Some Conservatives are naturally upset about how the election has gone. But while The One campaigned successfully with his mantra of “hope” and “change,” it has always been the Conservatives that embody hope. Indeed, unlike the Liberals who immediately whine of stolen elections when they don’t get their way, Conservatives do not live and die by political fortunes because we recognize that we are some things (read: “almost everything”) more important than politics.
So while it is okay for Conservatives to be disappointed that the Omighty One is elected, as a Conservative myself I see the countless reasons to remain optimistic, even in “defeat.” Consider just one number for a moment:
55,543,527.
That’s how many people (according to the counts at the time of this writing—and look for it to be revised upward too) who voted against the Anointed One. Fifty-five million is not a small number. Fifty-five million is, indeed, a very substantial portion of our voting population.
There is fear that Obamessiah will try to institute many of his radical ideas. The media, who failed to do basic journalism and were so in the tank for the Chosen One from day one, engineered a victory for a man with some of the most questionable associations, statements, and beliefs ever elected. We’ve seen O lie about public financing, promise to bankrupt coal companies, and continue to lower the dollar cut-off for whose taxes will be raised upon.
But 55 million people are a check against him. Even with majorities in Congress, the Democrats have to acknowledge that the electorate has only given them a razor thin edge at the moment; if they try to do anything radical, that edge will shift immediately to the Republicans.
Conservatives can take heart about this. We are logical people. We understand that reality is real. All our dreams (or our father’s dreams) and hopes do not change what is real. And the reality is: 55,543,527 is not a landslide loss.
But while Conservatives deal with reality, let us also use our imaginations for just one moment. McCain got 55 million votes. Imagine what we could have done with a real candidate.
See, the Republicans nominated a weak candidate. McCain was burdened by being in the same party as an unpopular president, he was outspent in commercials, faced a hostile media, was inarticulate and unable to debate to save his life (or in this case his candidacy)…and he still got 55 million votes. Change any one of these factors and he would have won. So what could we have done with a real Conservative, one who understands Conservativism and therefore can defend it even against all of the above?
There is no reason we can’t have a real candidate in the future. Indeed, if Republicans are paying attention we will get that real candidate in four years.
Moderate Republicanism is a dead-end. And this election demonstrates the fruit of selling out our core principals. If Republicans ignore Conservatives, they lose; it’s that simple. If Americans want Liberalism, they can vote Democrat. If Republicans do not offer an alternative then why are they surprised when they lose?
Just to make it personal, after 2004 I could see that the Republican Party had strayed from its Conservative base. As a result, in 2006 I ceased to call myself a Republican. As Ronald Reagan would have said: “I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.” The Republicans ought to have seen the problems in 2006 given their massive losses in Congress. They ought to have realized that they could not win on a moderate ticket; they had to return to their Conservative roots.
They didn’t. Instead, they nominated McCain. Conservatives were told, “Support McCain because he’s electable.” (Good call there, RNC!) But I couldn’t do so. Only after what the media did to Joe the Plummer did I even think to vote for McCain. I never supported McCain, though; I just despised the media. And I’m not at all heartbroken that McCain lost. I had nothing invested in this man.
There’s more reason to hope though than just McCain. The Republican losses extended well beyond the presidency. The Democrats increased their majorities in both branches of Congress. This ought to be a major wake-up call for the Republican Party: you CANNOT win on moderate Republicanism!
Because we’ve now had two straight losses due to moderate Republicanism, even the densest political strategist ought to grasp that. That’s why McCain’s loss should be a good thing for Republicans. See, Conservatives like me are still waiting for you, dear leaders of the RNC, to return from your prodigal path. If you use this opportunity to reform and return to your Conservative roots, you will find success once again…plus I’ll be able to call myself a Republican again.
As I stated earlier, Conservativism is built upon logic. Unfortunately, logic is intentionally no longer taught in public school. But it is not very difficult to grasp for those who are interested in learning it, and simple analogies (which require candidates who are good at thinking on their feet, unlike McCain) can quickly show the error of virtually every fallacy even for those who do not wish to see. We need to teach people logic once again, to show them how empty and hollow Liberal rhetoric is.
Conservative ideas are strong because they are based on reality, not illusory dreams. It is preferable to be the party of rationality than the party of emotionalism, even if most people these days are irrational. This is still a position of strength because (as I also stated above) reality is real. That which is based on reason will win out in the end, no matter how deluded anyone may be.
This is why Conservativism wins. This is why we cannot give up on it for an easy “win” by caucusing with the intellectually lazy.
Related to that, we must argue for our ideas, especially since we do live in irrational times. It is not enough to simply present those ideas and hope others see the logic of the position. We must be able to defend each and every Conservative position. This requires Conservatives to have an understanding of Conservativism; we cannot accept candidates who claim to be Conservatives but who have no understanding of the philosophy behind it. This is how we ended up with moderate Republicans in the first place, and we’ve seen where that leads us. If Republicans seriously want to win again, they need to winnow the field. Cast out the RINOs. Insist that if you are going to call yourself a Republican there are certain philosophical standards you must uphold.
If Republicans do that, then they will begin to win again. But if they do not—if they are still convinced that “moderate” is the way to go—then Conservatives need to take the next step. This election ought to be our line in the sand. If the Republicans won’t return, then it is time for us to get rid of them. It is time for Conservatives to form their own party. Conservatives may have been hesitant in the past because we did not wish to lose everything by dividing the Republican vote with a third party…but Republicans have lost everything anyway. Conservatives have nothing left to lose in forming our own party.
It would naturally be preferable for Republicans to return to the Conservative fold. But this election has shown us that we Conservatives no longer need to be tied to Republicans on the false hope that it will provide us victory. And that, perhaps, is the greatest reason for optimism of all.
So Conservatives take heart. We did not lose this election, and now is the time to take back our party. The chaff has been cleared away, the façade broken. All excuses are banished. Now is our time.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Boldly Going Where We've Gone Before - With Time Travel!
Lately, I've noticed more and more Trek references around here....(C'mon, Manata, "Norman" from I Mudd...I bet you wear Spock ears too ;) )....So I thought I'd remind everybody that there is a new Trek movie in production.
Leonard Nimoy is starring as Spock...and so is Zachary Quinto.
Rather than bore you with photos and more details, I'll just refer you here. Take a look at the Quinto photos. The kid really does look like Nimoy. That's just..weird.
Oh, and while you're there...scroll down to Miscellaneous and participate in the abortion discussion. Registration is free.
The affirmative action president
Hazel S said...
“This brings me to whether we should vote for Obama or Mcain. As a black person (but more than anything, a very God-fearing born again Christian) I unreservedly and unashamedly support Obama – because he is black. I think that Obama’s election will help to change the appalling view that most white people have (including white Christians): that black people are idiots who can never be anything.”
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/piper-politics-and-abortion-few.html#698851053768309787
There are three basic problems with this appeal:
i) Ironically, in the very process of trying to break down racial stereotypes, Hazel is stereotyping the racial views of “most white people,” including “white Christians.”
How is she in any position to pronounce such a sweeping verdict on the racial views of most whites or white Christians?
ii) Another problem is that, by his own admission, Obama’s academic advancement was the result of racial tokenism (see below). Therefore, the election of a black candidate like Obama would reinforce the very stereotype she’s projecting onto “most whites” and “white Christians.”
iii) Which brings us to the final irony. The idea that blacks need to prove themselves to whites is, itself, a reflection of a racial inferiority complex.
“I'd also like to add one personal note, in response to the letter from Mr. Jim Chen which was published in the October 26 issue of the RECORD, and which articulated broad objections to the Review's general affirmative action policy. I respect Mr. Chen's personal concern over the possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action, and do not question the depth or sincerity of his feelings. I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.”
http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/10/30/Election2008/Record.Retrospective.Obama.On.Affirmative.Action-3515294.shtml
“This brings me to whether we should vote for Obama or Mcain. As a black person (but more than anything, a very God-fearing born again Christian) I unreservedly and unashamedly support Obama – because he is black. I think that Obama’s election will help to change the appalling view that most white people have (including white Christians): that black people are idiots who can never be anything.”
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/piper-politics-and-abortion-few.html#698851053768309787
There are three basic problems with this appeal:
i) Ironically, in the very process of trying to break down racial stereotypes, Hazel is stereotyping the racial views of “most white people,” including “white Christians.”
How is she in any position to pronounce such a sweeping verdict on the racial views of most whites or white Christians?
ii) Another problem is that, by his own admission, Obama’s academic advancement was the result of racial tokenism (see below). Therefore, the election of a black candidate like Obama would reinforce the very stereotype she’s projecting onto “most whites” and “white Christians.”
iii) Which brings us to the final irony. The idea that blacks need to prove themselves to whites is, itself, a reflection of a racial inferiority complex.
“I'd also like to add one personal note, in response to the letter from Mr. Jim Chen which was published in the October 26 issue of the RECORD, and which articulated broad objections to the Review's general affirmative action policy. I respect Mr. Chen's personal concern over the possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action, and do not question the depth or sincerity of his feelings. I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.”
http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/10/30/Election2008/Record.Retrospective.Obama.On.Affirmative.Action-3515294.shtml
When I was a boy
When I was a boy...
We didn’t lock our car doors or house doors.
Gas was 25¢ a gallon.
Boys swore, but girls didn’t.
We had Christmas plays and Christmas carols in public school.
A single, blue-color worker could support a family on a middle class standard of living.
Doctors made house calls.
We had no health insurance. Medical care was fee-for-service, and affordable.
There were no “Palestinians,” just Arabs.
The milkman brought bottled milk to our doorstep.
Movie stars looked like grown men and women, not high school students.
There were no menus. When you called a business or gov’t agency, a real person came on the line.
You could walk around the neighborhood with impunity. There were no sexual predators lying in ambush.
There were no cellphones.
There were no speech codes.
In public K-12, we had no security guards, security cameras, metal detectors, student ID, or schoolyard snipers.
Democrats were Cold Warriors.
Republicans were country-club businessmen.
A man’s home was his castle.
BTW, this is not so very long ago. And I grew up in a blue state.
Do I think life has gotten better or worse since I was a boy? Both.
We have fewer freedoms. More crime. And more surveillance.
Nowadays it would be unthinkable to leave your house door or car door unlocked.
Today, campus life is a concentration camp of political correctness.
Many things were more affordable when I was a boy.
And life was less impersonal. I already said that doctors made house calls back then. Nowadays you have to go through a menu to go through a receptionist to go through a nurse to reach a doctor.
For example, back in the Sixties, I think it was, my parents subscribed to The Washington Post. But, for some reason, they weren’t receiving it on a regular basis. So my mother called Katherine Graham. She was out of the office at the time, so the secretary took a message. Graham called back, and took it upon herself to clear up the problem.
Imagine trying to do something like that today? Nowadays, menus within menus serve as barricades to buffer the folks in charge from direct contact with the customer.
And there was no attempt, back then, to force Christianity from the public square.
So, in some ways, life was better when I was a kid.
Are there other ways in which life is better? Yes and no. Take technology. As a rule, technology is neutral. It can be used for good or ill.
I like technology. Depending on how people use it, it can make life better or worse.
To take a bad example, I’m appalled by cellphone junkies. I don’t object to cellphones. But so many people are utterly addicted to cellphones. I wonder if it’s a substitute for chain-smoking.
What is it about some people that they can’t stand a moment of silence? Can’t listen to the wind or the waves? Can’t listen to birdsong. Can’t even listen to a friend talking to them face to face.
By the same token, I’m puzzled by people who allow themselves to be on call every minute of the day or night. Making themselves available to every friend or stranger who wants a piece of them. Who have no time to themselves. To eat lunch in peace. Or go for a quiet walk in the park.
What happens to cellphone junkies when they accidentally lose their phone? Do they suffer from withdrawal symptoms? Delirium tremens?
Just as technology cuts both ways, environmentalism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I’m glad that national parks haven’t been paved over to make way for the latest shopping mall or theme park.
On the other hand, when I was a boy, there was more farmland where we lived than is now the case. We used to buy some of our food direct from a local farm.
But the farm went out of business. Why? Predators (e.g. eagles, coyotes) would attack the livestock. But due to gun-control laws and endangered species acts, the framer couldn’t shoot the predators.
Of course, the olden days weren’t all for the good. There were some forms of arbitrary discrimination. It’s good to see that go.
I’d recommend that young people read G. Gordon Liddy’s When I was a Kid, This Was A Free Country.
Liddy’s a bit of a wingnut, but if you make allowance for his excesses, it’s an eye-opening book for a younger generation which lacks a frame of reference.
We didn’t lock our car doors or house doors.
Gas was 25¢ a gallon.
Boys swore, but girls didn’t.
We had Christmas plays and Christmas carols in public school.
A single, blue-color worker could support a family on a middle class standard of living.
Doctors made house calls.
We had no health insurance. Medical care was fee-for-service, and affordable.
There were no “Palestinians,” just Arabs.
The milkman brought bottled milk to our doorstep.
Movie stars looked like grown men and women, not high school students.
There were no menus. When you called a business or gov’t agency, a real person came on the line.
You could walk around the neighborhood with impunity. There were no sexual predators lying in ambush.
There were no cellphones.
There were no speech codes.
In public K-12, we had no security guards, security cameras, metal detectors, student ID, or schoolyard snipers.
Democrats were Cold Warriors.
Republicans were country-club businessmen.
A man’s home was his castle.
BTW, this is not so very long ago. And I grew up in a blue state.
Do I think life has gotten better or worse since I was a boy? Both.
We have fewer freedoms. More crime. And more surveillance.
Nowadays it would be unthinkable to leave your house door or car door unlocked.
Today, campus life is a concentration camp of political correctness.
Many things were more affordable when I was a boy.
And life was less impersonal. I already said that doctors made house calls back then. Nowadays you have to go through a menu to go through a receptionist to go through a nurse to reach a doctor.
For example, back in the Sixties, I think it was, my parents subscribed to The Washington Post. But, for some reason, they weren’t receiving it on a regular basis. So my mother called Katherine Graham. She was out of the office at the time, so the secretary took a message. Graham called back, and took it upon herself to clear up the problem.
Imagine trying to do something like that today? Nowadays, menus within menus serve as barricades to buffer the folks in charge from direct contact with the customer.
And there was no attempt, back then, to force Christianity from the public square.
So, in some ways, life was better when I was a kid.
Are there other ways in which life is better? Yes and no. Take technology. As a rule, technology is neutral. It can be used for good or ill.
I like technology. Depending on how people use it, it can make life better or worse.
To take a bad example, I’m appalled by cellphone junkies. I don’t object to cellphones. But so many people are utterly addicted to cellphones. I wonder if it’s a substitute for chain-smoking.
What is it about some people that they can’t stand a moment of silence? Can’t listen to the wind or the waves? Can’t listen to birdsong. Can’t even listen to a friend talking to them face to face.
By the same token, I’m puzzled by people who allow themselves to be on call every minute of the day or night. Making themselves available to every friend or stranger who wants a piece of them. Who have no time to themselves. To eat lunch in peace. Or go for a quiet walk in the park.
What happens to cellphone junkies when they accidentally lose their phone? Do they suffer from withdrawal symptoms? Delirium tremens?
Just as technology cuts both ways, environmentalism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I’m glad that national parks haven’t been paved over to make way for the latest shopping mall or theme park.
On the other hand, when I was a boy, there was more farmland where we lived than is now the case. We used to buy some of our food direct from a local farm.
But the farm went out of business. Why? Predators (e.g. eagles, coyotes) would attack the livestock. But due to gun-control laws and endangered species acts, the framer couldn’t shoot the predators.
Of course, the olden days weren’t all for the good. There were some forms of arbitrary discrimination. It’s good to see that go.
I’d recommend that young people read G. Gordon Liddy’s When I was a Kid, This Was A Free Country.
Liddy’s a bit of a wingnut, but if you make allowance for his excesses, it’s an eye-opening book for a younger generation which lacks a frame of reference.
"The widening gap between rich and poor"
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. At least, that’s why I’ve always been told. But is it true? According to the Guinness World Records (2007 ed.):
Richest Person Ever
John D. Rockerfeller was worth $900 million in 1913, $189.6 billion in today’s terms (p124).
Remember, too, that we didn’t have a Federal income tax until 1913. And the top rate in 1913 was 7%, in contrast to 35% today.
Compared to Rockerfeller, Bill Gates is a shopping-cart lady.
Richest Person Ever
John D. Rockerfeller was worth $900 million in 1913, $189.6 billion in today’s terms (p124).
Remember, too, that we didn’t have a Federal income tax until 1913. And the top rate in 1913 was 7%, in contrast to 35% today.
Compared to Rockerfeller, Bill Gates is a shopping-cart lady.
Penultimate Thoughts on Election Day
David Gadbois said,
November 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Here are my thoughts about the election tomorrow, in no particular logical order:
1. First, I’d say that if I were in a state that had a chance of giving its electoral votes to McCain, I would vote for McCain. But since California is most definitively not in play, I’ll use the opportunity to lodge a protest vote.
2. I’m still debating who to pick for the protest vote. It isn’t terribly important since it is only symbolic. Just a way of saying “how can the Republican party have nominated this guy?!” and to send a message that the party can’t keep running RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and expect the conservative vote.
3. The most obvious protest candidates for me would be Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), or a write-in (?). I have problems with both of those guys (3rd party candidates are notoriously loopy). At one time I would have voted for Alan Keyes, but he has gotten weirder as time has worn on. I’m open to suggestions on this one if anyone wants to offer some.
4. There is wisdom in voting for McCain, not as an approval of McCain, but as a vote *against* Obama. I do not believe it is unprincipled to vote for the guy who you think is lousy, but far less evil than the alternative.
5. McCain seems like a genuine and honest guy to me, with a respectable record of political experience (although Senators and legislators aren’t as good as governors who have administrative experience) and has rendered just about as praiseworthy a service to this country for his years in uniform as any presidential candidate ever. He is a decent guy, but he is terribly wrongheaded in his policies, inconsistent and incoherent in his ideology, and should never have been nominated. He made a political career out of being the quintessential RINO.
6. Although I lean heavily libertarian in my economic ideology, as I am sure many of my brethren on this blog do, I am somewhere between ambivalent to mildly supportive of the Iraq War, and fully supportive of the Afghanistan War. On Iraq - sorry, I just can’t see the case for it being an unjust war. Unwise? Maybe. None of our business? Maybe. But that is about the strongest negatives I can conjur up for it. I still can’t be convinced that it is unjust to depose *any* tyrannical regime like Saddam Hussein’s.
7. While I obviously don’t blame anyone for not voting for McCain, I do not consider it ethical for any Christian to give Obama their vote because of his most active support of both abortion and sodomite marriage. Even given 2 Kingdom and natural law premises, we do not leave the realm of ethics when we act in the secular kingdom, as when we step into the voting booth. We should not lend our support to a candidate whose policies and ideology violate (in commission as well as omission) natural law as summarized in the Second Table of the Decalogue so fragrantly lest we share in their culpability in the face of alternatives (yes, even lousy alternatives - like lousy candidates or at the very least casting no vote).
8. My protest vote aside, there are plenty of reasons for Californians to vote tomorrow. We have lots of idiotic propositions that will sink the state into even further debt and fiscal crisis. And there are important ones, as well, such as Prop 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage. This sums it up:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/wcf-says-yes-on-prop-8/#comment-3802
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55821
David Gadbois said,
November 3, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jason said
Most estimates say that somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children have been killed as a result of the War on Terror
There would be more force to this observation (I’ll even grant that it is accurate) if we all already agreed that the war was unjust. Or if we all thought that the war was malicious and vindictive, as opposed to simply wrongheaded, foolish, or misguided. In other words, it is hard to get all of us worked up about collateral damage that is a normal artifact of war when considered by itself (no matter the numbers involved).
Oh, and just a side note - the United States is the best in the business at minimizing collateral damage with our technology and rules of engagement. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of how we could greatly improve on this, short of going back to swords and spears.
BTW - I do wonder about the numbers. Do they include only deaths from American bombs and bullets, or do they include all of the sectarian violence and terrorist violence since the start of the war?
Anyway, I do consider it within the realm of reasonable Christian discourse to argue for or against the Iraq war and to hold varying opinions on it. If you are against it, I understand if you withold your vote from McCain. I have absolutely no problem with that. But surely things like abortion and sodomite marriage should not be a live option for Christians to support. That is not a debatable matter. So I find it quite impossible to see the symmetry and moral equivalence that some folks here are trying to draw between a vote for a war hawk and a vote for a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy candidate.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55822
November 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Here are my thoughts about the election tomorrow, in no particular logical order:
1. First, I’d say that if I were in a state that had a chance of giving its electoral votes to McCain, I would vote for McCain. But since California is most definitively not in play, I’ll use the opportunity to lodge a protest vote.
2. I’m still debating who to pick for the protest vote. It isn’t terribly important since it is only symbolic. Just a way of saying “how can the Republican party have nominated this guy?!” and to send a message that the party can’t keep running RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and expect the conservative vote.
3. The most obvious protest candidates for me would be Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), or a write-in (?). I have problems with both of those guys (3rd party candidates are notoriously loopy). At one time I would have voted for Alan Keyes, but he has gotten weirder as time has worn on. I’m open to suggestions on this one if anyone wants to offer some.
4. There is wisdom in voting for McCain, not as an approval of McCain, but as a vote *against* Obama. I do not believe it is unprincipled to vote for the guy who you think is lousy, but far less evil than the alternative.
5. McCain seems like a genuine and honest guy to me, with a respectable record of political experience (although Senators and legislators aren’t as good as governors who have administrative experience) and has rendered just about as praiseworthy a service to this country for his years in uniform as any presidential candidate ever. He is a decent guy, but he is terribly wrongheaded in his policies, inconsistent and incoherent in his ideology, and should never have been nominated. He made a political career out of being the quintessential RINO.
6. Although I lean heavily libertarian in my economic ideology, as I am sure many of my brethren on this blog do, I am somewhere between ambivalent to mildly supportive of the Iraq War, and fully supportive of the Afghanistan War. On Iraq - sorry, I just can’t see the case for it being an unjust war. Unwise? Maybe. None of our business? Maybe. But that is about the strongest negatives I can conjur up for it. I still can’t be convinced that it is unjust to depose *any* tyrannical regime like Saddam Hussein’s.
7. While I obviously don’t blame anyone for not voting for McCain, I do not consider it ethical for any Christian to give Obama their vote because of his most active support of both abortion and sodomite marriage. Even given 2 Kingdom and natural law premises, we do not leave the realm of ethics when we act in the secular kingdom, as when we step into the voting booth. We should not lend our support to a candidate whose policies and ideology violate (in commission as well as omission) natural law as summarized in the Second Table of the Decalogue so fragrantly lest we share in their culpability in the face of alternatives (yes, even lousy alternatives - like lousy candidates or at the very least casting no vote).
8. My protest vote aside, there are plenty of reasons for Californians to vote tomorrow. We have lots of idiotic propositions that will sink the state into even further debt and fiscal crisis. And there are important ones, as well, such as Prop 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage. This sums it up:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/wcf-says-yes-on-prop-8/#comment-3802
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55821
David Gadbois said,
November 3, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jason said
Most estimates say that somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children have been killed as a result of the War on Terror
There would be more force to this observation (I’ll even grant that it is accurate) if we all already agreed that the war was unjust. Or if we all thought that the war was malicious and vindictive, as opposed to simply wrongheaded, foolish, or misguided. In other words, it is hard to get all of us worked up about collateral damage that is a normal artifact of war when considered by itself (no matter the numbers involved).
Oh, and just a side note - the United States is the best in the business at minimizing collateral damage with our technology and rules of engagement. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of how we could greatly improve on this, short of going back to swords and spears.
BTW - I do wonder about the numbers. Do they include only deaths from American bombs and bullets, or do they include all of the sectarian violence and terrorist violence since the start of the war?
Anyway, I do consider it within the realm of reasonable Christian discourse to argue for or against the Iraq war and to hold varying opinions on it. If you are against it, I understand if you withold your vote from McCain. I have absolutely no problem with that. But surely things like abortion and sodomite marriage should not be a live option for Christians to support. That is not a debatable matter. So I find it quite impossible to see the symmetry and moral equivalence that some folks here are trying to draw between a vote for a war hawk and a vote for a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy candidate.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55822
Monday, November 03, 2008
"Piper, Politics, and Abortion"
Justin Taylor weighs in on what's at stake in this election: "this is a watershed election with regard to abortion."
Steve made a related observation and call to action a little while back.
Perhaps also worth reading is Robert George's recent article on when human life begins. (You might want to check out the Westchester Institute's "When does human life begin? A scientific perspective" as well, which was cited in the article.)
Steve made a related observation and call to action a little while back.
Perhaps also worth reading is Robert George's recent article on when human life begins. (You might want to check out the Westchester Institute's "When does human life begin? A scientific perspective" as well, which was cited in the article.)
Fishing in troubled waters
Realty is ultimately unforgiving to people who hold false views of reality. It’s easy to forget this in a time and place that has a certain margin of error. As a result, many people are natural gamblers. They take risks.
Usually they don’t pay dearly the first or second or third time. Yet the odds being random, it’s quite possible to lose everything on the first foolhardy bet, as some individuals discover when it’s to late to learn from their imprudence.
And, of course, if you tempt fate often enough, your lucky streak will run out sooner or later. It’s only a matter of time. If you disdain reality, reality will eventually return the favor.
Nations have a bit more padding. Even if individuals fall by the wayside, the corporate entity survives. It can absorb a certain number of losses. But over time, a series of mistaken policies will have a cumulative effect. A lack of foresight catches up with nations as well as individuals. And it may result in irreversible decline.
I doubt the day of reckoning will come in my own lifetime. For me, the days ahead are fewer than the days behind. But I fear for posterity.
Usually they don’t pay dearly the first or second or third time. Yet the odds being random, it’s quite possible to lose everything on the first foolhardy bet, as some individuals discover when it’s to late to learn from their imprudence.
And, of course, if you tempt fate often enough, your lucky streak will run out sooner or later. It’s only a matter of time. If you disdain reality, reality will eventually return the favor.
Nations have a bit more padding. Even if individuals fall by the wayside, the corporate entity survives. It can absorb a certain number of losses. But over time, a series of mistaken policies will have a cumulative effect. A lack of foresight catches up with nations as well as individuals. And it may result in irreversible decline.
I doubt the day of reckoning will come in my own lifetime. For me, the days ahead are fewer than the days behind. But I fear for posterity.
Christless Christianity
Is God perhaps a supporting character in your life movie, however strong and important a character he may be, or have you been rewritten as a new character in God’s drama of redemption? If the former, then the focus is on us and our activity rather than on God and his work in Jesus Christ. “Us and out activities” may be all very fine things. Perhaps we’re fixing our marriages, becoming relevant to the culture, making disciples, doing what Jesus would do, overcoming addictions, even blogging and destroying apostate thought in all its forms. We have a “purpose driven life,” and “purpose driven churches.” We are putting biblical principles in action and seeing “success” in our lives. Better kids, better marriages, and we even make it to every church function in the calendar year. Awesome worship music, and even “awesomer” preaching (they even say “Dude”), all of course ever so “relevant” to our culture. Shoot, this aint your daddy’s Christianity, our kid’s pagan friends actually have fun at our churches. We’re doing just fine, thank you. Oh, by the way, where’s Jesus Christ in all of this?
Judging by the tremendous “commercial, political, and media success, the evangelical movement seems to be booming. But is it still Christian?”, asks Mike Horton in his latest book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. Of course we still say we believe in Jesus, salvation by grace, the Bible, and the resurrection. That’s not in question. But when our teaching and practice is analyzed, what does that say we believe? Horton thinks “that the church in America is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors the world itself. Aside from the packaging there is nothing that cannot be found in most churches today that could not be satisfied by any number of secular programs.” The regular diet the sheep are fed in many of today’s churches is, “Do more, try harder.” Horton’s concern “is that we’re getting dangerously close to the place in everyday American church life where the Bible is mined for ‘relevant’ quotes but is largely irrelevant on its own terms; God is used as a personal resource rather than known, worshiped, and trusted; Jesus is a coach with a good plan for our victory rather than a Savior who has already achieved it for us; salvation is more a matter of having our best life now than being saved from God’s judgment by God himself; and the holy Spirit is an electrical outlet we can plug into for the power we need to be all we can be.”
Horton doesn’t deny that there are some churches, pastors, evangelists, and distinguished laypeople who are proclaiming Christ and fulfilling their vocations with integrity. He’s not addressing them, and thinks they would join him in his worries. He is also not saying that we have arrived at a Christless Christianity, just that we are well on our way. He is not questioning American Christianity at the level of zeal either. But it’s a zeal without knowledge. It’s not that we have our doctrine but are not living it. Rather it’s that we are living out our distorted doctrine quite well. Our creed is closer to the American dream than to the historic Christian faith, says Horton.
In Christless Christianity Horton offers a massive amount of statistics showing that those raised in “Bible believing churches know as little of the Bible‘s actual content as their unchurched neighbors.” But despite this, Christ is everywhere in this subculture, “but more as an adjective than as a proper name.” We are swarmed by “Christian things” while Christ has been reduced to mascot of that subculture. We take Christ’s name in vain for our own personal crusades and talking points, we trivialize his word in countless ways, and then express moral indignation when a movie trivializes Christ. We like to pretend we are persecuted by evil Hollywood and the Democrats. “But if we ever were really persecuted, would it be because of our offensive posturing and self-righteousness or because we would not weaken the offense of the cross?” Horton contends that his and other’s experience has shown that “believers who challenge the human-centered process of trivializing the faith are more likely to be persecuted--or at least viewed as troublesome--by their church.” Horton’s bigger concern is not that God is taken lightly in American culture, but more-so that he’s not taken seriously in the faith and practice of believers.
Horton’s argument in the book is “not that evangelicalism is becoming theologically liberal but that it is becoming theologically vacuous.” Today it is becoming more and more common to see Christianity as about “spiritual and moral makeovers” than about “death and resurrection--radical judgment and radical grace.” The Word is a resource for how to get what we’ve already decided we need, rather than a “criticism of our religion, morality, and pious experience.” God’s word is something we use to make our life story more exciting. And so “Jesus has been dressed up as a corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot, cosufferer, moral example, and partner in fulfilling our personal and social dreams. But in all these ways we are reducing the central character I the drama of redemption to a prop for our own play.” Liberals, conservatives, Arminian, Calvinist. Those labels cease to matter when the message is “What would Jesus do,” rather than “What has Jesus done.” And so Horton’s “aim is not to target any particular wing, movement, person, or group. We are all victims and accomplices in our own captivity.” Horton then is “writing about ‘us’--all of us who profess the name of Christ…”
The above illness is defined by sociologist Christian Smith as “Therapeutic Moral Deism.” Horton follows Smith in this diagnosis. After a “remarkable” study of teen spirituality in America, Smith observed that most teens said that their faith is “very important” to them, yet they are “stunningly inarticulate” about the content of that faith. The separation of deeds from creeds of course moves everything into the inner person. Moralistic, therapeutic deism is defined by Smith as: (i) God created the world; (ii) God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other; (iii) the central goal in life is to be happy and feel good about oneself; (iv) God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when needed to solve a problem; (v) people go to heaven when they die. Horton shows through persuasive, detailed, and ubiquitous analysis that the above has infected the American church. He identifies one main cause as our “default setting”: (semi-) Pelagianism. Horton contends that the gospel of Jesus Christ is unnatural to our Adamic ears. It is easily forgotten. All too often we treat God as giving us that initial “oomph” and then we go out and accomplish the rest, treating our religion as a do-it-yourself guide for personal satisfaction. God saves us and then we go our and save our cars by placing Jesus bumper stickers on them. Or perhaps we’re more ambitious and we go out and “take back America for Jesus!”, sanctifying the unjustified. The good news becomes good advice.
As default (semi-) Pelagians, we often turn the good news into good advice. Horton lists main ways of how we do this, the most prominent is to confuse law and gospel. Briefly, the law is “do this” and the gospel is “done.” Of course this isn’t to deny sanctification, or “doing” things. But Horton’s critiquing our emphasis and focus. One way in which we can see the gospel turned into law is in the popular saying, “Living the gospel.” The gospel is something done by Jesus in history and announced to us, not something we do. Emergent church leader Dan Kimball is on record as saying, “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words.” Kimball says “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say.” Horton rightly points out that “this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non-Christians, but because in spite of my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions--even the best doctrines--will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day--and attitudes--and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. … I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. … We do not preach ourselves, but Christ. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are to be actually transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing.”
This reminds me of the very last SCCCS conference. On the last day a movie was played where a nice, white, all-American man threw a birthday party for a prostitute at a diner. She never had anyone do anything “nice” for her, and most people treated her as trash. But this man did what other’s had not done. Of course the man was supposed to be a “Christian,” but he may just as well have well been a Mormon missionary. The movie ended with the girl walking out of the diner and we see a Catholic church off in the distance. After the movie one of the speakers, a PCA pastor, stood up and said, “I would have no problem playing that for the sermon on Sunday morning, because that was the gospel.” Look’s like Horton’s worries are confirmed, even among (what are supposed to be) “Reformed” ministers of the gospel.
One of the dangers that lead to the above is what is called “the assumed gospel.” We all “get” the gospel, we’re just not living it. Of course Horton decimates this idea with his massive stock pile of statistics marshaled throughout each chapter as well as the theological rejoinder that, actually, we don’t “get” it; or, at least, that we easily forget the gospel. We’re wired for law, see. “The gospel is so odd, even to us Christians, that we have to get it again and again,” says Horton. Treat Christianity primarily as a means of “getting your marriage” on track, and you’ll be welcomed in the public sphere. If religion is private therapy to improve our lives and make us better, it has an important place in society. If you “treat it as public truth--Good news to the whole world--and it provokes offence. Moral and spiritual enlightenment is one thing; redemption by a one-sided divine rescue operation is another.” When we assume we know the gospel, we slip right into our (semi-) Pelegian moralism all too easily. We need the gospel again and again. Every single Lord’s day. Rather than the constant burden to “do more” in our lives and church, we need first and foremost to be reminded of what was done for us. Only if this gospel has been properly preached can the Christian go out and love his neighbor and minister to others in the body.
But all too often our religion places one demand on us after another. We are constantly “transforming all areas of life” or looking for that next set of principles that we can put into action so as to this time be “on fire for Jesus,” that we get burned out. Do this, do that, place a fish on your car and make sure to invite your entire neighborhood to go see The Passion of the Christ. “Get involved” in this ministry and that ministry. On top of that make sure to be a “Promise keeper.” Sing your heart out to Jesus on Sunday morning. Give your all to God . We forget that God gives to us. He invites us to church so he can feed us and clean through Word and Sacrament. We get so busy so “doing things for the kingdom” that we’ve forgot the King and what he did, and continues to do, for us. Horton does not deny the good things that Christians can and should do. But he laments that it is taking place minus the constant bombardment of the gospel. “Christianity Lite.” “Christ as adjective” for my car or my coffee shop. Look at me take back my neighborhood by serving “Christian coffee” at a “Christian coffee house.” After a day’s work I drive home in my “transformed” Suburban with my WWJD bumper sticker. I’ve got to be faithful like Abraham, devoted like Moses. Quote-mine Joshua’s life so I can be a Joshua at the office. And, of course, we should all “dare to be a Daniel.” This is moralism. The constant preaching of this burns us out. We need a rest. We can do more when rested.
Horton offers the story of David as an example of how the Bible presents its stories and how therapeutic moralism cannot be gleaned from the proper reading of the Scriptures. He cites Graeme Goldsworthy’s comments on Martin Luther’s own comments on David’s victory over Goliath:
“The important point to note is that Luther has made the link between the saving acts of God through Christ. Once we see the connection, it is impossible to use David as a mere model for Christian living since his victory was vicarious and the Israelites could only rejoice in what was won for them. In terms of our interpretive principles, we see David’s victory as a salvation event in that the existence of the people of God in the promised land was at stake.”
Reading this I was reminded of the movie In The Valley of Elah. In a scene where the movie gets its title, Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), retired MP, tells the young son of the detective he’s working with to solve his son’s murder, the story of when David meets Goliath in the Valley of Elah. Hank is a outwardly religious man. Surely loves God, his country, Mom, and apple pie. He prays before every meal. He’s a paradigmatic therapeutic, moral deist. He gives the young boy, also named David, a “life lesson” from the biblical David’s life. What is gleaned from the text?: Face down your monsters, look them in the eye, exhibit courage even when all the odds are stacked against you. (Deerfield was obviously no Aristotelian, that’s for sure.! But I digress…) Even Hollywood understands what “Christians” have turned the Bible into! Jones’s bed time story could easily been stolen from the preaching of almost any church across the country. That’s what happens when the Bible is turned into a plan for “Your best life now.”
Horton confronts modern evangelicalism, issuing a warning call to the catholic Church. Christless Christianity stands in the same league with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. It’s at least a modern day counterpart (though, h
as Machen's book become unmodern?). His scathing indictment is backed by thorough analysis and myriad examples. His conclusions hard to deny. He uses the insights of sociologists and statisticians like Barna, Bloom, Lee, Mullen, Noll, Smith, Witten, and many others. He also uses as fodder such names as Charles Finney, Joel Osteen, and Brian McLaren to make many of his main points. The danger here is in thinking that us Reformed escape Horton’s critique. But we don’t. Reading his book I was shown that I am and have been guilty of following a Christless Christianity. I am no better than the Arminians we critique on this blog for example. Until I get to heaven, I will constantly forget and water down the gospel. Am I better because my (semi-) Pelagianism is outwardly denied even though I repeatedly fall back into it through my actions and my assumption of the gospel?So this isn’t just a book to self-righteously give your “evangelical” friends. Even showing your moralism by treating Horton’s book as some kind of “plan” or “set of principles” that will get their life on track. This is a book you get and read and apply to yourself first. This is a book for all of us, and all of us need to read it and take its warnings seriously. So, take a break from “transforming” your neighborhood for Jesus and get acquainted with the gospel all over again. Step outside of your narcissistic personalizing of Jesus and get the focus back on an actual historical event that comes to us by way of announcement. Bring back the idea that we go to church to get served rather than primarily to serve. Knock off the self-feeding and get fed. “For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God.”
Lynching for Jesus
“Imagine the reactions if David Duke showed up as a visitor in the typical white church of today. The humble end of the spectrum would greet him with a expectant puppy-dog expression, ready to welcome him with open arms immediately upon his public confession of his ‘sin,’ which they would with expectant hope wait for him to give forth. Never mind that they would be unable to state what Duke’s sin is in a sentence that would be both coherent and factual. But those are the good people. At the other end would be the many who would simply turn away in icy silence until the apparition passed, whereupon a torrent of gossip and abuse would be unleashed in their ranks that would not be tagged as sin at all — quite the contrary. It would be taken as a mark of piety all of a sudden, accompanied by appropriate eyes lifted heavenward and shaking heads. And too many pastors and elders would, I fear, be right in the vanguard.”
http://butler-harris.org/archives/372
I wonder if Michael Butler would be able and willing explain in a coherent and factual sentence or two why it’s sinful to be a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Or does he agree with his coblogger?
http://butler-harris.org/archives/372
I wonder if Michael Butler would be able and willing explain in a coherent and factual sentence or two why it’s sinful to be a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Or does he agree with his coblogger?
Catholic fairly tales for overgrown children
BRIAN SAID:
If you could certainly prove that Jude is in error, then certainly everybody is in the same boat.
But if you can merely show that Jude is probably in error, then the protestant is in a predicament that Catholic/Orthodox are not. Catholic/Orthodox can submit the probabilities of the details to the certainty of the Church, (like protestants submit the probability of the details of scripture, to the overall certainty of scripture).
But if Jude is apparently probably in error, protestants are doomed to argue about it for the next 2000 years with no possibility of resolution. That's quite a difference.
All the more so with your admission that the internal evidence is weak, the external evidence is late, and the content is questionable. This leaves you in no happy position. Your fallible list of infallible books is not merely fallible, but highly questionable. It's probably inerrant, but may be just plain wrong.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/jude-obscure.html#8880808181582782003
Several problems with your reply:
i) I didn’t say the internal evidence for authorship was weak. I didn’t say Jude was written by an unknown author, but by a lesser-known author, and due to the brevity of this document, we don’t have as much information to reconstruct his audience or his opponents—without which it’s more difficult to ascertain his viewpoint. That’s a hermeneutical question, not a canonical question.
ii) Intertestamental Jews were in no position to “submit the probabilities of the details to the certainty of the Church.” If that’s not a problem for the Chosen People, why should that be a problem for me?
iii) Jude is not probably in error—as I demonstrated. Not even “apparently.”
iv) If you think the external evidence is weak, then that’s a problem for your position since the external evidence would include ecclesiastical tradition.
v) You can’t treat Catholicism and Orthodoxy as interchangeable on this issue.
a) Your criterion of certain is self-refuting. Let’s say you’re speaking from an Orthodoxy standpoint. You would need to establish with certainty (not probability) that the Orthodox church is the one true church.
b) Even if you could establish (a), the Orthodox church doesn’t have an official canon of Scripture.
c) Even if the Orthodox church did have an official canon of Scripture, that’s not the same thing as an infallible canon of Scripture.
d) To achieve certainty, you would need to lay down infallible criteria to identify an infallible council, which issued an infallible canon. And you would need to infallibly apply your infallible criteria.
v) If you speak from a Catholic standpoint, your appeal to certainty is also self-refuting:
a) Catholicism didn’t have an “infallible” canon until the 16C.
b) You don’t have an infallible list of infallible church councils.
c) You would also need to establish with certainty (not probability) that the Catholic church is the one true church.
d) To do that, you would need, among other things, an infallible list of the true popes.
e) You would also need an infallible list of infallible teachings.
f) In addition, you would need a Dial-a-Pope hotline to check your private interpretation of Catholic dogma against the infallible interpretation of the Pope. (And he would have to be speaking ex cathedra.)
g) A Magisterium can’t conjure up certainty out of thin air, in defiance of the evidence.
h) How did Trent actually proceed? Did the Holy Spirit descend on the Tridentine Fathers in tongues of fire, prompting them to issue a list of the canonical books by unanimous acclamation? No. It went like this:
“Considerable debate ensued on whether a distinction should be made between two classes of books (Canonical and Apocrypha) or whether three classes should be identified (Acknowledged Books; the Disputed Books of the New Testament, later generally received; and the Apocrypha of the Old Testament). Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema,” B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford 1987), 246.
How does putting the question up for a vote confer certainty on the outcome? How does a majority vote confer certainty? How does 24 votes for the motion, with 15 against, and 16 abstentions, confer certainty?
Why do you think the Holy Spirit inspired some Tridentine Fathers, but not others? Why does he inspire Cardinal Simplicius on Mondays and Tuesdays, but not on Wednesdays and Thursdays?
i) And the Tridentine decree left many uncertainties in its wake: “Trent insisted on its list of books ‘as sacred and canonical in their entirely, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic church and as they are in the ancient Latin Vulgate’ (DS 1504). Among the ‘parts” mentioned in the discussion were Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:43-44; John 7:53-8:11 (Jedin, History of the Council of Trent 2.81)—pericopes that are absent from many textual witnesses. Although they used the Vg as a yardstick, the council fathers of Trent and the authorities in Rome who approved the decree were aware of that there were errors in the Vg transl. and that not all copies of the Vg were in agreement. Even the official Sixto-Clementine Vg (1592), produced in answer to Trent’s request for a carefully edited Vg, leaves much to be desired by modern standards; and in many places it is not faithful to Jerome’s original Vg…Which Vg is to serve as a guide when we raise the question of whether certain passages or verses are canonical Scripture?” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 66:91.
“…where the Sixto-Clementine Vg has passages that Jerome’s Vg did not have (John 5:4, the angel stirring the waters; 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine comma), the problem of acceptance should be settled on the grounds of scholarship rather than by any mechanical application of the principle of Trent, which was not meant to solve all difficulties or to end scholarly discussion…Roman Catholics must solve textual problems as others do, viz., by the laws of criticism—a principle that holds for other questions too (authorship, dating, history),” ibid. 66:91.
j) The certainty I enjoy is the certainty of providence. The certainty that God has a purpose for his people. The certainty that God will preserve whatever evidence we need to do his will. That includes the use of probable evidence. And I prefer my providential probabilities to your fictitious certainties.
Like all ecclesiolaters, all you’ve done is to stipulate an artificial standard of certainty, and then concocted an imaginary narrative to yield your desired result. But that’s an exercise in make-believe. And it stands in defiance of the historical record.
If you could certainly prove that Jude is in error, then certainly everybody is in the same boat.
But if you can merely show that Jude is probably in error, then the protestant is in a predicament that Catholic/Orthodox are not. Catholic/Orthodox can submit the probabilities of the details to the certainty of the Church, (like protestants submit the probability of the details of scripture, to the overall certainty of scripture).
But if Jude is apparently probably in error, protestants are doomed to argue about it for the next 2000 years with no possibility of resolution. That's quite a difference.
All the more so with your admission that the internal evidence is weak, the external evidence is late, and the content is questionable. This leaves you in no happy position. Your fallible list of infallible books is not merely fallible, but highly questionable. It's probably inerrant, but may be just plain wrong.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/jude-obscure.html#8880808181582782003
Several problems with your reply:
i) I didn’t say the internal evidence for authorship was weak. I didn’t say Jude was written by an unknown author, but by a lesser-known author, and due to the brevity of this document, we don’t have as much information to reconstruct his audience or his opponents—without which it’s more difficult to ascertain his viewpoint. That’s a hermeneutical question, not a canonical question.
ii) Intertestamental Jews were in no position to “submit the probabilities of the details to the certainty of the Church.” If that’s not a problem for the Chosen People, why should that be a problem for me?
iii) Jude is not probably in error—as I demonstrated. Not even “apparently.”
iv) If you think the external evidence is weak, then that’s a problem for your position since the external evidence would include ecclesiastical tradition.
v) You can’t treat Catholicism and Orthodoxy as interchangeable on this issue.
a) Your criterion of certain is self-refuting. Let’s say you’re speaking from an Orthodoxy standpoint. You would need to establish with certainty (not probability) that the Orthodox church is the one true church.
b) Even if you could establish (a), the Orthodox church doesn’t have an official canon of Scripture.
c) Even if the Orthodox church did have an official canon of Scripture, that’s not the same thing as an infallible canon of Scripture.
d) To achieve certainty, you would need to lay down infallible criteria to identify an infallible council, which issued an infallible canon. And you would need to infallibly apply your infallible criteria.
v) If you speak from a Catholic standpoint, your appeal to certainty is also self-refuting:
a) Catholicism didn’t have an “infallible” canon until the 16C.
b) You don’t have an infallible list of infallible church councils.
c) You would also need to establish with certainty (not probability) that the Catholic church is the one true church.
d) To do that, you would need, among other things, an infallible list of the true popes.
e) You would also need an infallible list of infallible teachings.
f) In addition, you would need a Dial-a-Pope hotline to check your private interpretation of Catholic dogma against the infallible interpretation of the Pope. (And he would have to be speaking ex cathedra.)
g) A Magisterium can’t conjure up certainty out of thin air, in defiance of the evidence.
h) How did Trent actually proceed? Did the Holy Spirit descend on the Tridentine Fathers in tongues of fire, prompting them to issue a list of the canonical books by unanimous acclamation? No. It went like this:
“Considerable debate ensued on whether a distinction should be made between two classes of books (Canonical and Apocrypha) or whether three classes should be identified (Acknowledged Books; the Disputed Books of the New Testament, later generally received; and the Apocrypha of the Old Testament). Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema,” B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford 1987), 246.
How does putting the question up for a vote confer certainty on the outcome? How does a majority vote confer certainty? How does 24 votes for the motion, with 15 against, and 16 abstentions, confer certainty?
Why do you think the Holy Spirit inspired some Tridentine Fathers, but not others? Why does he inspire Cardinal Simplicius on Mondays and Tuesdays, but not on Wednesdays and Thursdays?
i) And the Tridentine decree left many uncertainties in its wake: “Trent insisted on its list of books ‘as sacred and canonical in their entirely, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic church and as they are in the ancient Latin Vulgate’ (DS 1504). Among the ‘parts” mentioned in the discussion were Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:43-44; John 7:53-8:11 (Jedin, History of the Council of Trent 2.81)—pericopes that are absent from many textual witnesses. Although they used the Vg as a yardstick, the council fathers of Trent and the authorities in Rome who approved the decree were aware of that there were errors in the Vg transl. and that not all copies of the Vg were in agreement. Even the official Sixto-Clementine Vg (1592), produced in answer to Trent’s request for a carefully edited Vg, leaves much to be desired by modern standards; and in many places it is not faithful to Jerome’s original Vg…Which Vg is to serve as a guide when we raise the question of whether certain passages or verses are canonical Scripture?” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 66:91.
“…where the Sixto-Clementine Vg has passages that Jerome’s Vg did not have (John 5:4, the angel stirring the waters; 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine comma), the problem of acceptance should be settled on the grounds of scholarship rather than by any mechanical application of the principle of Trent, which was not meant to solve all difficulties or to end scholarly discussion…Roman Catholics must solve textual problems as others do, viz., by the laws of criticism—a principle that holds for other questions too (authorship, dating, history),” ibid. 66:91.
j) The certainty I enjoy is the certainty of providence. The certainty that God has a purpose for his people. The certainty that God will preserve whatever evidence we need to do his will. That includes the use of probable evidence. And I prefer my providential probabilities to your fictitious certainties.
Like all ecclesiolaters, all you’ve done is to stipulate an artificial standard of certainty, and then concocted an imaginary narrative to yield your desired result. But that’s an exercise in make-believe. And it stands in defiance of the historical record.
Apologetics Audio
Apologetics 315 has a good resource for audio files on apologetic topics. I recently listened to an interview posted there with the New Testament scholar Craig Keener, which I recommend. He discusses the historicity of the gospels and some related issues, such as whether miracles are possible and his own experience with miracles, as well as his conversion from atheism. There's also some material from Gary Habermas, John Frame, Douglas Groothuis, and many other sources.
Sex In A Secularized, Trivialized Culture
The study, released Monday and published in the November edition of the journal Pediatrics, found that teens exposed to high levels of sexual content on television were twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy in the following three years as teens with limited exposure.
The study’s authors are quick to point out that the factors leading to teen pregnancies are varied and complex — but they say it’s important for parents, teachers and pediatricians to understand that TV can be one of them....
“We were surprised to find this link,” said Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization. “But teens spend a good amount of their time watching television — an average of three hours a day — and we don’t know a lot about its impact on their health decisions …
“We don’t think that (TV) is necessarily more significant than some of the family and neighborhood factors that can lead to teen pregnancies. But even when we removed all the other factors, we still saw a compelling link between a high exposure to sexual content on television and teen pregnancies.”...
In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure.
Chandra said TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy even when other factors were considered, including grades, family structure and parents’ education level.
But the study didn’t adequately address other issues, such as self-esteem, family values and income, contends Elizabeth Schroeder, executive director of Answer, a teen sex education program based at Rutgers University.
“The media does have an impact, but we don’t know the full extent of it because there are so many other factors,” Schroeder said.
Bill Albert, chief program officer at the nonprofit National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, praised the study and said it “catches up with common sense.”
The study, paid for by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, followed a 2004 study by some of the same scientists that indicated watching sexual content on TV can make teens more likely to have sex at earlier ages.
Chandra said the new findings are significant given the intractable social and public health problems associated with teen pregnancies. While the teen pregnancy rate in the United States has dropped considerably since the early ‘90s, the U.S. rate remains one of the highest among the world’s industrialized nations. Nearly 1 million young women between the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant each year in the U.S., and they are more likely than other teens to drop out of high school and live in poverty....
Chandra noted that many TV programs fail to give viewers realistic depictions of the potential consequences of sex, such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
“If teens are getting any of their information about sex from TV, they’re very rarely going to get a balanced portrayal,” she said. “When there is a portrayal, how often is it coupled with a discussion of contraception use or safer sex or the consequences of what could happen?”...
In response to the news of this new study, the National Association of Broadcasting released the following statement:
“Though NAB has not had a chance to review the report, it’s worth noting that broadcasters encourage parents and caregivers to use the V-chip and other program blocking technologies that would screen out shows that are inappropriate for children. We would also point out that broadcast television is generally far less explicit than programming found on cable, satellite and on the Internet.”...
“Right now the message teens are getting is that everything is great, and there really are no consequences to sex,” Chandra said.
“Since the time that we did our data collection, the amount of sexual content on TV has doubled. … It’s important for kids to have the tools to understand what they’re watching.” (MSNBC)
There are far more consequences than this article and these researchers suggest, and wearing a condom won't prevent all of the consequences. Even the people in our secularized, trivialized culture who study these issues as part of their profession significantly misunderstand and misdiagnose the problem.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Marie Durand
An inspiring post from Nicole Starling on Huguenot Marie Durand. "Plus à me frapper on s'amuse, tant plus de marteaux on y use." Indeed, like the Huguenots, our confidence is built on the Word of God.
Jude the Obscure
I. The Apparent Problem
Jude is often thought to pose a problem for the canon. The problem is not that Jude uses extracanonical materials. Other Bible writers use extracanonical materials too. Truth is truth. As long as the material is true, it matters not where it comes from.
Rather, the question at issue is whether Jude mistakenly uses extracanonical materials as if they were true, when, it fact, they are fictitious.
Various scholars have addressed this issue from various angles, but the coverage is often fairly scattershot. It’s useful to review the options is a more systematic fashion.
II. A Problem for Whom?
i) In Catholic and Orthodox polemical theology, this is treated as a problem for the Protestant canon. But if it’s a problem for Protestantism, then it’s also a problem for Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
ii) There’s a tendency among high churchmen to treat ecclesiastical authority as a substitute for a direct solution. They don’t have to explain their way out of a problem. They can just invoke their faith in ecclesiastical authority as a safety net that will prevent the church from falling into grave error.
a) But this won’t work. First of all, it assumes the church has the authority they ascribe to it.
b) And even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that claim, ecclesiastical authority cannot transform a false proposition into a true proposition. If Jude got it wrong, then ecclesiastical authority is incompetent to salvage his mistake. He said what he said. That’s a done deal. The problem can’t be retroactively repaired.
iii) Indeed, if Jude is a problem, then the problem is worse for the high church tradition.
a) If Protestant tradition made the wrong call on Jude, that wouldn’t falsify the fundamental assumptions of Protestant theological method. We admit that our traditions are fallible.
And that’s a strength, not a weakness. In the high church tradition, a primitive error can get frozen into dogma, and then supply the false premise for an escalating series of errors.
Because Protestant tradition is fallible, it is subject to correction. We aren’t committed to primitive errors. We aren’t committed to taking a primitive error to its logical extreme.
b) By contrast, if Catholicism made the wrong call on Jude, then that falsifies its claim to a divine teaching office. The entire edifice crumbles under a shaky foundation.
c) Likewise, if the Bible is errant, then there’s no reason to believe the Church is inerrant. Scepticism about the infallibility of the Bible naturally seeps over into scepticism about the infallibility or indefectibility of the Church.
d) In Orthodoxy, with its fuzzy canon, the problem lies in the opposite direction. An unverifiable canon is no improvement over a faulty canon. And if the Orthodox church cannot even settle the boundaries of the canon, then what does ecclesiastical authority amount to?
In addition, it’s arguable that while the Orthodox canon is somewhat fluid, its canon certainly includes the Book of Jude.
III. Inerrancy
i) Some observers of a more liberal disposition might contend that this is a pseudoproblem generated by a dogmatic commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture. Why not simply admit that Jude was mistaken? Apart from a precommitment to inerrancy, is there any reason to suppose that Jude couldn’t treat 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses as Scripture?
ii) As a matter of fact, there is. All our other sources of information indicate that 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were never any part of the Jewish canon (cf. Beckwith 1986; Hengel 2004:54-56).
iii) Moreover, Jude was a Palestinian Jew, the kid brother of a very traditional Jew. We wouldn’t expect James to rank sectarian, Intertestamental literature as Scripture. By the same token, we wouldn’t expect his kid brother to do the same.
So there are antecedent reasons, apart from inerrancy, to doubt that Jude would treat this extracanonical material as Scripture.
iv) Furthermore, a preliminary step in exegesis is to reconstruct the background of a document. Who wrote it? Why? When? Where? To whom or for whom? About whom?
A scholar poses these questions, in part, to identify the viewpoint of the author. It’s harder to interpret his statements if we can’t ascertain his viewpoint.
In the case of Jude, we know very little about the author, his audience, or his opponents.
The book of Jude is, itself, exceptionally brief. Our knowledge of the author is largely circumstantial. So we have precious little to go on regarding his point of view respecting extracanonical literature. As such, we’re not guilty of special pleading when we exercise restraint in jumping to conclusions about his actual view of 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses—in possible contrast to his merely polemical use of this material.
v) What is more, it would only be unreasonable to filter Jude through the lens of inerrancy if inerrancy is, itself, unreasonable. But if we have good reason to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in general, then we have good reason to believe in the inerrancy of Jude in particular—assuming that Jude is Scripture.
I’d add that if Jude is authentic, and there’s no good reason to deny its authenticity, then a document by a sibling of Jesus is an excellent candidate for canonicity.
vi) Finally, you don’t have to be an inerrantist to deny that Jude regards his extracanonical sources as Scripture, viz. Bauckham, Davids (see below).
IV. Inspiration
i) According to the organic theory of inspiration, which is the mainstream theory in Reformed theology (a la Warfield), inspiration is compatible with the use of sources.
ii) Conversely, the fact that we can trace some ideas to an extrabiblical source doesn’t mean that a Bible writer got all his information from extrabiblical sources.
V. Potential Solutions
a) Archer (Archer 1982:430) takes the position that, at this juncture, 1 Enoch preserves an authentic Enochian tradition.
Speaking for myself, I don’t find it terribly plausible to suppose that an authentic prediluvian tradition happened to find its way into an apocryphal work, and—what is more—that it also happened to coincide with Jude’s argument.
b) Witherington (Witherington 2007:608) says that “from a rhetorical viewpoint it was perfectly appropriate to draw examples from both history and fiction to make one’s points about virtue and vice.”
While that’s an interesting suggestion, Witherington’s only support for this contention is a citation from Quintilian. But whether a Jewish writer like Jude would share the outlook of a Roman rhetorician needs to be established on its own grounds.
c) Charles (Charles 1993) takes the position that Jude’s use of apocryphal literature is ad hominem. Because the audience and/or opponents held this sectarian literature in high esteem, he answers them on their own grounds.
I think that’s a valid consideration. The fact that a Bible writer quotes an extracanonical source doesn’t commit him to accepting the source at face value. Moses offers a subversive reading of the Song of Heshbon (Num 21:27-30). It was originally an Amorite taunt-song. Now the tables are turned as Israel bests the Amorites and makes them eat their own words! The irony trades on a conspicuous contrast between the original context and its recontextualization.
For his part, Jeremiah (Jer 48:45-46) preserves the original referent (Moab), but time-shifts the terms fulfillment from past to future. So Moses and Jeremiah both disregard original intent as they adapt the material to score points. They make inspired used of uninspired materials. It is precisely because the material is uninspired that they indulge in such literary license. What is normative is not the primary source, but the use made of it in the secondary source.
d) Green (Green 2008) is critical of Charles’ explanation because there’s no indication that Jude held a low opinion of the material he was citing. Green’s alternative is to emphasize the Scriptural underpinnings of this material.
I agree with Green that overemphasis on the extrabiblical sources can cause us to underemphasize the biblical sources.
At the same time I don’t think he quite comes to terms with the logical force of Charles’ explanation. For if Jude were making ad hominem use of this material, would we expect him to explicitly distance himself from this material? Wouldn’t tipping his hand undercut the effectiveness of his rhetorical strategy?
e) Bauckham (Bauckham 1990:225-233; cf. Davids 206:76) documents the fact that Jews did draw a distinction between canonical Scripture and other inspirational literature.
f) Beckwith (Beckwith 1986:403-405) considers this a case of haggadic embellishment—an accepted literary convention in Jewish circles.
Except for (a), (b)-(f) are not mutually exclusive explanations.
VI. 1 Enoch
i) In vv14-15, Jude quotes a passage from 1 Enoch. Here is the dilemma which many conservative scholars have with his quote:
Jude claims that Enoch said this. Jude calls this a prophecy. And he seems to treat it as true.
But we know that 1 Enoch is a pious fraud. Given its fictitious character, isn’t Jude’s use of 1 Enoch mistaken? It may be an honest mistake, but it’s still a mistake.
However, I’d submit that this analysis is simplistic.
ii) Let’s take another example: suppose I say that Tiresias foretold the fate of Odysseus.
I would, of course, be alluding to a scene from Book XI of the Odyssey. Is my statement true for false? That’s ambiguous. It all depends on what I have in mind.
a) It’s a true ascription. In the Odyssey, Tiresias does, indeed, predict the fate of Odysseus.
b) Is what he said true? No.
c) Is what I said about him true? Once again, that depends. The literary Tiresias is a Theban prophet. He may be a fictitious character, but he plays the part of a prophet.
For me to say he’s a prophet is a true statement if I’m referring to his character in the Odyssey. The literary referent is a prophet. He makes prophetic claims.
d) If I thought the literary Tiresias were the same as the historical Tiresias, then my statement would be false. For Tiresias is not a real person. Hence, he didn’t really foretell the fate of Odysseus.
e) Can you tell from my statement about Tiresias whether I think he’s a real person or not? No. My statement, in and of itself, doesn’t indicate my personal estimation of Tiresias.
iii) Let’s take another example: it’s quite possible for a fictitious character to make a true statement. A creative writer might put words in the mouth of a fictitious character which truly describe a real world situation. Indeed, that’s often the case.
iv) Let’s take another example: it’s quite possible to have a literary character that is modeled on a historical figure. We have this in historical novels. A novel about the Civil War may include the character of Stonewall Jackson. He was a real person. The novelist may also put words in the mouth of his character which Stonewall Jackson actually spoke.
v) In the case of Enoch, there is both a historical Enoch and a literary Enoch. The “Enoch” of the Bible refers to the historical Enoch while the “Enoch” of 1 Enoch refers to the literary Enoch.
vi) Which “Enoch” is Jude denoting? The immediate referent is the literary Enoch. The “Enoch” of 1 Enoch. The literary Enoch was a prophet. And the literary Enoch said what Jude attributes to him.
Does Jude equate the literary Enoch with the historical Enoch? From his statement alone, you can’t tell if he identifies one with the other. How else would he refer to the literary Enoch? To the character in 1 Enoch?
On the face of it, there’s nothing mistaken about Jude’s statement. His ascription is an accurate ascription. At that level, it’s no different than my statement that Tiresias foretold the fate of Odysseus.
vii) As Green also points out, Jude is quite discriminating in his appropriation of 1 Enoch. There’s a lot of fanciful material which he has excluded from his argument. This should caution us against assuming that Jude made uncritical use of his source materials.
viii) Is the statement of the literary Enoch true or false? The statement is true.
The Enochian statement is indebted to Deut 33:2. And that, in turn, forms the basis of eschatological theophanies regarding the Day of the Lord. We have equivalent statements about the return of Christ in the NT.
In sum, there’s nothing even apparently—much less actually—erroneous about Jude’s use of 1 Enoch.
ix) But even if the Enochian quote were unhistorical, that would not be problematic in case Jude’s use of 1 Enoch is merely haggadic or ad hominem.
VII. The Assumption of Moses
i) There’s a scholarly dispute as to whether Jude is alluding to the Assumption of Moses or the Testament of Moses. That’s irrelevant to the canonical question, so I’ll bypass that debate. For convenience, I’ll use one title rather than two.
ii) What I just said about 1 Enoch is applicable to the Assumption of Moses. The “Michael,” “Moses,” and “Satan” in view are their literary counterparts—not their historical namesakes. At that level, Jude’s ascriptions are true. The literary Michael did make that statement to the literary Satan, about the literary Moses. Whether that corresponds to the historical Michael, Moses, and Satan, and whether Jude intended that correspondence, is a separate issue.
iii) Likewise, if Jude’s use of the Assumption of Moses is merely haggadic or ad hominem, then this incident doesn’t have to be historical to make his point.
iv) As Green points out, the Assumption of Moses is not his only source. He is also dependent on Zech 3:1-2.
v) Is the incident in Assumption of Moses true? For starters, this represents a gloss on the canonical death of Moses in Deut 34:5-6 (par. Num 27:12-13).
The canonical obituary is enigmatic and provocative. A number of scholars think there is a supernatural element to that event inasmuch as God buried Moses (Bauckham 1990:239; Craigie 1976:405; Currid 206:535; Davids 2006:61; Thompson 1974:319). Thus, only God knew where his grave was located.
Why would God do that—unless a marked grave would lead to some form of necromancy or ancestor worship?
vi) In Scripture, Michael, Moses, and Satan are all real people.
vii) Is there any antecedent reason to think that Satan would take an interest in the body of Moses? In many religions, the preservation or proper disposal of the corpse of a holy man is highly significant. Whether he’s given an honorable or dishonorable burial is significant to his posthumous reputation.
Likewise, the corpse can become the source or center of a shrine or reliquary. Some religions are legitimated by having this sort of thing in their possession. It validates their claim to be the true heirs of the Master.
Hence, Satan might have good reason to take an interest in the mortal remains of Moses.
This incident might strike a Protestant reader as fanciful because our own tradition is (rightly) opposed to this sort of thing. But while there’s a sense in which devotion to relics is fanciful, the devotion is genuine. And that can be exploited. That’s a powerful tool in religious propaganda. (Cf. Bauckham 1990:239-240.)
This sort of thing is also touched on in Scripture (e.g. 2 Kgs 13:21; 18:4).
viii) Also keep in mind what I said about organic inspiration. We shouldn’t assume that Jude had to get all his information from Biblical or extrabiblical sources. Inspiration is a resource.
ix) If the description of the dispute between Michael and Satan still strikes the reader as a bit fanciful, we should remember that the Bible has rather imaginative, anthroporphic, and stereotypical ways of depicting the numinous realm. Stock imagery is recycled from one book to another.
It’s natural for Bible writers to describe events of this sort in recognizable terms which the reader is already familiar with—whether Biblical or extrabiblical. That makes the idea easier to conceptualize.
So we shouldn’t hold this description to the standards of photographic realism. This isn’t a transcript.
Of course, if you don’t believe in angels and demons, then the account will strike you as inherently fanciful. But that’s a separate issue.
As I said under (iii), it may be the case Jude never meant to vouch for the historicity of this incident. But even if that was his intention, this claim isn’t obviously false.
References
Archer, G. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Eerdmans 1982)
Bauckham, R. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus (T&T Clark 1990)
Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986)
Charles, J. Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (USP 1993)
Craigie, P. The Book of Deuteronomy (Eerdmans 1976)
Currid, J. Deuteronomy (EP 2006)
Davids, P. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Eerdmans 2006)
Green, G. Jude & 2 Peter (Baker 2008)
Hengel, M. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (Baker 2004)
Thompson, J. Deuteronomy (IVP 1974)
Witherington, B. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians (IVP 2007)
Jude is often thought to pose a problem for the canon. The problem is not that Jude uses extracanonical materials. Other Bible writers use extracanonical materials too. Truth is truth. As long as the material is true, it matters not where it comes from.
Rather, the question at issue is whether Jude mistakenly uses extracanonical materials as if they were true, when, it fact, they are fictitious.
Various scholars have addressed this issue from various angles, but the coverage is often fairly scattershot. It’s useful to review the options is a more systematic fashion.
II. A Problem for Whom?
i) In Catholic and Orthodox polemical theology, this is treated as a problem for the Protestant canon. But if it’s a problem for Protestantism, then it’s also a problem for Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
ii) There’s a tendency among high churchmen to treat ecclesiastical authority as a substitute for a direct solution. They don’t have to explain their way out of a problem. They can just invoke their faith in ecclesiastical authority as a safety net that will prevent the church from falling into grave error.
a) But this won’t work. First of all, it assumes the church has the authority they ascribe to it.
b) And even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that claim, ecclesiastical authority cannot transform a false proposition into a true proposition. If Jude got it wrong, then ecclesiastical authority is incompetent to salvage his mistake. He said what he said. That’s a done deal. The problem can’t be retroactively repaired.
iii) Indeed, if Jude is a problem, then the problem is worse for the high church tradition.
a) If Protestant tradition made the wrong call on Jude, that wouldn’t falsify the fundamental assumptions of Protestant theological method. We admit that our traditions are fallible.
And that’s a strength, not a weakness. In the high church tradition, a primitive error can get frozen into dogma, and then supply the false premise for an escalating series of errors.
Because Protestant tradition is fallible, it is subject to correction. We aren’t committed to primitive errors. We aren’t committed to taking a primitive error to its logical extreme.
b) By contrast, if Catholicism made the wrong call on Jude, then that falsifies its claim to a divine teaching office. The entire edifice crumbles under a shaky foundation.
c) Likewise, if the Bible is errant, then there’s no reason to believe the Church is inerrant. Scepticism about the infallibility of the Bible naturally seeps over into scepticism about the infallibility or indefectibility of the Church.
d) In Orthodoxy, with its fuzzy canon, the problem lies in the opposite direction. An unverifiable canon is no improvement over a faulty canon. And if the Orthodox church cannot even settle the boundaries of the canon, then what does ecclesiastical authority amount to?
In addition, it’s arguable that while the Orthodox canon is somewhat fluid, its canon certainly includes the Book of Jude.
III. Inerrancy
i) Some observers of a more liberal disposition might contend that this is a pseudoproblem generated by a dogmatic commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture. Why not simply admit that Jude was mistaken? Apart from a precommitment to inerrancy, is there any reason to suppose that Jude couldn’t treat 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses as Scripture?
ii) As a matter of fact, there is. All our other sources of information indicate that 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were never any part of the Jewish canon (cf. Beckwith 1986; Hengel 2004:54-56).
iii) Moreover, Jude was a Palestinian Jew, the kid brother of a very traditional Jew. We wouldn’t expect James to rank sectarian, Intertestamental literature as Scripture. By the same token, we wouldn’t expect his kid brother to do the same.
So there are antecedent reasons, apart from inerrancy, to doubt that Jude would treat this extracanonical material as Scripture.
iv) Furthermore, a preliminary step in exegesis is to reconstruct the background of a document. Who wrote it? Why? When? Where? To whom or for whom? About whom?
A scholar poses these questions, in part, to identify the viewpoint of the author. It’s harder to interpret his statements if we can’t ascertain his viewpoint.
In the case of Jude, we know very little about the author, his audience, or his opponents.
The book of Jude is, itself, exceptionally brief. Our knowledge of the author is largely circumstantial. So we have precious little to go on regarding his point of view respecting extracanonical literature. As such, we’re not guilty of special pleading when we exercise restraint in jumping to conclusions about his actual view of 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses—in possible contrast to his merely polemical use of this material.
v) What is more, it would only be unreasonable to filter Jude through the lens of inerrancy if inerrancy is, itself, unreasonable. But if we have good reason to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in general, then we have good reason to believe in the inerrancy of Jude in particular—assuming that Jude is Scripture.
I’d add that if Jude is authentic, and there’s no good reason to deny its authenticity, then a document by a sibling of Jesus is an excellent candidate for canonicity.
vi) Finally, you don’t have to be an inerrantist to deny that Jude regards his extracanonical sources as Scripture, viz. Bauckham, Davids (see below).
IV. Inspiration
i) According to the organic theory of inspiration, which is the mainstream theory in Reformed theology (a la Warfield), inspiration is compatible with the use of sources.
ii) Conversely, the fact that we can trace some ideas to an extrabiblical source doesn’t mean that a Bible writer got all his information from extrabiblical sources.
V. Potential Solutions
a) Archer (Archer 1982:430) takes the position that, at this juncture, 1 Enoch preserves an authentic Enochian tradition.
Speaking for myself, I don’t find it terribly plausible to suppose that an authentic prediluvian tradition happened to find its way into an apocryphal work, and—what is more—that it also happened to coincide with Jude’s argument.
b) Witherington (Witherington 2007:608) says that “from a rhetorical viewpoint it was perfectly appropriate to draw examples from both history and fiction to make one’s points about virtue and vice.”
While that’s an interesting suggestion, Witherington’s only support for this contention is a citation from Quintilian. But whether a Jewish writer like Jude would share the outlook of a Roman rhetorician needs to be established on its own grounds.
c) Charles (Charles 1993) takes the position that Jude’s use of apocryphal literature is ad hominem. Because the audience and/or opponents held this sectarian literature in high esteem, he answers them on their own grounds.
I think that’s a valid consideration. The fact that a Bible writer quotes an extracanonical source doesn’t commit him to accepting the source at face value. Moses offers a subversive reading of the Song of Heshbon (Num 21:27-30). It was originally an Amorite taunt-song. Now the tables are turned as Israel bests the Amorites and makes them eat their own words! The irony trades on a conspicuous contrast between the original context and its recontextualization.
For his part, Jeremiah (Jer 48:45-46) preserves the original referent (Moab), but time-shifts the terms fulfillment from past to future. So Moses and Jeremiah both disregard original intent as they adapt the material to score points. They make inspired used of uninspired materials. It is precisely because the material is uninspired that they indulge in such literary license. What is normative is not the primary source, but the use made of it in the secondary source.
d) Green (Green 2008) is critical of Charles’ explanation because there’s no indication that Jude held a low opinion of the material he was citing. Green’s alternative is to emphasize the Scriptural underpinnings of this material.
I agree with Green that overemphasis on the extrabiblical sources can cause us to underemphasize the biblical sources.
At the same time I don’t think he quite comes to terms with the logical force of Charles’ explanation. For if Jude were making ad hominem use of this material, would we expect him to explicitly distance himself from this material? Wouldn’t tipping his hand undercut the effectiveness of his rhetorical strategy?
e) Bauckham (Bauckham 1990:225-233; cf. Davids 206:76) documents the fact that Jews did draw a distinction between canonical Scripture and other inspirational literature.
f) Beckwith (Beckwith 1986:403-405) considers this a case of haggadic embellishment—an accepted literary convention in Jewish circles.
Except for (a), (b)-(f) are not mutually exclusive explanations.
VI. 1 Enoch
i) In vv14-15, Jude quotes a passage from 1 Enoch. Here is the dilemma which many conservative scholars have with his quote:
Jude claims that Enoch said this. Jude calls this a prophecy. And he seems to treat it as true.
But we know that 1 Enoch is a pious fraud. Given its fictitious character, isn’t Jude’s use of 1 Enoch mistaken? It may be an honest mistake, but it’s still a mistake.
However, I’d submit that this analysis is simplistic.
ii) Let’s take another example: suppose I say that Tiresias foretold the fate of Odysseus.
I would, of course, be alluding to a scene from Book XI of the Odyssey. Is my statement true for false? That’s ambiguous. It all depends on what I have in mind.
a) It’s a true ascription. In the Odyssey, Tiresias does, indeed, predict the fate of Odysseus.
b) Is what he said true? No.
c) Is what I said about him true? Once again, that depends. The literary Tiresias is a Theban prophet. He may be a fictitious character, but he plays the part of a prophet.
For me to say he’s a prophet is a true statement if I’m referring to his character in the Odyssey. The literary referent is a prophet. He makes prophetic claims.
d) If I thought the literary Tiresias were the same as the historical Tiresias, then my statement would be false. For Tiresias is not a real person. Hence, he didn’t really foretell the fate of Odysseus.
e) Can you tell from my statement about Tiresias whether I think he’s a real person or not? No. My statement, in and of itself, doesn’t indicate my personal estimation of Tiresias.
iii) Let’s take another example: it’s quite possible for a fictitious character to make a true statement. A creative writer might put words in the mouth of a fictitious character which truly describe a real world situation. Indeed, that’s often the case.
iv) Let’s take another example: it’s quite possible to have a literary character that is modeled on a historical figure. We have this in historical novels. A novel about the Civil War may include the character of Stonewall Jackson. He was a real person. The novelist may also put words in the mouth of his character which Stonewall Jackson actually spoke.
v) In the case of Enoch, there is both a historical Enoch and a literary Enoch. The “Enoch” of the Bible refers to the historical Enoch while the “Enoch” of 1 Enoch refers to the literary Enoch.
vi) Which “Enoch” is Jude denoting? The immediate referent is the literary Enoch. The “Enoch” of 1 Enoch. The literary Enoch was a prophet. And the literary Enoch said what Jude attributes to him.
Does Jude equate the literary Enoch with the historical Enoch? From his statement alone, you can’t tell if he identifies one with the other. How else would he refer to the literary Enoch? To the character in 1 Enoch?
On the face of it, there’s nothing mistaken about Jude’s statement. His ascription is an accurate ascription. At that level, it’s no different than my statement that Tiresias foretold the fate of Odysseus.
vii) As Green also points out, Jude is quite discriminating in his appropriation of 1 Enoch. There’s a lot of fanciful material which he has excluded from his argument. This should caution us against assuming that Jude made uncritical use of his source materials.
viii) Is the statement of the literary Enoch true or false? The statement is true.
The Enochian statement is indebted to Deut 33:2. And that, in turn, forms the basis of eschatological theophanies regarding the Day of the Lord. We have equivalent statements about the return of Christ in the NT.
In sum, there’s nothing even apparently—much less actually—erroneous about Jude’s use of 1 Enoch.
ix) But even if the Enochian quote were unhistorical, that would not be problematic in case Jude’s use of 1 Enoch is merely haggadic or ad hominem.
VII. The Assumption of Moses
i) There’s a scholarly dispute as to whether Jude is alluding to the Assumption of Moses or the Testament of Moses. That’s irrelevant to the canonical question, so I’ll bypass that debate. For convenience, I’ll use one title rather than two.
ii) What I just said about 1 Enoch is applicable to the Assumption of Moses. The “Michael,” “Moses,” and “Satan” in view are their literary counterparts—not their historical namesakes. At that level, Jude’s ascriptions are true. The literary Michael did make that statement to the literary Satan, about the literary Moses. Whether that corresponds to the historical Michael, Moses, and Satan, and whether Jude intended that correspondence, is a separate issue.
iii) Likewise, if Jude’s use of the Assumption of Moses is merely haggadic or ad hominem, then this incident doesn’t have to be historical to make his point.
iv) As Green points out, the Assumption of Moses is not his only source. He is also dependent on Zech 3:1-2.
v) Is the incident in Assumption of Moses true? For starters, this represents a gloss on the canonical death of Moses in Deut 34:5-6 (par. Num 27:12-13).
The canonical obituary is enigmatic and provocative. A number of scholars think there is a supernatural element to that event inasmuch as God buried Moses (Bauckham 1990:239; Craigie 1976:405; Currid 206:535; Davids 2006:61; Thompson 1974:319). Thus, only God knew where his grave was located.
Why would God do that—unless a marked grave would lead to some form of necromancy or ancestor worship?
vi) In Scripture, Michael, Moses, and Satan are all real people.
vii) Is there any antecedent reason to think that Satan would take an interest in the body of Moses? In many religions, the preservation or proper disposal of the corpse of a holy man is highly significant. Whether he’s given an honorable or dishonorable burial is significant to his posthumous reputation.
Likewise, the corpse can become the source or center of a shrine or reliquary. Some religions are legitimated by having this sort of thing in their possession. It validates their claim to be the true heirs of the Master.
Hence, Satan might have good reason to take an interest in the mortal remains of Moses.
This incident might strike a Protestant reader as fanciful because our own tradition is (rightly) opposed to this sort of thing. But while there’s a sense in which devotion to relics is fanciful, the devotion is genuine. And that can be exploited. That’s a powerful tool in religious propaganda. (Cf. Bauckham 1990:239-240.)
This sort of thing is also touched on in Scripture (e.g. 2 Kgs 13:21; 18:4).
viii) Also keep in mind what I said about organic inspiration. We shouldn’t assume that Jude had to get all his information from Biblical or extrabiblical sources. Inspiration is a resource.
ix) If the description of the dispute between Michael and Satan still strikes the reader as a bit fanciful, we should remember that the Bible has rather imaginative, anthroporphic, and stereotypical ways of depicting the numinous realm. Stock imagery is recycled from one book to another.
It’s natural for Bible writers to describe events of this sort in recognizable terms which the reader is already familiar with—whether Biblical or extrabiblical. That makes the idea easier to conceptualize.
So we shouldn’t hold this description to the standards of photographic realism. This isn’t a transcript.
Of course, if you don’t believe in angels and demons, then the account will strike you as inherently fanciful. But that’s a separate issue.
As I said under (iii), it may be the case Jude never meant to vouch for the historicity of this incident. But even if that was his intention, this claim isn’t obviously false.
References
Archer, G. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Eerdmans 1982)
Bauckham, R. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus (T&T Clark 1990)
Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986)
Charles, J. Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (USP 1993)
Craigie, P. The Book of Deuteronomy (Eerdmans 1976)
Currid, J. Deuteronomy (EP 2006)
Davids, P. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Eerdmans 2006)
Green, G. Jude & 2 Peter (Baker 2008)
Hengel, M. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (Baker 2004)
Thompson, J. Deuteronomy (IVP 1974)
Witherington, B. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians (IVP 2007)
Obama's Liberalism As An Acceptable Option
If the current polling holds up, Democratic presidential candidates will have won more of the popular vote than Republican presidential candidates in four of the last five elections. (Al Gore lost the election in 2000, but received more of the popular vote.) After two terms of Bill Clinton, more voters wanted to essentially have a third term for the Clinton administration, by means of electing Gore, than wanted George Bush to become president. This year, after John McCain and his campaign have repeatedly referred to Barack Obama as a liberal and have described his liberal positions in many highly visible forums (debates, television ads, etc.), Obama is consistently leading in the polls. Obama isn't just liberal in the manner in which somebody like Gore or Kerry is liberal. Obama is more liberal than his predecessors, has significantly less experience at a time when the prominent issues of the day call for more experience, and has personal problems worse than Kerry's, Gore's, and even Clinton's (his associations with men like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, his taped comments about Pennsylvania voters, etc.).
I think I'm more pessimistic than most conservatives about the nature of the American people. I don't think most Americans are liberal, but I don't think most are conservative either. Conservatism is a large minority, but it is a minority. I suspect that Ronald Reagan and the current George Bush won largely with the support of non-conservatives who liked them as individuals, who had a vague desire for change, or who agreed with them on some issues while disagreeing with them on many others. Both men probably would have lost if they had been supported only by conservatives. Even when Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress, I was skeptical of the positive view of the American people that we often hear from conservatives (see, for example, here and here).
But if Barack Obama wins this election, then I wasn't pessimistic enough. I've already been proven wrong to some extent. I expected the race to tighten significantly in the closing days of the campaign. That might happen in the remaining two days, but I thought McCain would already have gained significantly more ground than he has. I was also expecting the Democrats to have less turnout than commonly predicted and the Republicans to have more turnout than expected. I might have been wrong about that also, but we'll see. I've heard some encouraging reports from Republican states, suggesting that Republicans have been getting better turnout in the early voting than many had anticipated.
I don't think an Obama victory would suggest that the American people are liberal, much less as liberal as Obama. But it would demonstrate that Obama's liberalism is within the range of acceptable options for those voters. And those voters probably would represent a majority of Americans.
I consider polls generally reliable. If the polls are wrong about this election, I think it's an honest mistake, perhaps a mistake resulting from wrong turnout models. I'm not convinced by conservative suggestions that all or most of the pollsters are liberal and are misrepresenting what voters believe. Considering how widely the polls differ in the lead they give Obama, at least some of them have to be significantly wrong. But they do agree in giving Obama a lead.
People who like Obama as a person and have a vague desire for change this year, and are therefore voting for Obama, could like the Republican candidate as a person and have a vague desire for change that leads them to vote for the Republican in 2012. I don't think an Obama victory would suggest a major shift to the left. It would suggest a shift to the left in the degree of liberalism that most Americans are willing to accept. They'd prefer somebody less liberal than Obama, but they'll accept his liberalism in a context like 2008.
In a post about the election last month, I quoted a passage from one of David Wells' books:
"It is one of the defining marks of Our Time that God is now weightless. I do not mean by this that he is ethereal but rather that he has become unimportant. He rests upon the world so inconsequentially as not to be noticeable. He has lost his saliency for human life. Those who assure the pollsters of their belief in God's existence may nonetheless consider him less interesting than television, his commands less authoritative than their appetites for affluence and influence, his judgment no more awe-inspiring than the evening news, and his truth less compelling than the advertisers' sweet fog of flattery and lies. That is weightlessness. It is a condition we have assigned him after having nudged him out to the periphery of our secularized life....Weightlessness tells us nothing about God but everything about ourselves, about our condition, about our psychological disposition to exclude God from our reality." (God In The Wasteland [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 88, 90)
One of the reasons why issues like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and judges are so weightless to so many voters is the weightlessness of God in their lives. The same party that tells us "It's the economy, stupid!" objects that its opponents are too concerned with money, that they're selfish, greedy, and too concerned about the upper class. There is a party in America that's more greedy than the other, but it isn't the Republicans.
For those trying to decide whether to vote or who to vote for, you may be interested in a post I wrote this past September about the differences between Obama and McCain.
I think I'm more pessimistic than most conservatives about the nature of the American people. I don't think most Americans are liberal, but I don't think most are conservative either. Conservatism is a large minority, but it is a minority. I suspect that Ronald Reagan and the current George Bush won largely with the support of non-conservatives who liked them as individuals, who had a vague desire for change, or who agreed with them on some issues while disagreeing with them on many others. Both men probably would have lost if they had been supported only by conservatives. Even when Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress, I was skeptical of the positive view of the American people that we often hear from conservatives (see, for example, here and here).
But if Barack Obama wins this election, then I wasn't pessimistic enough. I've already been proven wrong to some extent. I expected the race to tighten significantly in the closing days of the campaign. That might happen in the remaining two days, but I thought McCain would already have gained significantly more ground than he has. I was also expecting the Democrats to have less turnout than commonly predicted and the Republicans to have more turnout than expected. I might have been wrong about that also, but we'll see. I've heard some encouraging reports from Republican states, suggesting that Republicans have been getting better turnout in the early voting than many had anticipated.
I don't think an Obama victory would suggest that the American people are liberal, much less as liberal as Obama. But it would demonstrate that Obama's liberalism is within the range of acceptable options for those voters. And those voters probably would represent a majority of Americans.
I consider polls generally reliable. If the polls are wrong about this election, I think it's an honest mistake, perhaps a mistake resulting from wrong turnout models. I'm not convinced by conservative suggestions that all or most of the pollsters are liberal and are misrepresenting what voters believe. Considering how widely the polls differ in the lead they give Obama, at least some of them have to be significantly wrong. But they do agree in giving Obama a lead.
People who like Obama as a person and have a vague desire for change this year, and are therefore voting for Obama, could like the Republican candidate as a person and have a vague desire for change that leads them to vote for the Republican in 2012. I don't think an Obama victory would suggest a major shift to the left. It would suggest a shift to the left in the degree of liberalism that most Americans are willing to accept. They'd prefer somebody less liberal than Obama, but they'll accept his liberalism in a context like 2008.
In a post about the election last month, I quoted a passage from one of David Wells' books:
"It is one of the defining marks of Our Time that God is now weightless. I do not mean by this that he is ethereal but rather that he has become unimportant. He rests upon the world so inconsequentially as not to be noticeable. He has lost his saliency for human life. Those who assure the pollsters of their belief in God's existence may nonetheless consider him less interesting than television, his commands less authoritative than their appetites for affluence and influence, his judgment no more awe-inspiring than the evening news, and his truth less compelling than the advertisers' sweet fog of flattery and lies. That is weightlessness. It is a condition we have assigned him after having nudged him out to the periphery of our secularized life....Weightlessness tells us nothing about God but everything about ourselves, about our condition, about our psychological disposition to exclude God from our reality." (God In The Wasteland [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 88, 90)
One of the reasons why issues like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and judges are so weightless to so many voters is the weightlessness of God in their lives. The same party that tells us "It's the economy, stupid!" objects that its opponents are too concerned with money, that they're selfish, greedy, and too concerned about the upper class. There is a party in America that's more greedy than the other, but it isn't the Republicans.
For those trying to decide whether to vote or who to vote for, you may be interested in a post I wrote this past September about the differences between Obama and McCain.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Success Rates
I'd planned to take a year off blogging - but John Loftus provides some low hanging fruit from which it's good to make a wider point or points:
Loftus writes:
1. Note how John assumes what he needs to prove, namely that Jesus died for "our" sins - defined by his Arminian upbringing as "everybody without exception.
2. Neither does he address the concept of "divine silence."
3. And he doesn't bother with telling us if this is an internal or an external critique.
a. If internal, this might be effective against some Arminians, but it doesn't begin to touch Reformed theology.
b. If external, he's given us no reason to accept his standards of critique, whatever they may be.
4. Indeed, what divine omniscience has to do with this isn't even stated.
First let's look at what one thinks (as he doesn't give any specific texts) would be a standard text, John 3:16.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, so that all the ones believing may not perish but have eternal life.
A. God loves the world. No problem. But love is not God's only attribute.
B. For whom did Jesus come to die? All the ones believing. John 3:16 is a marvelous text for particular redemption.
Indeed, this text is followed by John 3:17, which merely recapituates 3:16. The world is condemned already. Jesus did not come into it to condemn it. Rather, he came to save it.
This is all stated to explain the illustration of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. It may help Arminians in general to read that narrative.. How many people for whom the serpent was lifted up actually died, according to that text? None. The people who died had already done so. So, what's the point? The point is simple: Jesus came to redeem the cosmos by being lifted up for the believing ones. Their salvation through Him is the means of cosmic redemption, the same way that God saved the nation of Israel through the serpent being lifted up. The believing ones looked to it, and the nation was saved.
So, what does this mean for John's post?
Well, for starters, the target group isn't "the world" defined as "everybody." The target group of people in the world is the elect. All the elect will be saved, and by this the world is saved. God isn't in heaven wringing His hands hoping that people will all come to Christ. Sure, He offers some people who ultimately reject Christ salvation, but that's for their inculpation, and the call is general because God doesn't write a big "E" across the forehead of the elect, who are scattered in geography and history. The force of a gospel presentation generally is to call the elect and inculpate the reprobate, and God need not present the gospel to everybody anyway:
1. Divine silence is a judgment for sin.
2. People are condemned already. The reprobate are already condemned. In a sense not hearing the gospel is a mercy, for "to whom much is given, much is required."
Likewise common grace itself is indexed to the Noahic covenant...for the purpose of maintaining the world until God's purposes of redemption are accomplished...and that very covenant was made with Noah and his familo, so it too is indexed, ultimately, to the elect.
So, God is "passionate" about calling the elect. His "omnibenevolence" extends to "everybody" insofar as God's ultimate purposes are concerned, is being fulfilled. Love is not God's only attribute, and God certainly knows all things, for He's foreordained them. The great redemptive purposes of God are not a failure. The success rate is 100 percent (something that can't be said of Arminianism, given general redemption), and "divine silence" is not a testament against the truth of the Bible or the Gospel. Rather, it is proof of it. God did the "greater deed," by sending Christ to die for the elect, and He does the "lesser" by making sure each and every one of them is saved.
If this is the best John Loftus can do these days, we welcome it, for this sort of namby pamby argumentation does Reformed theology a great favor.
Loftus writes:
If God sent Jesus to save the world by dying on the cross for our sins (the greater deed) then he should at least be as passionate as Christians are to help people believe (the lesser deeds). Why would God do the greater deed and not also do the lesser deeds? This doesn't make sense of an omniscient, omnibenelovent, and omnipotent God. The excuses given for the paucity of evidence reveal that the Christian expects way too little from the God they believe in.
1. Note how John assumes what he needs to prove, namely that Jesus died for "our" sins - defined by his Arminian upbringing as "everybody without exception.
2. Neither does he address the concept of "divine silence."
3. And he doesn't bother with telling us if this is an internal or an external critique.
a. If internal, this might be effective against some Arminians, but it doesn't begin to touch Reformed theology.
b. If external, he's given us no reason to accept his standards of critique, whatever they may be.
4. Indeed, what divine omniscience has to do with this isn't even stated.
First let's look at what one thinks (as he doesn't give any specific texts) would be a standard text, John 3:16.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, so that all the ones believing may not perish but have eternal life.
A. God loves the world. No problem. But love is not God's only attribute.
B. For whom did Jesus come to die? All the ones believing. John 3:16 is a marvelous text for particular redemption.
Indeed, this text is followed by John 3:17, which merely recapituates 3:16. The world is condemned already. Jesus did not come into it to condemn it. Rather, he came to save it.
This is all stated to explain the illustration of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. It may help Arminians in general to read that narrative.. How many people for whom the serpent was lifted up actually died, according to that text? None. The people who died had already done so. So, what's the point? The point is simple: Jesus came to redeem the cosmos by being lifted up for the believing ones. Their salvation through Him is the means of cosmic redemption, the same way that God saved the nation of Israel through the serpent being lifted up. The believing ones looked to it, and the nation was saved.
So, what does this mean for John's post?
Well, for starters, the target group isn't "the world" defined as "everybody." The target group of people in the world is the elect. All the elect will be saved, and by this the world is saved. God isn't in heaven wringing His hands hoping that people will all come to Christ. Sure, He offers some people who ultimately reject Christ salvation, but that's for their inculpation, and the call is general because God doesn't write a big "E" across the forehead of the elect, who are scattered in geography and history. The force of a gospel presentation generally is to call the elect and inculpate the reprobate, and God need not present the gospel to everybody anyway:
1. Divine silence is a judgment for sin.
2. People are condemned already. The reprobate are already condemned. In a sense not hearing the gospel is a mercy, for "to whom much is given, much is required."
Likewise common grace itself is indexed to the Noahic covenant...for the purpose of maintaining the world until God's purposes of redemption are accomplished...and that very covenant was made with Noah and his familo, so it too is indexed, ultimately, to the elect.
So, God is "passionate" about calling the elect. His "omnibenevolence" extends to "everybody" insofar as God's ultimate purposes are concerned, is being fulfilled. Love is not God's only attribute, and God certainly knows all things, for He's foreordained them. The great redemptive purposes of God are not a failure. The success rate is 100 percent (something that can't be said of Arminianism, given general redemption), and "divine silence" is not a testament against the truth of the Bible or the Gospel. Rather, it is proof of it. God did the "greater deed," by sending Christ to die for the elect, and He does the "lesser" by making sure each and every one of them is saved.
If this is the best John Loftus can do these days, we welcome it, for this sort of namby pamby argumentation does Reformed theology a great favor.
And the winner is...?
So who will win—Obama or McCain?
Short answer: I have no idea.
Reasons Obama may win:
1.He’s ahead in all the polls.
2.Voter fraud favors the Dems.
3.He has the best ground game money can buy.
Reasons McCain may win:
1.Polling methodology is circular. Since a pollster will only sample a tiny fraction of the electorate, he must guess at what constitutes a representative sample group. So the output corresponds to the input. If you oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans, the polling results will mirror the sample group—which may or may not correspond to the distribution of the actual turnout. The sampling self-selects for the results.
Indeed, pollsters will even adjust the numbers to “correct” for the results if they think the results are unrepresentative.
2.The “Bradley effect.” It’s possible that some respondents lie to pollsters because they’re sensitive to the charge of “racism.”
Whether there is a “Bradley effect” is debatable. And whether it’s in play this time around is inherently unpredictable.
3.While McCain doesn’t have the number of paid boots on the ground that Obama has, he may have a lot of invisible boots on the ground. By tapping Palin, he was potentially tapping into an informal network of homeschooling moms and other suchlike. That doesn’t show up on the radar screen. Indeed, values voters are generally invisible to the liberal media because the liberal media takes no interest in this demographic niche.
4.While McCain’s position on amnesty is anathema to many conservatives, it may play better to the Latino voting block in a key state like Florida. That, too, remains to be seen.
5.Younger voters favor Obama, but historically, they don’t turn out in droves. Whether this year is an exception remains to be seen.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if either candidate wins.
Short answer: I have no idea.
Reasons Obama may win:
1.He’s ahead in all the polls.
2.Voter fraud favors the Dems.
3.He has the best ground game money can buy.
Reasons McCain may win:
1.Polling methodology is circular. Since a pollster will only sample a tiny fraction of the electorate, he must guess at what constitutes a representative sample group. So the output corresponds to the input. If you oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans, the polling results will mirror the sample group—which may or may not correspond to the distribution of the actual turnout. The sampling self-selects for the results.
Indeed, pollsters will even adjust the numbers to “correct” for the results if they think the results are unrepresentative.
2.The “Bradley effect.” It’s possible that some respondents lie to pollsters because they’re sensitive to the charge of “racism.”
Whether there is a “Bradley effect” is debatable. And whether it’s in play this time around is inherently unpredictable.
3.While McCain doesn’t have the number of paid boots on the ground that Obama has, he may have a lot of invisible boots on the ground. By tapping Palin, he was potentially tapping into an informal network of homeschooling moms and other suchlike. That doesn’t show up on the radar screen. Indeed, values voters are generally invisible to the liberal media because the liberal media takes no interest in this demographic niche.
4.While McCain’s position on amnesty is anathema to many conservatives, it may play better to the Latino voting block in a key state like Florida. That, too, remains to be seen.
5.Younger voters favor Obama, but historically, they don’t turn out in droves. Whether this year is an exception remains to be seen.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if either candidate wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)