus on the form of the church, we have put the cart before the horse, which then often causes us to miss the really important thing, the function: namely, the magnification of Jesus' glory in the propagation of the gospel (1 Cor. 10:31) and the mutual ministry that is to take place amongst the people of God (Eph. 4:11-12). When the NT church functions in the way originally intended, a form that is conducive to maintaining its proper function will naturally follow, whether that form takes place in a living room, a rented room, a conference room, a building, or an igloo.
It is of utmost importance to remember that the glory of Christ and the function of the church in fulfilling Christ's mission in the world is what is really important. The form of the church is indeed important, but it is only secondary to the function of the church. Again, when the function is clearly delineated, the form will necessarily follow, albeit with slightly different nuances. I close with these precious words at the end of our newly revised Membership Covenant, which is a compilation of the 58 "one-anothers" of the NT. By God's grace, this will serve to remind us of our necessary function as the called out bride of Christ:
In sum, we promise to honor one another, be members of one another, live in harmony with one another, build one another up, be like-minded towards one another, accept one another, care for one another, serve one another, bear one another's burdens, be kind to one another, forgive one another, abound in love towards one another, comfort one another, encourage one another, stir one another up to love and good deeds, confess our sins to one another, be hospitable to one another, greet one another, fellowship with one another, submit to one another while not passing judgment on one another, not provoking one another, not envying one another, not hating one another, not slandering one another, and not bearing grudges against one another.
We do all this because Christ has loved us in each of these ways and this frees our hearts to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34; 8:32).
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Yearning For Acceptance
This article in today's newspapers is a real jewel. I encourage you all to read it. It's an AP article, so it's in wide circulation.
A few highlights...
Which sort of proves what we've been saying all along.
Of course, Utah carried Romney. Is it bigotry to vote against somebody because he's a Mormon but not bigotry to vote for a man because he is a Mormon? Of course, the reason many of us did not support Romney is because we put the gospel before our politics. That's my first priority. The other reason is because Romney tried, like many Mormons, to pawn himself off as another sort of Christian. That's a lie. I 've said it before, I'll say it again. I have no problem with a Mormon running for office as long as he doesn't try to pawn himself off as a Christian. Be honest. I'm tired of dishonest politicians. The real irony here is that even Bill Mohr, who I can't stand, realized this. He, on national television called Mormons "shapeshifters." He knows Mormons aren't Christians, and Mohr is no friend of Christianity. He even made the same connection many of us Evangelicals made. Romney is Odo. He'll turn into whatever he must in order to win an election.
A few highlights...
Some Evangelicals feared that a Mormon in the White House would draw more converts to his faith.Maybe because Religion News Service slipped up and posted a quote by an LDS representative a few months ago who was asked a question about this and the reply was that they would, indeed, use a Romney candidacy and presidency as a tool for their evangelism.
"It is prejudice," said Richard Bushman, an emeritus professor at Columbia University, who is a leading historian and devout Mormon. "Underlying all these questions is that these beliefs are basically crazy so you've got to explain them to us."Well, if you're wearing holy underwear, yes you do. Yes, you also need to be clear about your polytheism.
Which confirms what many of us stated publicly, that there was a PR campaign going on behind the scenes, and it was designed to legitimize the Mormon faith by portraying it as just another sort of Christian denomination.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anticipated some of the backlash and tried to get ahead of it. Well before the former Massachusetts governor officially announced his candidacy, Mormon officials started traveling the country, speaking with reporters and editorial writers about the LDS church and its political neutrality.
"I was surprised at the level of intensity and sometimes flat out animosity," said Lowell C. Brown, a Los Angeles attorney who is Mormon. "I had no idea. I'm in my 50s, I've been a Mormon all my life, I've lived in L.A. for 25 years, and it floored me."Welcome to the real world, where Christians still know enough about their cardinal doctrines to distinguish truth from error when Mormons come along. There may yet be hope the apostasy in the American church can be averted.
In just one example of the practices that set Mormons apart, LDS church founder Joseph Smith revised — and in his view corrected — parts of the Bible.
Which sort of proves what we've been saying all along.
According to Ensign Magazine, this is certainly something you believe. Perhaps the problem here is that Huckabee exposed the truth, that Mormons aren't just another sort of Christian. Remember, that's the Mormon line. It's false. Had Mormons not made that claim, we'd not be having this conversation. They have only themselves to blame.
Mormons were especially outraged when GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist pastor, asked whether Mormons consider Jesus and the devil brothers. Latter-day Saints say Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
"If you're making a decision about whether or not to vote for someone because of their religion, you're flirting with bigotry," said Brown. He monitored the commentary on his blog Article VI, named for the constitutional provision barring any religious test for public office.
Of course, Utah carried Romney. Is it bigotry to vote against somebody because he's a Mormon but not bigotry to vote for a man because he is a Mormon? Of course, the reason many of us did not support Romney is because we put the gospel before our politics. That's my first priority. The other reason is because Romney tried, like many Mormons, to pawn himself off as another sort of Christian. That's a lie. I 've said it before, I'll say it again. I have no problem with a Mormon running for office as long as he doesn't try to pawn himself off as a Christian. Be honest. I'm tired of dishonest politicians. The real irony here is that even Bill Mohr, who I can't stand, realized this. He, on national television called Mormons "shapeshifters." He knows Mormons aren't Christians, and Mohr is no friend of Christianity. He even made the same connection many of us Evangelicals made. Romney is Odo. He'll turn into whatever he must in order to win an election.
"What's going on when his son runs and all of a sudden there's this overt hostility that came out, which did not come out toward his father," said Mouw, who is part of a group of evangelical and Mormon scholars who meet to discuss their theological disagreements. "I'm kind of ashamed of the way that a lot of traditional Christians have handled this."I guess it still hasn't hit Dr. Mouw that many of us are ashamed of the way he has handled Mormonism himself.
Mormon leaders posted videos on YouTube explaining their faith. A church elder, recently speaking to Mormon college students, urged young people to post about the Latter-day Saints on blogs — a major move for a denomination with a history of quietly answering its outside critics.Yes, we've seen the cut and pastes on this blog. I hope he reads this article in his newspaper, and Dr. White decides to post the occasional interaction with some of this material on You Tube.
After Romney's Dec. 6 speech in Texas defending his faith, a Mormon leader went on al-Jazeera television, the Quatar-based network, to discuss the church.This one had me in stitches laughing. Talk about stupidity! Muslims have a hard enough time wrapping their minds around the concept of the Trinity, and they find it an abominable idea that Christians affirm that God has a Son, because they infer from this that Jesus is precisely what Mormons say He is, the literal son of God. That's one of their major problems with Christianity, and one we have to constantly explain and reexplain to them and correct. Now, can't you just imagine what sort of impression they would have if the leader of the free world was a man who not only believed Jesus is the literal son of God, but God has a flesh and bone body and that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers? Do we really need to give the Muslim extremists another reason to destroy America?
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Reppert on hell
Victor Reppert has been debating the problem of evil. He makes a number of useful points along the way. But a few comments caught my eye:
“I'm not even assuming the doctrine of everlasting punishment here. That's not entailed by theism.”
i) One doesn’t have to get drawn into a debate over eternal punishment to debate the problem of evil, and this can be a diversionary tactic, so, to that extent, I agree with him.
ii) It’s also true that eternal punishment is not entailed by theism. It’s a contingent truth, related to other contingent truths. In a sinless world, there would be no need for hell.
But by the same token, one could also say that theism doesn’t entail a divine incarnation, piacular sacrifice, or resurrection of the Messiah. These are also contingent truths.
But even though *theism* does not entail these events, *Christian* theism most certainly does. So I’m unclear on how far Reppert takes his taking his disclaimer. Where does he draw the line, and why?
“I can imagine all sorts of things that would refute theism. If it were discovered that someone were in hell forever simply because of a divine fiat when that person could have been just as easily saved would do it for me.”
i) That’s an odd statement. How would this example refute theism? Doesn’t his example assume theism?
If God didn’t exist, then there would be no hell—and even if there were a hell, one wouldn’t find someone in by divine fiat. Conversely, if someone is there due to a divine fiat, then God must exist.
So what this amounts to, at most is that Reppert would fear rather than revere such a God—and not that such a God would be nonexistent.
ii) How would the fact that God could save Attila the Hun, but damns him instead, refute theism? Why is God under some obligation to forgive Attila the Hun? Do the victims of Attila the Hun share Reppert’s moral intuitions?
“I'm not even assuming the doctrine of everlasting punishment here. That's not entailed by theism.”
i) One doesn’t have to get drawn into a debate over eternal punishment to debate the problem of evil, and this can be a diversionary tactic, so, to that extent, I agree with him.
ii) It’s also true that eternal punishment is not entailed by theism. It’s a contingent truth, related to other contingent truths. In a sinless world, there would be no need for hell.
But by the same token, one could also say that theism doesn’t entail a divine incarnation, piacular sacrifice, or resurrection of the Messiah. These are also contingent truths.
But even though *theism* does not entail these events, *Christian* theism most certainly does. So I’m unclear on how far Reppert takes his taking his disclaimer. Where does he draw the line, and why?
“I can imagine all sorts of things that would refute theism. If it were discovered that someone were in hell forever simply because of a divine fiat when that person could have been just as easily saved would do it for me.”
i) That’s an odd statement. How would this example refute theism? Doesn’t his example assume theism?
If God didn’t exist, then there would be no hell—and even if there were a hell, one wouldn’t find someone in by divine fiat. Conversely, if someone is there due to a divine fiat, then God must exist.
So what this amounts to, at most is that Reppert would fear rather than revere such a God—and not that such a God would be nonexistent.
ii) How would the fact that God could save Attila the Hun, but damns him instead, refute theism? Why is God under some obligation to forgive Attila the Hun? Do the victims of Attila the Hun share Reppert’s moral intuitions?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Two Testaments, One Story
Christianity Today has an interview with G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson on their recent publication, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
Good questions in search of bad answers
High-churchmen typically claim that an authoritarian church confers an epistemic advantage over the Protestant rule of faith. But does it?
1. Are we talking about a hypothetically advantageous situation, or a live option? Hypothetically speaking, it would be advantageous if all Christians were divinely. Indeed, Pentecostals think that’s a live option. But converts to the high-church tradition don’t think that Pentecostalism is a live option. Indeed, they regard Montanism—the ancient counterpart to Pentecostalism—as a heresy.
2. As far as the high-church tradition is concerned, most prospective converts either opt for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Even this is rather arbitrary. Why not Oriental Orthodoxy?
3. As a practical matter, its not as if either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church has listed a 1-800-ANSWERS number where you can receive specific, timely, divine guidance in life. Neither church operates a hotline where you can receive God’s answer to such basic, personal questions as:
“Should I marry Betty or Debbie?”
“Which college should I go to?”
“What should my college major be?”
“What school should I send my kids to?”
“Where should I live?”
“How many kids should I have?”
“How long will I live, so that I can plan for the future?”
“Will I ever be diagnosed with a degenerative illness, and—if so—at what age?”
“Which form of cancer therapy should I undergo?”
“Should I put my dad in a nursing home?”
“Which stocks and bonds should I invest in?”
“What should I do in a ticking timebomb situation?”
“If my wife goes shopping this afternoon, will she be killed by a drunk driver, leaving me widowed with four kids to raise on my own?”
“Should I quit my lucrative, full-time job, take a part-time job, go to seminary, and have my wife work outside the home?”
“What can I do to keep my son from getting hooked on drugs?”
“Which candidate should I vote for?”
“I’m on a jury. Should I vote to convict or acquit the defendant?”
You can add your own queries to the questionnaire. Point being: there are ever so many morally freighted, life-changing questions for which the high-church tradition doesn’t even pretend to offer an answer.
4. There’s a tradeoff between Catholicism and Orthodox. And each tradition has its own problems:
i) Catholicism lays claim to a living teaching office in a way that Orthodoxy does not. Orthodoxy is more decentralized, tradition-bound, and backward-looking.
So, the Catholic magisterium would be closer to what some converts are looking for in terms of topical, time-sensitive answers, if they credit its grandiose claims, and ignore what I said under (3).
But this, in turn, creates a tension between the past and the present. It’s very difficult to honestly reconcile past magisterial teaching with modern magisterial teaching. So the very contemporeity of the Magisterium generates internal conflicts between modernity and antiquity.
ii) By contrast, Orthodoxy has undergone less internal development. It’s more rooted in the past. But that, in turn, means that, by definition, it doesn’t have traditional, real-time answers to modern questions. Tradition is bound to be silent on questions peculiar to modernity.
And, ironically, this leaves Orthodoxy wide open to modernism in all those situations where it doesn’t have a set of pat answers from the past. So we see that Orthodoxy is susceptible to evolutionary biology and German Bible criticism.
5. Some Evangelicals who are tempted to cross the Tiber or the Bosporus are asking good questions. I respect their questions. There are bright young men who are posing intelligent, worthwhile questions. And sometimes they don’t get good answers from the Evangelicals they happen to read or question.
What I find, however, is that those who do convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism stop asking the same questions. They don’t hold Rome or Constantinople to the same standard as they held Geneva to.
They don’t keep pressing the same tenacious questions, or demand the same rigorous answers, of their adopted, high-church tradition. They are relentless on Geneva, but easygoing on Rome or Constantinople.
Where Geneva is concerned, a facile, but fallacious answer won’t do. They can see right through that. That leaves them dissatisfied.
Mind you, the answers you get are only as good as the individuals you ask. Likewise, the answers you get are only as good as the questions you ask.
But in the end, they settle for easy answers. The past of least resistance.
They settle for a shortcut. An ecclesiastical shortcut.
And they stop asking themselves whether the ecclesiastical shortcut is does the job. Indeed, they change the job description.
They also stop asking themselves whether there is any compelling evidence for the ecclesiastical shortcut—not to mention evidence to the contrary. Convenience becomes the only criterion.
So they collapse halfway through the journey. They start out on their own two feet when they examine the Protestant rule of faith.
But then they thumb a ride on the Catholic or Orthodox bandwagon for the rest of the journey, and they hop on that vehicle before they even establish if it’s roadworthy or headed in the right direction. Instead, they simply get tired of walking and hitch a ride on whatever they see coming down the road.
Tough questions for Geneva. Go hard on Geneva. Don’t let up for a minute. Evasive answers won’t do.
Softball questions for Rome or Constantinople. Gloss over all of the historical gaps and forgeries and discontinuities and infighting.
6. Their primary question is predicated on a false expectation. The expectation of exhaustive guidance.
But consider the OT law. This was a divinely inspired code of conduct for personal and social ethics.
What did it amount to? A general set of moral norms (the Decalogue) along with a set of case-laws. The case-laws illustrated the way in which the moral norms were to be applied in some representative situations.
And that’s it, folks. It was left to the Jews to infer the rest. That’s where their duties to God and man began and ended.
It was the duty of OT Jews generally, and Jewish judges in particular, to extrapolate from general norms to specific applications—as well as extrapolate from case laws to analogous situations. And although the Decalogue and case-laws were inspired, their interpretation and application by Jewish judges was not. That’s why, in Second Temple Judaism, you had rival schools of thought (e.g. Hillel v. Shamai).
The high churchman invokes the appealing claim that an infallible revelation requires an infallible interpreter. Well, that equation has a catchy, symmetrical ring to it, but it's not the ring of truth. That’s not how God governed his people in Bible times. God’s word in tandem with God’s providence were sufficient to realize God’s purpose for his people.
And no high-church tradition even ventures to give every Christian instant, heaven-sent answers to our daily decisions in life—many of which are weighty and momentous. Not even close. By the same token, no high-church tradition presumes to offer God’s own interpretation of every verse in Scripture. Not even close.
1. Are we talking about a hypothetically advantageous situation, or a live option? Hypothetically speaking, it would be advantageous if all Christians were divinely. Indeed, Pentecostals think that’s a live option. But converts to the high-church tradition don’t think that Pentecostalism is a live option. Indeed, they regard Montanism—the ancient counterpart to Pentecostalism—as a heresy.
2. As far as the high-church tradition is concerned, most prospective converts either opt for Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Even this is rather arbitrary. Why not Oriental Orthodoxy?
3. As a practical matter, its not as if either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church has listed a 1-800-ANSWERS number where you can receive specific, timely, divine guidance in life. Neither church operates a hotline where you can receive God’s answer to such basic, personal questions as:
“Should I marry Betty or Debbie?”
“Which college should I go to?”
“What should my college major be?”
“What school should I send my kids to?”
“Where should I live?”
“How many kids should I have?”
“How long will I live, so that I can plan for the future?”
“Will I ever be diagnosed with a degenerative illness, and—if so—at what age?”
“Which form of cancer therapy should I undergo?”
“Should I put my dad in a nursing home?”
“Which stocks and bonds should I invest in?”
“What should I do in a ticking timebomb situation?”
“If my wife goes shopping this afternoon, will she be killed by a drunk driver, leaving me widowed with four kids to raise on my own?”
“Should I quit my lucrative, full-time job, take a part-time job, go to seminary, and have my wife work outside the home?”
“What can I do to keep my son from getting hooked on drugs?”
“Which candidate should I vote for?”
“I’m on a jury. Should I vote to convict or acquit the defendant?”
You can add your own queries to the questionnaire. Point being: there are ever so many morally freighted, life-changing questions for which the high-church tradition doesn’t even pretend to offer an answer.
4. There’s a tradeoff between Catholicism and Orthodox. And each tradition has its own problems:
i) Catholicism lays claim to a living teaching office in a way that Orthodoxy does not. Orthodoxy is more decentralized, tradition-bound, and backward-looking.
So, the Catholic magisterium would be closer to what some converts are looking for in terms of topical, time-sensitive answers, if they credit its grandiose claims, and ignore what I said under (3).
But this, in turn, creates a tension between the past and the present. It’s very difficult to honestly reconcile past magisterial teaching with modern magisterial teaching. So the very contemporeity of the Magisterium generates internal conflicts between modernity and antiquity.
ii) By contrast, Orthodoxy has undergone less internal development. It’s more rooted in the past. But that, in turn, means that, by definition, it doesn’t have traditional, real-time answers to modern questions. Tradition is bound to be silent on questions peculiar to modernity.
And, ironically, this leaves Orthodoxy wide open to modernism in all those situations where it doesn’t have a set of pat answers from the past. So we see that Orthodoxy is susceptible to evolutionary biology and German Bible criticism.
5. Some Evangelicals who are tempted to cross the Tiber or the Bosporus are asking good questions. I respect their questions. There are bright young men who are posing intelligent, worthwhile questions. And sometimes they don’t get good answers from the Evangelicals they happen to read or question.
What I find, however, is that those who do convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism stop asking the same questions. They don’t hold Rome or Constantinople to the same standard as they held Geneva to.
They don’t keep pressing the same tenacious questions, or demand the same rigorous answers, of their adopted, high-church tradition. They are relentless on Geneva, but easygoing on Rome or Constantinople.
Where Geneva is concerned, a facile, but fallacious answer won’t do. They can see right through that. That leaves them dissatisfied.
Mind you, the answers you get are only as good as the individuals you ask. Likewise, the answers you get are only as good as the questions you ask.
But in the end, they settle for easy answers. The past of least resistance.
They settle for a shortcut. An ecclesiastical shortcut.
And they stop asking themselves whether the ecclesiastical shortcut is does the job. Indeed, they change the job description.
They also stop asking themselves whether there is any compelling evidence for the ecclesiastical shortcut—not to mention evidence to the contrary. Convenience becomes the only criterion.
So they collapse halfway through the journey. They start out on their own two feet when they examine the Protestant rule of faith.
But then they thumb a ride on the Catholic or Orthodox bandwagon for the rest of the journey, and they hop on that vehicle before they even establish if it’s roadworthy or headed in the right direction. Instead, they simply get tired of walking and hitch a ride on whatever they see coming down the road.
Tough questions for Geneva. Go hard on Geneva. Don’t let up for a minute. Evasive answers won’t do.
Softball questions for Rome or Constantinople. Gloss over all of the historical gaps and forgeries and discontinuities and infighting.
6. Their primary question is predicated on a false expectation. The expectation of exhaustive guidance.
But consider the OT law. This was a divinely inspired code of conduct for personal and social ethics.
What did it amount to? A general set of moral norms (the Decalogue) along with a set of case-laws. The case-laws illustrated the way in which the moral norms were to be applied in some representative situations.
And that’s it, folks. It was left to the Jews to infer the rest. That’s where their duties to God and man began and ended.
It was the duty of OT Jews generally, and Jewish judges in particular, to extrapolate from general norms to specific applications—as well as extrapolate from case laws to analogous situations. And although the Decalogue and case-laws were inspired, their interpretation and application by Jewish judges was not. That’s why, in Second Temple Judaism, you had rival schools of thought (e.g. Hillel v. Shamai).
The high churchman invokes the appealing claim that an infallible revelation requires an infallible interpreter. Well, that equation has a catchy, symmetrical ring to it, but it's not the ring of truth. That’s not how God governed his people in Bible times. God’s word in tandem with God’s providence were sufficient to realize God’s purpose for his people.
And no high-church tradition even ventures to give every Christian instant, heaven-sent answers to our daily decisions in life—many of which are weighty and momentous. Not even close. By the same token, no high-church tradition presumes to offer God’s own interpretation of every verse in Scripture. Not even close.
Praise & Blame
Genesis 20
Abraham and Abimelech
1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife." 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, "Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
Usually free will theorists contend that only relevantly free agents, free in the libertarian way, are proper subjects of ascriptions of praise and blame. That moral praise and blame presuppose the relevant type of control over your actions that only a libertarian account can afford. But in Genesis 20 not only do with have the passage implying that Abimelech made a choice, we have him saying that he cannot be blamed for his actions. But also contained is the presupposition that it was God who kept Abimelech from sinning. That God could have allowed him to sin, and then blamed him. Abimelech’s not sinning was not in his control in the libertarian sense. He had a possible alternative closed off. Whether Abimelech sinned or not, it was up to what God allowed.
Assume that there are two doors in front of you, doors 1 and 2. Now, assume that in front of door 2 is an invisible force field. Thus you would be “kept from” entering door 2. 2 is not a live option for you in the sense that you can instantiate that choice. Say you enter door 1. Would we say that this person was not free? If so, then was Abimelech not free? Then why the comment of his integrity? That he shouldn’t be blamed? And, could it not just as easily be that Abimelech sinned while God “kept him” from not sinning? And, if so, the passage intimates that he would have been blamed.
So, either Abimelech was not free in this passage (which is not at all clear from the text, and seems to presuppose that he was), or he could have been blamed for doing something he didn’t have the ability to actually refrain from doing (assuming that if God "keeps you" from Xing, you cannot nevertheless X by overriding his power). He would have been “kept from” entering that first door. And, just sticking with the passage, to say, “I cannot be blamed for I am morally in the clear. The actions I chose to do are not worthy of ascriptions of blame,” seems to imply freedom not robotics (as the dichotomy is often posed). But he didn’t have an alternative possibility. He was “kept from” instantiating one of them.
Thus we see that (i) libertarian freedom is not required for blame (given what easily could have transpired), (ii) Abimelech made choices and was free but was “kept” from being able to instantiate an alternative possibility, and (iii) to say that Abimelech was not free here goes against the presuppositions of the text. It seems to me that Genesis 20 militates against libertarian freedom as long as the conjunction that the Bible is authoritative on that which it speaks is also presupposed. In other words, if one accepts the orthodox assumption that if Scripture says X, and your position says ~X, then ~~X.
De Trinitate
"But whatever hesitations there may have been generations ago, 'person' is now almost universally accepted as the word of choice to describe the quality of being in common to all three members of the Trinity and it seems unlikely that it will be dislodged from its exalted position anytime soon. Concomitant with this has been the apparent eclipse of the basically philosophical concept of 'substance.' This has been a long time coming, and it may not be definitive, but for the moment at least, it seems possible to say that the notion that God is a 'substance' somehow distinct from his three persons has been rejected, mainly on the grounds that the unity of God cannot be depersonalized, nor can there be a fourth 'thing' in him that can be conceptualized as such."
---Gerald Bray, The Trinity: Where Do We Go From Here?, in _Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology_, IVP, 2006, p.23
Also see this post by James Anderson, as well as some corroboration of some of Anderson's comments by Bray (ibid, pp. 30-31).
Wheaton Administrators Come To Their Senses
HT: Justin Taylor
See CT's blog.
Commentary:
Todd Littleton over at SBC Outpost has defended Mike Edens' statement on this and taken Dr. Mohler to task for his statement.
I remain in agreement with Dr. Mohler and Dr. Piper. That said, I agree with this statement by President Littfin @ Wheaton:
I would add:
1. We can do this without acting as if Muslims have done nothing for which they should repent as well. That was one of my major problems with the original statement. It acts as if forgiveness is unconditional. No, it isn't. Forgiveness in Scripture is conditioned on repentance, and that includes, in human relationships at least a profession of repentance by the offending party when confronted.
2. We can do this without pretending that Allah and Yahweh are the same God. This is, by the way, equally true with the way we deal with Mormons. The gods of Islam and Mormonism are not the God of Judaism and Christianity - period. Dr. Edens said,
Well, doesn't going along with the notion that Allah and Yahweh are identical further such misunderstanding? I find Dr. Edens' position intellectually confused. To do that panders to the self-interest of the sinner. We wouldn't tell an adulterer that his adultery was fine and dandy as if God had nothing to say about it would we? That too panders to the sinner's self-interest, just as surely as saying "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life" without qualifying that statement's meaning does. Sure, He loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life...conditioned on your repentance from sin and faith in Christ. I hardly think that your certain damnation otherwise constitutes a "wonderful plan" in the sense that statement from "The 4 Spiritual Laws" is intended to convey.
3. We can do this without prostrating ourselves before Allah and his followers the way Israel did before Egypt and Ra through Pharaoh leading up to the Exile. We should not beg for Allah's forgiveness, for Allah is a false god of the Muslims vain imaginings.
See CT's blog.
Commentary:
Todd Littleton over at SBC Outpost has defended Mike Edens' statement on this and taken Dr. Mohler to task for his statement.
I remain in agreement with Dr. Mohler and Dr. Piper. That said, I agree with this statement by President Littfin @ Wheaton:
As to the related question this incident raises of evangelism and inter-faith dialogue, surely the best answer is a balanced one. If we truly believe the Gospel and love our neighbor, evangelism will lie near the core of our relationships without occupying the whole of it. Our friendships with non-Christians transcend evangelism in the sense that those friendships continue even when Christ is not received. In other words, our friendship is not contingent upon that reception. But nor can any genuine friendship with non-Christians exclude an evangelistic concern. Our relationship may be in pre-evangelistic phase, or evangelistic phase, or a post-evangelistic phase, but a desire to see our friend find Christ must never disappear from the frame. If our love is genuine, we will always retain sight of our friend’s deepest need and stand ready to serve it if the opportunity arises.
I would add:
1. We can do this without acting as if Muslims have done nothing for which they should repent as well. That was one of my major problems with the original statement. It acts as if forgiveness is unconditional. No, it isn't. Forgiveness in Scripture is conditioned on repentance, and that includes, in human relationships at least a profession of repentance by the offending party when confronted.
2. We can do this without pretending that Allah and Yahweh are the same God. This is, by the way, equally true with the way we deal with Mormons. The gods of Islam and Mormonism are not the God of Judaism and Christianity - period. Dr. Edens said,
"Secondly, Muslims misunderstand the Bible, Christ and Christianity. We who are redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ are to bear witness to Him and the Bible. The best hope for clarification of the confusing theology in Islam is through witness shared by Bible-believing Christians. For me, such witness is best delivered in close conversation. I do that best with Muslims I know and see here in New Orleans but I do that in community with followers of Christ all around the world. From my experience where Islam is dominant, our witness with individuals is hurt when Christian leaders refuse such offered conversations."
Well, doesn't going along with the notion that Allah and Yahweh are identical further such misunderstanding? I find Dr. Edens' position intellectually confused. To do that panders to the self-interest of the sinner. We wouldn't tell an adulterer that his adultery was fine and dandy as if God had nothing to say about it would we? That too panders to the sinner's self-interest, just as surely as saying "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life" without qualifying that statement's meaning does. Sure, He loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life...conditioned on your repentance from sin and faith in Christ. I hardly think that your certain damnation otherwise constitutes a "wonderful plan" in the sense that statement from "The 4 Spiritual Laws" is intended to convey.
3. We can do this without prostrating ourselves before Allah and his followers the way Israel did before Egypt and Ra through Pharaoh leading up to the Exile. We should not beg for Allah's forgiveness, for Allah is a false god of the Muslims vain imaginings.
What about illegals?
A friend recently asked me a couple of questions about illegal immigration. For what it's worth, here's a slightly edited version of my original answer.
****************************************************************************
That's a complicated question to answer. With respect to your first question:
1. I don’t object to illegal aliens simply because they’re here illegally. One of the first questions we need to ask ourselves is not whether something is illegal, but whether it ought to be illegal. If we have bad laws, we need to change the law.
2. Illegals are not all of a kind, so I’m going to mention certain types of illegals which I object to:
i) I object to illegals who come here simply to leech off the welfare state. I don’t approve of the welfare state to begin with. I don’t approve of income redistribution generally. Since I don’t approve of the welfare state for American citizens, I don’t approve of extending the welfare state to illegals. That merely worsens a bad situation.
Our social obligations are concentric. My primary obligation is to support my own family.
Now, there are situations in which you and I benefit if we pool our resources. But that still involves a principle of reciprocity. I do something for your family if you do something in return.
One of the problems with the welfare state is that it tends to garnish responsible wage earners and transfer their income to subsidize the folks with an irresponsible lifestyle.
ii) Apropos (i), I object to illegals who come here for what they can get rather than what they can give back.
iii) I object to illegals who imagine, out of some arrogant sense of entitlement, that the host country should accommodate the customs which they brought with them from the country they left behind. For example, there’s no reason our government should issue official forms in foreign language.
I have no problem with immigrants speaking their mother tongue. But the host government is under no obligation to speak their language. Same thing with bilingual education.
In general, I don’t object to immigrants who bring their culture with them. But that’s different than imposing foreign customs on the host country. Cultural change and exchange should be voluntary rather than coercive.
BTW, I’m not just talking about, say, illegal Mexican immigrants. Legal Muslim immigrants are just as bad or worse in this respect.
iv) Not only is this arrogant, but it’s often hypocritical. If the country they left behind was so great, why did they leave it behind? If they’re coming to America for a better life, then why are they trying to turn America into a carbon copy of the culture which they came to America to escape?
v) Apropos (iv), I object to illegals who come to America to escape a dysfunctional culture, only to import their dysfunctional social mores into American society. An example would be Mexican street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, and other suchlike.
vi) Apropos (v), I do think that foreign nationals have some responsibility for reforming their own dysfunctional countries. America cannot absorb all the poor people of the world.
Many poor countries have natural resources. Many poor countries have a rich cultural heritage. It should be possible to make those countries viable.
vii) Another problem with the S. border is that Mexico doesn’t extradite illegals who commit a capital offense here, then flee to Mexico.
viii) Illegal labor dries up blue-collar jobs for American citizens. It contributes to joblessness.
At the same time, many American businesses like to exploit all of that dirt-cheap, sweatshop labor right across the border.
ix) There is also a danger that reverse discrimination is fueling a white supremacist movement. Ron Paul’s campaign is tapping into some of that pent up rage and resentment.
The charge of “racism” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When legitimate social grievances no longer have a legitimate political outlet, that drives them into angry seditious fringe groups.
x) Incidentally, the S. border gets a lot more attention than the N. border because we don’t have Canadians pouring into our country.
However, the Canadian border does pose a threat to our national security—as well as Canada’s national security. Because Canada has such a lenient policy on immigrants, refugees, and citizens of the UK, it’s a haven for jihadis:
http://www.adl.org/Terror/tu/tu_0401_canada.asp
That’s an oft- neglected issue in the controversy over porous borders.
In addition, the Eurabian bureaucrats in Canada are now treating any criticism of the jihadis a hate-crime:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/861/26/
I’m sorry that so many Canadian Christians are at the mercy of their own social engineers in the power elite.
With respect to your second question:
1. It isn’t inherently hypocritical to treat people we know differently than people we don’t. We treat friends better than strangers, and there’s a reason for that.
This doesn’t mean we should treat strangers badly, but there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about making an exception for a friend or acquaintance. Favoritism is an essential component of friendship. It’s part of the social glue which keeps the social fabric in one piece.
Of course, there are situations when this can be hypocritical. A paradigm-case would be bureaucrats who pass laws and prosecute offenders while they exempt themselves from the laws they enforce on everyone else.
2. There’s also a legal and moral distinction between reporting a crime and covering for someone.
i) As a rule, I’m not breaking the law if I don’t turn you in for breaking the law. Now, some localities have laws where, if you belong to a particular profession, you are legally obligated to report a particular crime. But, generally, civilians are not under a legal obligation to report a crime.
ii) And there’s not always a moral obligation to do so. A few years ago a convicted child molester was going to move back into a residential community. He had “served his time.” But before he moved in, one of the neighbors burned the house down.
Now, that’s not something I would do. And I don’t ordinarily approve of arson. And I don’t ordinarily approve of vigilantism. But if I knew who the torched the house, I wouldn’t report him to the authorities.
It situations like this, citizens take the law into their own hands because government officials are shirking their duties. They are failing to protect the populace.
Of course, there are many other situations in which I do have a moral obligation to report a crime. But there are times when it’s none of my business.
Take a stupid law like a smoking ban in a tavern. What do I care whether a customer is smoking in a bar?
My philosophy is: if you’re going to pass a stupid law, enforce it yourself. Don’t expect me to collaborate in your stupidity.
3. On the other hand, it’s one thing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes, but something else to facilitate a crime or actively subvert the legal system. Give him sanctuary. Falsify documents. Destroy evidence. Lie to authorities.
Mind you, there are other circumstances in which this is also permissible. Take the French Resistance. It was permissible for Frenchmen to lie to the Nazis, lie to the puppet regime of the Vichy government. Support an underground insurgency.
One can come up with many parallel examples.
4. Basically, I think that people should break the law at their own risk—as long as they’re not putting others at risk.
If you violate immigration laws, even if I don’t report you, don’t expect me to front for you. You’re on your own as far as the legal system is concerned. You came here at your own risk. You knew the risk. Don’t count on me to bail you out.
It’s like swimming when no lifeguard is on duty. Swim at your own risk. Don’t sue me because I didn’t pay to keep a lifeguard to be on duty around the clock, and someone drowns in his absence.
If you try to cross the Rio Grande, and you’re swept away, that’s a tragedy, but it’s not my fault.
5. There is also a difference between the few and the many. The social infrastructure can absorb a certain amount of criminality—but when it reaches a certain extent or intensity, then that’s intolerable.
It’s like the ER. No, we don’t want someone to bleed to death. When possible, we should be charitable. But if the ER is so overwhelmed by indigent patients that it has to close its doors, then everyone loses.
****************************************************************************
That's a complicated question to answer. With respect to your first question:
1. I don’t object to illegal aliens simply because they’re here illegally. One of the first questions we need to ask ourselves is not whether something is illegal, but whether it ought to be illegal. If we have bad laws, we need to change the law.
2. Illegals are not all of a kind, so I’m going to mention certain types of illegals which I object to:
i) I object to illegals who come here simply to leech off the welfare state. I don’t approve of the welfare state to begin with. I don’t approve of income redistribution generally. Since I don’t approve of the welfare state for American citizens, I don’t approve of extending the welfare state to illegals. That merely worsens a bad situation.
Our social obligations are concentric. My primary obligation is to support my own family.
Now, there are situations in which you and I benefit if we pool our resources. But that still involves a principle of reciprocity. I do something for your family if you do something in return.
One of the problems with the welfare state is that it tends to garnish responsible wage earners and transfer their income to subsidize the folks with an irresponsible lifestyle.
ii) Apropos (i), I object to illegals who come here for what they can get rather than what they can give back.
iii) I object to illegals who imagine, out of some arrogant sense of entitlement, that the host country should accommodate the customs which they brought with them from the country they left behind. For example, there’s no reason our government should issue official forms in foreign language.
I have no problem with immigrants speaking their mother tongue. But the host government is under no obligation to speak their language. Same thing with bilingual education.
In general, I don’t object to immigrants who bring their culture with them. But that’s different than imposing foreign customs on the host country. Cultural change and exchange should be voluntary rather than coercive.
BTW, I’m not just talking about, say, illegal Mexican immigrants. Legal Muslim immigrants are just as bad or worse in this respect.
iv) Not only is this arrogant, but it’s often hypocritical. If the country they left behind was so great, why did they leave it behind? If they’re coming to America for a better life, then why are they trying to turn America into a carbon copy of the culture which they came to America to escape?
v) Apropos (iv), I object to illegals who come to America to escape a dysfunctional culture, only to import their dysfunctional social mores into American society. An example would be Mexican street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, and other suchlike.
vi) Apropos (v), I do think that foreign nationals have some responsibility for reforming their own dysfunctional countries. America cannot absorb all the poor people of the world.
Many poor countries have natural resources. Many poor countries have a rich cultural heritage. It should be possible to make those countries viable.
vii) Another problem with the S. border is that Mexico doesn’t extradite illegals who commit a capital offense here, then flee to Mexico.
viii) Illegal labor dries up blue-collar jobs for American citizens. It contributes to joblessness.
At the same time, many American businesses like to exploit all of that dirt-cheap, sweatshop labor right across the border.
ix) There is also a danger that reverse discrimination is fueling a white supremacist movement. Ron Paul’s campaign is tapping into some of that pent up rage and resentment.
The charge of “racism” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When legitimate social grievances no longer have a legitimate political outlet, that drives them into angry seditious fringe groups.
x) Incidentally, the S. border gets a lot more attention than the N. border because we don’t have Canadians pouring into our country.
However, the Canadian border does pose a threat to our national security—as well as Canada’s national security. Because Canada has such a lenient policy on immigrants, refugees, and citizens of the UK, it’s a haven for jihadis:
http://www.adl.org/Terror/tu/tu_0401_canada.asp
That’s an oft- neglected issue in the controversy over porous borders.
In addition, the Eurabian bureaucrats in Canada are now treating any criticism of the jihadis a hate-crime:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/861/26/
I’m sorry that so many Canadian Christians are at the mercy of their own social engineers in the power elite.
With respect to your second question:
1. It isn’t inherently hypocritical to treat people we know differently than people we don’t. We treat friends better than strangers, and there’s a reason for that.
This doesn’t mean we should treat strangers badly, but there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about making an exception for a friend or acquaintance. Favoritism is an essential component of friendship. It’s part of the social glue which keeps the social fabric in one piece.
Of course, there are situations when this can be hypocritical. A paradigm-case would be bureaucrats who pass laws and prosecute offenders while they exempt themselves from the laws they enforce on everyone else.
2. There’s also a legal and moral distinction between reporting a crime and covering for someone.
i) As a rule, I’m not breaking the law if I don’t turn you in for breaking the law. Now, some localities have laws where, if you belong to a particular profession, you are legally obligated to report a particular crime. But, generally, civilians are not under a legal obligation to report a crime.
ii) And there’s not always a moral obligation to do so. A few years ago a convicted child molester was going to move back into a residential community. He had “served his time.” But before he moved in, one of the neighbors burned the house down.
Now, that’s not something I would do. And I don’t ordinarily approve of arson. And I don’t ordinarily approve of vigilantism. But if I knew who the torched the house, I wouldn’t report him to the authorities.
It situations like this, citizens take the law into their own hands because government officials are shirking their duties. They are failing to protect the populace.
Of course, there are many other situations in which I do have a moral obligation to report a crime. But there are times when it’s none of my business.
Take a stupid law like a smoking ban in a tavern. What do I care whether a customer is smoking in a bar?
My philosophy is: if you’re going to pass a stupid law, enforce it yourself. Don’t expect me to collaborate in your stupidity.
3. On the other hand, it’s one thing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes, but something else to facilitate a crime or actively subvert the legal system. Give him sanctuary. Falsify documents. Destroy evidence. Lie to authorities.
Mind you, there are other circumstances in which this is also permissible. Take the French Resistance. It was permissible for Frenchmen to lie to the Nazis, lie to the puppet regime of the Vichy government. Support an underground insurgency.
One can come up with many parallel examples.
4. Basically, I think that people should break the law at their own risk—as long as they’re not putting others at risk.
If you violate immigration laws, even if I don’t report you, don’t expect me to front for you. You’re on your own as far as the legal system is concerned. You came here at your own risk. You knew the risk. Don’t count on me to bail you out.
It’s like swimming when no lifeguard is on duty. Swim at your own risk. Don’t sue me because I didn’t pay to keep a lifeguard to be on duty around the clock, and someone drowns in his absence.
If you try to cross the Rio Grande, and you’re swept away, that’s a tragedy, but it’s not my fault.
5. There is also a difference between the few and the many. The social infrastructure can absorb a certain amount of criminality—but when it reaches a certain extent or intensity, then that’s intolerable.
It’s like the ER. No, we don’t want someone to bleed to death. When possible, we should be charitable. But if the ER is so overwhelmed by indigent patients that it has to close its doors, then everyone loses.
Few apologies for Islam
Three Arabs told an audience at the Air Force Academy on Wednesday they left a life of terrorism and sectarian hatred after converting to Christianity. (keep reading)
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Expelled
Last month, I was able to watch a screening of Ben Stein’s upcoming movie, Expelled (http://www.getexpelled.com/). Stein was there at the presentation too, so I got to sit through a little Q&A with him. At the time, all viewers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that precluded us from writing reviews about the movie. That restriction was lifted yesterday, however, so today I bring you my review of Expelled.
For those who know absolutely nothing about the film, Expelled is Stein’s look at Intelligent Design and the way that ID proponents are expelled from the "academy" via academic censorship. The basic goal of the film is to publicize the fact that there are professors who question Darwinistic dogma who are then censured for it, who cannot get tenure, who are fired from their jobs, etc. Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such.
Since I knew this was the motivation, I watched the film intentionally thinking of what Darwinists would say in response to it. Because of that, when I watched it I found the movie does have some weaknesses. The main drawback to it from the intellectual standpoint is that it relied on a heavy emotional link to Social Darwinism, especially manifest by Hitler’s Darwinism; thus the "intellectual" Darwinist will most certainly respond: "It's nothing but emotive propaganda with no substance" (which isn't true, but the emotive aspect was emphasized enough that it did sometimes feel that way even to this ID proponent).
By the way, I should also point out that I don't think it's bad in and of itself for the movie to play on the Social Darwinistic evils that have come about; atheists harp on the Crusades enough that they deserve this. And frankly most people are unaware of the links between Eugenics and Darwinism and Planned Parenthood, which are also mentioned in the film along with Hitler and the Communists.
Throughout the film is the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, and Stein ends the film by paralleling Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech. The attempt is to get people to know the wall exists so that others will be able to work at chipping it away. The rallying cry is: "We need academic freedom, and that includes the freedom to believe contra-Darwin about origins of life." I do believe the film captures this goal, and so it succeeds at what it attempts to do.
So to review it, it definitely would get a solid A in my book. And while the movie is only 97 minutes long in the form I saw, Stein told us the DVD is going to have tons more footage and extra features in it, including what will probably become one of the most famous Dawkins interviews, at least for the IDers.
In fact, that interview remains the most memorable portion of the film if, for no other reason, than the fact that I have read so much of Dawkins materials beforehand. Stein had Dawkins looking absolutely flummoxed. During Stein’s interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: "Couldn't it be 49% instead?" Dawkins responded with his typical: "No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half" etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were "more intellectually advanced than we are" (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all.
As a funny aside, one of the questions Stein was asked during our forum was: "Do you think you treated Dawkins fairly in the movie?" To which Stein responded (accurately, as those of you who have read Dawkins already know): "I think we treated him charitably. There were many hostile responses he gave that we edited out, where his response was basically, 'I'm Richard Dawkins and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm Richard Dawkins!'" It remains to be seen how much of the entire interview will be in the DVD version of the film.
Naturally, this film will not convince any Darwinist to look at ID...but then, no film could do that. It will hopefully be enough to pry open the door a bit for some so that others can come along with more detailed explanations in the future.
For those who know absolutely nothing about the film, Expelled is Stein’s look at Intelligent Design and the way that ID proponents are expelled from the "academy" via academic censorship. The basic goal of the film is to publicize the fact that there are professors who question Darwinistic dogma who are then censured for it, who cannot get tenure, who are fired from their jobs, etc. Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such.
Since I knew this was the motivation, I watched the film intentionally thinking of what Darwinists would say in response to it. Because of that, when I watched it I found the movie does have some weaknesses. The main drawback to it from the intellectual standpoint is that it relied on a heavy emotional link to Social Darwinism, especially manifest by Hitler’s Darwinism; thus the "intellectual" Darwinist will most certainly respond: "It's nothing but emotive propaganda with no substance" (which isn't true, but the emotive aspect was emphasized enough that it did sometimes feel that way even to this ID proponent).
By the way, I should also point out that I don't think it's bad in and of itself for the movie to play on the Social Darwinistic evils that have come about; atheists harp on the Crusades enough that they deserve this. And frankly most people are unaware of the links between Eugenics and Darwinism and Planned Parenthood, which are also mentioned in the film along with Hitler and the Communists.
Throughout the film is the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, and Stein ends the film by paralleling Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech. The attempt is to get people to know the wall exists so that others will be able to work at chipping it away. The rallying cry is: "We need academic freedom, and that includes the freedom to believe contra-Darwin about origins of life." I do believe the film captures this goal, and so it succeeds at what it attempts to do.
So to review it, it definitely would get a solid A in my book. And while the movie is only 97 minutes long in the form I saw, Stein told us the DVD is going to have tons more footage and extra features in it, including what will probably become one of the most famous Dawkins interviews, at least for the IDers.
In fact, that interview remains the most memorable portion of the film if, for no other reason, than the fact that I have read so much of Dawkins materials beforehand. Stein had Dawkins looking absolutely flummoxed. During Stein’s interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: "Couldn't it be 49% instead?" Dawkins responded with his typical: "No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half" etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were "more intellectually advanced than we are" (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all.
As a funny aside, one of the questions Stein was asked during our forum was: "Do you think you treated Dawkins fairly in the movie?" To which Stein responded (accurately, as those of you who have read Dawkins already know): "I think we treated him charitably. There were many hostile responses he gave that we edited out, where his response was basically, 'I'm Richard Dawkins and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm Richard Dawkins!'" It remains to be seen how much of the entire interview will be in the DVD version of the film.
Naturally, this film will not convince any Darwinist to look at ID...but then, no film could do that. It will hopefully be enough to pry open the door a bit for some so that others can come along with more detailed explanations in the future.
"The Wisdom of Solomon"
"Explain in your system the lengthy, clear prophecy of Christ's persecution by the Jews in Wisdom 2 in your inspiration theory, which all admit was written prior to His Advent."
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/02/debate-six-ques.html#more
Why don’t we begin by quoting some scholarly observations by the author of the standard modern commentary on this particular book of the OT apocrypha:
“Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.
“These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.
Now the book clearly intimates Solomonic authorship. But I don’t think one can seriously contend that Solomon wrote in Greek—especially the kind of Greek we encounter in Wisdom.
So that would make the work of forgery. My theory of inspiration does not extend to inspired forgeries. But Dyer may beg to differ.
“No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have place it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE,” ibid 20.
“There are further considerations, however, which point to the reign of Gaius ‘Caligula’ (37:41 CE) as the likeliest setting for Wisd,” ibid. 23.
1.But didn’t Dyer assure us that “all admit” it was written prior to the first advent of Christ?
Either he hasn’t consulted the standard commentary on Wisdom, where the commentator not only offers his own date for the work, but reviews the dating scheme of other scholars—dates which sometimes postdate birth and death of Christ, or else he has read this commentary, and is dissembling about a scholarly consensus on the pre-adventual date of the book.
I suppose a third option is that he read it, but is too forgetful to remember what he read.
The most plausible and charitable explanation is that Dyer is an ignoramus—and a pretty hypocritical ignoramus at that. He berates the Protestants for their failure to include the OT apocrypha in their canon while he himself is too lazy to acquaint himself with the standard exegetical literature on a book which he himself puts forward as a test-case for the inspiration and canonicity of the OT apocrypha.
2.While we’re on the subject, does Dyer think that Solomon was a contemporary of Caligula? That would require a rather creative reconstruction of standard chronology.
Or is Dyer of the opinion that Solomon outlived Jesus? That would be pretty impressive for a man who was born around 971 BC. It’s even more impressive considering the fact that the OT records the death of Solomon.
Of course, Dyer is at liberty to challenge Winston’s dating scheme. If so, then we look forward to his erudite interaction with Winston’s evidence.
“For the Greek Church, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 introduced Wisd and other Deuterocanonical books to a place in Holy Scripture. ‘There appears to be no unanimity, however, on the subject of the canon in the Greek Orthodox Church today. Catechisms directly at variance with each other on this subject have received the Imprimatur of the Greek Ecclesiastical authorities and the Greek clergy may hold and teach what they please about it (Metzger: 195),” ibid. 67.
Oh, dear! And here I was led to believe that the Orthodox church is a beachhead of religious certainty amidst the shifting sands of Protestant scholarship. I’m so disillusioned.
“The author’s treatment of the suffering and vindication of the child of God [2:13ff] is a homily based chiefly on the fourth Servant Song in Isa 52:12 with some help from earlier and later passages in that book,” ibid. 119-20.
So even assuming that we credit Dyer’s Messianic interpretation of this chapter, that would be derivative of OT prophecy, on which Wisdom is literarily dependent.
I could quote other examples from Winston’s commentary on this passage to underscore the same point.
Dyer presumably cited Wisdom 2 because he believes that this chapter of this book furnishes an especially impressive case for the inspiration and canonicity of the OT apocrypha. If that’s the best he can offer, then it’s downhill from there.
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/02/debate-six-ques.html#more
Why don’t we begin by quoting some scholarly observations by the author of the standard modern commentary on this particular book of the OT apocrypha:
“Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.
“These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.
Now the book clearly intimates Solomonic authorship. But I don’t think one can seriously contend that Solomon wrote in Greek—especially the kind of Greek we encounter in Wisdom.
So that would make the work of forgery. My theory of inspiration does not extend to inspired forgeries. But Dyer may beg to differ.
“No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have place it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE,” ibid 20.
“There are further considerations, however, which point to the reign of Gaius ‘Caligula’ (37:41 CE) as the likeliest setting for Wisd,” ibid. 23.
1.But didn’t Dyer assure us that “all admit” it was written prior to the first advent of Christ?
Either he hasn’t consulted the standard commentary on Wisdom, where the commentator not only offers his own date for the work, but reviews the dating scheme of other scholars—dates which sometimes postdate birth and death of Christ, or else he has read this commentary, and is dissembling about a scholarly consensus on the pre-adventual date of the book.
I suppose a third option is that he read it, but is too forgetful to remember what he read.
The most plausible and charitable explanation is that Dyer is an ignoramus—and a pretty hypocritical ignoramus at that. He berates the Protestants for their failure to include the OT apocrypha in their canon while he himself is too lazy to acquaint himself with the standard exegetical literature on a book which he himself puts forward as a test-case for the inspiration and canonicity of the OT apocrypha.
2.While we’re on the subject, does Dyer think that Solomon was a contemporary of Caligula? That would require a rather creative reconstruction of standard chronology.
Or is Dyer of the opinion that Solomon outlived Jesus? That would be pretty impressive for a man who was born around 971 BC. It’s even more impressive considering the fact that the OT records the death of Solomon.
Of course, Dyer is at liberty to challenge Winston’s dating scheme. If so, then we look forward to his erudite interaction with Winston’s evidence.
“For the Greek Church, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 introduced Wisd and other Deuterocanonical books to a place in Holy Scripture. ‘There appears to be no unanimity, however, on the subject of the canon in the Greek Orthodox Church today. Catechisms directly at variance with each other on this subject have received the Imprimatur of the Greek Ecclesiastical authorities and the Greek clergy may hold and teach what they please about it (Metzger: 195),” ibid. 67.
Oh, dear! And here I was led to believe that the Orthodox church is a beachhead of religious certainty amidst the shifting sands of Protestant scholarship. I’m so disillusioned.
“The author’s treatment of the suffering and vindication of the child of God [2:13ff] is a homily based chiefly on the fourth Servant Song in Isa 52:12 with some help from earlier and later passages in that book,” ibid. 119-20.
So even assuming that we credit Dyer’s Messianic interpretation of this chapter, that would be derivative of OT prophecy, on which Wisdom is literarily dependent.
I could quote other examples from Winston’s commentary on this passage to underscore the same point.
Dyer presumably cited Wisdom 2 because he believes that this chapter of this book furnishes an especially impressive case for the inspiration and canonicity of the OT apocrypha. If that’s the best he can offer, then it’s downhill from there.
Frameing the Issues
"[O]n the question of whether God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer[:]
Whether or not Scripture specifically refers to such imputation, it is clearly implicit in our union with Christ. Remember that 'imputation' means to reckon the righteousness or guilt of one person to another. But to be one with Christ is certainly to have his righteousness as our own. In him we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Far from rendering imputation unnecessary, union with Christ is impossible without imputation, and vice versa. I am convinced that the church will make no progress on the justification issue until this point is fully understood and appreciated."
---John Frame in _Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology_, ed. A.T.B. McGowan, 2006, p.12
Whether or not Scripture specifically refers to such imputation, it is clearly implicit in our union with Christ. Remember that 'imputation' means to reckon the righteousness or guilt of one person to another. But to be one with Christ is certainly to have his righteousness as our own. In him we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Far from rendering imputation unnecessary, union with Christ is impossible without imputation, and vice versa. I am convinced that the church will make no progress on the justification issue until this point is fully understood and appreciated."
---John Frame in _Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology_, ed. A.T.B. McGowan, 2006, p.12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)