29 percent of Russians are YEC. That’s how many believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Therefore, they must be YEC!
Except not really (expand the “People” section and look at Religions). Russia is 15-20% Russian Orthodox and a whole 2% “other” Christian (which I’m sure includes cults like Mormons). Combining those only yields 22% (and note that the Russian Orthodox Church, as far as I’ve heard, isn’t YEC anyway).
Yet still, the new atheists always lament the existence of religion as the primary cause of doubt in science, especially regarding the doctrines of Darwin. And they are confident that if we just get rid of religion, “reason” will be victorious. That’s why we’re treated to books like The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge, or Why Intelligent Design Fails (edited by Taner Edis and Matt Young).
But when you look at a country where religion was persecuted for 70 years, where less than half the people are religious at all (this includes the non-Christian groups, such as Muslims, etc.), you quickly discover that this lack of belief doesn’t seem to have much impact at all on whether someone will accept the “scientific” worldview.
Naturally, the poll given is only one sample, and so strong conclusions cannot be drawn from it. Still, the conclusion arrived at by those conducting the poll is that science is not taught very well in Russia, and that is probably true. But even so, there’s very little religious pressure in Russia to cause people to believe dinosaurs and people co-existed, and these people have heard enough of the science to know what a dinosaur is.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Lee Irons on natural law 2k
The theocratic implications of Natural Law
As a fellow adherent of the “two kingdom” theory, I applaud a good deal of what Scott Clark is trying to say here. I agree with him that there is such a thing as natural law inscribed on the conscience and that it is binding on all men in all ages. But I disagree with these statements:
Note that, on Clark’s view, the civil magistrate is obligated to “assert,” “protect,” and “enforce” natural law, to “require humans to live within their creational boundaries.” Clark makes this claim in order to argue that the state has a moral duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage. Clark seems to be saying that the state has a moral obligation or duty to enforce the moral law (= natural law), a duty that itself derives from moral/natural law.
My problem with this is that, if logically carried through, this will lead to a view of civil government that is just as theocratic as that desired by the theonomists. The only difference so far as I can tell is that on Clark’s view there would be more leeway in the specifics of the penal code. But consider the following implications. The state would be obligated to …
- Prohibit public expressions of idolatry
- Have blue laws encouraging Sabbath observance
- Criminalize all forms of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults, including homosexual activity
- Prohibit all unlawful divorce
- Prevent those who were divorced unlawfully from remarrying
Now Clark protests that he is no theocrat:
But if he really believes that “it is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law,” including all violations of the first table, then he is going back on his original premise: he no longer believes that the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce moral/natural law per se, but only a subset of it. But if he actually thinks the civil magistrate only has a duty to enforce a subset of the moral/natural law, how can he claim that the civil magistrate has a moral duty to enforce any of it? After all, the moral duty of the civil magistrate to enforce the moral/natural law flows from the moral law itself. So how can the magistrate pick and choose the parts he is going to enforce, when the whole stands or falls together? So, in spite of Clark’s claim that “this is not a theocratic argument,” it is, in fact, a theocratic argument.
Since he has appealed to natural law as the foundational principle of his theory of civil government, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either he maintains his foundational principle (namely, that the civil magistrate has a moral obligation to enforce the moral law) and applies it consistently to the civil enforcement of the entire moral law, both the so-called first and the second table. Or he backs down and makes a much less dramatic claim: the civil magistrate may enforce parts of the moral law to the extent that it promotes good order and well-being in society. But then Clark would no longer be able to claim that the civil magistrate is morally required to enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage. The civil magistrate could still enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage, but now only on the softer ground that various sociological studies have shown that it is better for society, for children, etc., not because natural law requires it.
Another problem with the appeal to natural law as the principle for determining the positive enforcement duties of the civil magistrate is that we live in a pluralistic society in which the very content of natural law itself is highly contested at critical points. Many citizens believe, for example, that committed same-sex relationships are not in any way sinful. Again, I affirm that the these people are wrong, and that deep down they know they are wrong. I know that because I believe the Bible’s teaching concerning the content of natural law (e.g., Romans 1). But such an appeal to Scripture will have minimal persuasive value in the public square. A natural law theorist may not go out with the intention of making a naked appeal to Scripture. He may try appealing to various arguments that support his interpretation of natural law, keeping his biblical beliefs out of play to achieve maximum rhetorical effect. But since the ultimate epistemic basis for his interpretation of natural law is Scripture, at the end of the day this will come to light at some point in the argument and it will become evident that he is not really making a good-faith religiously-neutral appeal.
The irony is that Clark claims to be an advocate of the “two kingdom” theory of civil government, that is, the notion that the two kingdoms — the common grace kingdom of civil government and the eschatological kingdom of God — are separate and distinct. Yet in his version, the common grace kingdom of civil government is bound to enforce the moral/natural law. In this way, the civil realm loses its common grace character and becomes theocratic, thus erasing the distinction between the two kingdoms.
Most theonomists would be perfectly happy with a state run on natural law principles, since they argue that the general equity of the Mosaic Law is identical with natural/moral law as revealed via general revelation (cp. Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pp. 206, 222).
Again, I agree with the Reformed doctrine of natural law. It is biblical (Romans 1). I’m merely objecting to the claim that it is the moral duty of the state to enforce it in society.
It is the creational (and biblical) office of the magistrate to assert and protect creational/natural boundaries by promoting civil peace and justice … It is the creational function of the state to preserve order and require humans to live within their creational boundaries … The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
Note that, on Clark’s view, the civil magistrate is obligated to “assert,” “protect,” and “enforce” natural law, to “require humans to live within their creational boundaries.” Clark makes this claim in order to argue that the state has a moral duty to recognize only heterosexual marriage. Clark seems to be saying that the state has a moral obligation or duty to enforce the moral law (= natural law), a duty that itself derives from moral/natural law.
My problem with this is that, if logically carried through, this will lead to a view of civil government that is just as theocratic as that desired by the theonomists. The only difference so far as I can tell is that on Clark’s view there would be more leeway in the specifics of the penal code. But consider the following implications. The state would be obligated to …
- Prohibit public expressions of idolatry
- Have blue laws encouraging Sabbath observance
- Criminalize all forms of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults, including homosexual activity
- Prohibit all unlawful divorce
- Prevent those who were divorced unlawfully from remarrying
Now Clark protests that he is no theocrat:
To anticipate an objection, this is not a theocratic argument. It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table.
But if he really believes that “it is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law,” including all violations of the first table, then he is going back on his original premise: he no longer believes that the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce moral/natural law per se, but only a subset of it. But if he actually thinks the civil magistrate only has a duty to enforce a subset of the moral/natural law, how can he claim that the civil magistrate has a moral duty to enforce any of it? After all, the moral duty of the civil magistrate to enforce the moral/natural law flows from the moral law itself. So how can the magistrate pick and choose the parts he is going to enforce, when the whole stands or falls together? So, in spite of Clark’s claim that “this is not a theocratic argument,” it is, in fact, a theocratic argument.
Since he has appealed to natural law as the foundational principle of his theory of civil government, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either he maintains his foundational principle (namely, that the civil magistrate has a moral obligation to enforce the moral law) and applies it consistently to the civil enforcement of the entire moral law, both the so-called first and the second table. Or he backs down and makes a much less dramatic claim: the civil magistrate may enforce parts of the moral law to the extent that it promotes good order and well-being in society. But then Clark would no longer be able to claim that the civil magistrate is morally required to enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage. The civil magistrate could still enforce the creational boundaries concerning marriage, but now only on the softer ground that various sociological studies have shown that it is better for society, for children, etc., not because natural law requires it.
Another problem with the appeal to natural law as the principle for determining the positive enforcement duties of the civil magistrate is that we live in a pluralistic society in which the very content of natural law itself is highly contested at critical points. Many citizens believe, for example, that committed same-sex relationships are not in any way sinful. Again, I affirm that the these people are wrong, and that deep down they know they are wrong. I know that because I believe the Bible’s teaching concerning the content of natural law (e.g., Romans 1). But such an appeal to Scripture will have minimal persuasive value in the public square. A natural law theorist may not go out with the intention of making a naked appeal to Scripture. He may try appealing to various arguments that support his interpretation of natural law, keeping his biblical beliefs out of play to achieve maximum rhetorical effect. But since the ultimate epistemic basis for his interpretation of natural law is Scripture, at the end of the day this will come to light at some point in the argument and it will become evident that he is not really making a good-faith religiously-neutral appeal.
The irony is that Clark claims to be an advocate of the “two kingdom” theory of civil government, that is, the notion that the two kingdoms — the common grace kingdom of civil government and the eschatological kingdom of God — are separate and distinct. Yet in his version, the common grace kingdom of civil government is bound to enforce the moral/natural law. In this way, the civil realm loses its common grace character and becomes theocratic, thus erasing the distinction between the two kingdoms.
Most theonomists would be perfectly happy with a state run on natural law principles, since they argue that the general equity of the Mosaic Law is identical with natural/moral law as revealed via general revelation (cp. Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pp. 206, 222).
Again, I agree with the Reformed doctrine of natural law. It is biblical (Romans 1). I’m merely objecting to the claim that it is the moral duty of the state to enforce it in society.
http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=240
When in doubt
Here's a copy of a letter I sent to a Baptist pastor recently who's suffered a lapse of faith. Not having heard back from him, I'll post it here:
Hi Byron,
I read the letter you posted at your blog. A few impressions:
Destroy the village to save the village
I notice that a couple of Arminian epologists (Peter Lumpkins, Billy Birch) are plugging a deconversion testimony. That’s a reviewing window into their ultimate priorities.
They promote it because they think it scores a coup against Calvinism, since the individual identifies himself as a one-time Calvinist, and directs some of his barbs at Calvinism in particular.
However, as anyone who bothers to read the piece can see, the objections are broader than Calvinism. It's not as if the individual simply switched from Calvinism to, say, Arminianism.
No, he repudiated the Christian faith. And his objections are clearly directed against Christian in general, not Calvinism in particular. Even when he frames his objections in terms of Calvinism, the objections are separable from the specifics of Calvinism.
So why are these Arminians promoting an attack on the Christian faith? Why are they redirecting their audience to read an attack on the Christian faith? Notice, too, that they don’t take the time to rebut any of objections. They let the objections stand.
I’d also note in passing that it doesn’t really score any points against Calvinism. On the one hand, Calvinism makes allowance for apostates and backsliders. On the other hand, some Arminians also commit apostasy.
Apparently, they hate Calvinism more than they love Christianity. Even atheism is better than Calvinism.
It’s like a bunch of bandits who take refuge in an orphanage. The posse decides to burn down the entire orphanage, thereby killing everyone inside, to ensure the death of the bandits. If you have to kill all the orphans to kill all the bandits, it’s worth the price.
Practical Deism
The Bayly bros did a recent post which drew my attention to an older post by Scott Clark. I’ll excerpt what I take to be Scott’s key contentions:
As I pointed out in those places both as a matter of history and, more fundamentally, as a matter of biblical revelation, we are clearly taught not to try to interpret providence. It is a temptation that we must resist. When God has not revealed himself (either explicitly or by “good and necessary inference” from Scripture) we should be silent. The plain fact is that we don’t know why a tornado struck that steeple just at that moment. It is fascinating, and surely it is sobering, just as a cancer diagnosis is sobering. But think of the difficulties attached to interpreting providence. I grew up in Tornado Alley. Like snow, humidity, and hail, they were a natural fact. When the “Big One” hit Omaha in 1975 or an even bigger one hit Grand Island (Neb) the next year, was that a message from God? Was God particularly displeased with the sinners in Omaha and Grand Island? When a tornado hits a lonely farmhouse in Kansas or even wipes out an entire town (Greensburg, Kan) does that mean that God was particularly displeased with them?
What makes me roll my eyes is not the wrath of God or the folly of denying his instruction regarding sin and grace but the presumption of those who think they can know the “hidden things” of God (Deut. 29:29).
We don’t need to add gravity to the Word by appealing to interpretations of providence which, in the nature of the case, is ambiguous. Piper may be right, but he may not be right. The truth is that God knows the end from the beginning. We cannot even begin to fathom what that means. God knows from eternity. He knows in a single act. He knows comprehensively. He knows intuitively. He knows freely. He knows sovereignly. He knows easily, effortlessly. He knows in a way that we can try to describe (apprehend) but in a way that we can never comprehend. One of the biggest problems with proposed interpretations of providence is this: not only do they directly contradict the express teaching of our Lord, but they also entail an insufficient appreciation for the majesty of God. I know it sounds odd to challenge John Piper on a theme like this, but that’s what is ironic. God’s ways are mysterious. They are far beyond our finding out. We’re not canonical actors. God doesn’t reveal to us the meaning of this earthquake, that flood, or that tornado. He just doesn’t. We don’t have what the classical Reformed and Lutheran theologians called “Archetypal theology,” i.e., we don’t know what God knows, the way he knows it. We have “ectypal theology,” i.e. we have “analogical” (their word) theology. God gives us analogues of his knowledge, but our intellects never intersect with his. We’re not capable of knowing what God knows, the way He knows it. Such knowledge would destroy us.
There is another problem. I’ve seen cases where a given interpretation of providence becomes binding, a kind of extra-canonical word from God, a fence around the law as it were. In such a case, Christians are no longer bound only the Word (which has to be interpreted, applied, and confessed by Christ’s church) but to the interpretation of natural revelation beyond that given in the Word. Rom. 1 teaches us the general meaning of natural revelation, but, beyond that we have no inspired interpretation and certainly not of particular episodes. The human lust to know that which we should not, to seek that which is hidden from us, is ancient and deadly. Whoever knows “God’s will for your life” is a very powerful person indeed: ask the victims of the Word-faith and Kansas City prophets (etc).
The meaning of a particular providence is hidden from us. If God wanted us to know the meaning of a particular providence, he would tell us but He hasn’t, has He? I don’t know that John is wrong, but I don’t know that he’s right. That’s just the point: I don’t have to know. We have the Word. Sola Scriptura.
Replicability
One of the stock objections to miracles is that miracles aren’t replicable. They can’t be tested under laboratory conditions, with a control group.
Of course, this objection fundamentally misconceives the very nature of miracles. But there’s another problem internal to the objection, for the criterion of replicability is becoming an issue in contemporary science. Therefore, that can’t be used to so easily demarcate miracles from the scientific method.
The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.
But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.
For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Why Is The Resurrected Jesus So Ordinary?
Critics of Jesus' resurrection often act as if there's little evidence that can be cited for the resurrection outside of the writings of Paul. They're highly dismissive of the resurrection accounts in the gospels and Acts. That's probably largely because those narratives are so inconsistent with skeptical theories. Jesus' resurrection body is touched, He eats with people, etc. But there are some good reasons for trusting those accounts. They include details unlikely to have been fabricated, for example, like the prominence of female witnesses.
One line of evidence in the narratives that's often neglected is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body. In all of the gospels with resurrection narratives and the first chapter of Acts, the resurrection body is portrayed as not much different than an ordinary body prior to death. In contrast, resurrected individuals and other exalted figures are portrayed much differently in other sources written prior to and after the gospels and Acts and even within those five documents themselves. As Jonathan Kendall explains:
One line of evidence in the narratives that's often neglected is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body. In all of the gospels with resurrection narratives and the first chapter of Acts, the resurrection body is portrayed as not much different than an ordinary body prior to death. In contrast, resurrected individuals and other exalted figures are portrayed much differently in other sources written prior to and after the gospels and Acts and even within those five documents themselves. As Jonathan Kendall explains:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The logic of village atheism
- At February 12, 2011 9:07 AM ,
John W. Loftus said...You see in our world miracles like a virgin birth, resurrection and an ascension into the sky do not happen. What world are YOU living in? So if miracles do not happen in our day then they never happened in first century Palestine either. And that's the end of it.
Want more? ;-) - {{So if miracles do not happen in our day then they never happened in first century Palestine either. And that's the end of it.}}
Category errors like that are why people who pay attention to logic (whether believer or not) make fun of you, John.
Remember folks, if televisions and electric light switches didn't happen in first centry Palestine, they couldn't happen in our day either. And that's the end of it. (You can thank Bultmann for that one. Or J'oftus. {wry g})
John W. Loftus said...http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/02/david-marshall-on-why-christianity.html
The scholarship of village atheism
- Jason, we posted at the same time. [I just saw Nick's typical non-response though--the problem is that he thinks it's a response at all!!!].
Tell ya what. I can grant that Yahweh exists and that he does miracles and this still does very little if anything to lead us living in today's world to think Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead.
Care to know why?
Because a completely overwhelming number of Jews in Jesus' day did not think Yahweh did this miracle in this particular case. If they were there, and if they knew their Scriptures and if they believed in Yahweh and if they believed in miracles, but they rejected the resurrection of Jesus THEN WHY SHOULD I? WHY SHOULD WE?
Philo of Alexandria wrote an account of the Jews from Jesus' birth until long after he died. He was living in Jerusalem during the whole time Jesus lived, from his birth to long after his death. he was there when it was said the graves of the tombs opened and the saints walked out. He was there when it says the sky turned black and the temple curtain was torn, and when it says there was an earthquake. he might be considered the investigative reporter of his day on location. He interviewed people who should have known something about the ministry of Jesus especially if he threw the money changers out of the temple.
But Philo reported nothing about Jesus nor his disciples, nor his miracles, nor anything else about Christians at all. Although he wrote a history covering the time of Jesus in Palestine we're told he does not mention anything about Jesus.
If there was any proof beyond the NT itself that the Jews overwhelmingly rejected Jesus, then Philo's silence proves it. - John: I didn't know Philo lived in Jerusalem. Checking Wikipedia, I see they didn't know that, either: they say he only visited the temple in Jerusalem once in his life.
Let's see . . . in The Works of Philo, index, there are 11 references under "Jews of Alexandria," and only 2 under "Jews of Palestine and the neighboring countries." There are 3 references listed to Alexandria, and only one (a very abstract and spiritualized, nothing slightly geographical about it) reference to Jerusalem.
Where did you obtain these biographical details? Did Morton Smith find an old rental agreement that shows Philo was in Jerusalem from 5BC to 39 AD (then went back to Alexandria, just in time to represent that city in a delegation to the emperor!)? - I got the information from Dan Barker's "Godless" book, who quotes from John E. Remsburg's 1909 book "The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence."
Next time I should double check my sources.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/02/david-marshall-on-why-christianity.html
How Would Chuck Smith Have Counseled Heather and David Britton?
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/chase-britton-boy-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors/?ncid=webmail
Cf. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/02/chuck-smith-needs-to-repent.html
Cf. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/02/chuck-smith-needs-to-repent.html
Chuck Smith Needs to Repent
Introduction: What follows is Operation Rescue's commentary on Chuck Smith's advising "Nicki from Riverside" to abort her conjoined twins. The next day Dan Stewart and Chuck Smith attempted to do some damage control and made a horrible situation worse. The following commentary speaks for itself. It is my sincere prayer that Smith and Stewart will publicly repent and recant for advocating the murder of this woman's unborn twins.OR: Pastor Chuck Smith Stuns Radio Listeners By Encouraging Woman to Have Abortion
Commentary by Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger
Operation Rescue urges Calvary Chapel’s Pastor Smith to retract his advice and apologize to his listeners
Costa Mesa, CA – Pastor Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel, shocked listeners on Tuesday on his “Pastor’s Perspective” call-in radio program when he encouraged a tearful mother to abort conjoined twins.
The caller, who identified herself as “Nicki from Riverside”, indicated that her babies share a body but have two heads and that she was being pressured by her doctors to abort them due to their assessment that the babies would likely not survive the pregnancy or live beyond a day if carried to term. At no time did Nicki indicate how far advanced her pregnancy was or that her life was in danger from the pregnancy.
Choking back tears Nicki told Smith and his co-host Dan Stewart, “My heart does – never wants to have an abortion, but I don’t know what to do. I don’t know – I don’t know what direction to go to right now. I’m really praying hard and trying to believe that the Lord is going to do what He’s going to do with these two little ones, and I don’t know what to do.”
It is obvious to us, with our combined 45 years of experience working with abortion vulnerable women, that Nicki did not want an abortion but was seeking some spiritual affirmation and encouragement that would help her amidst the pressure from her secular doctors to take the lives of her innocent babies. She got none from Smith and Stewart, who told her that God would not condemn her if she chose abortion.
“It’s awfully hard to actually suggest abortion,” said Smith. “But, you know, I’m sure that, uh, in a case like this where the life expectancy is just, you know, is so bleak, and all, that I’m sure that the Lord would not condemn her if she went ahead and had an abortion at this early stage of the development of the fetus.”
Smith then went on to misuse the Biblical story found in John, Chapter 8, of the woman caught in the act of adultery and taken to Jesus for judgment. Jesus told the crowd who sought to condemn her, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” After the crowd disbanded in shame, Jesus told the woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
The way Smith used this passage, he was implying that abortion is sin, but that if she went ahead and sinned in this case, God would not hold it against her. There is no basis in traditional Christian theology to support Smith’s misuse of this incident in Scripture. Jesus told the woman to “go, and sin no more,” not to continue her sin with the expectation that God would not hold her to account.
While we respect Chuck Smith’s long service to God and his work in reaching the lost for Christ, his advice to Nicki regrettably showed extremely poor pastoral judgment. His answer was dead wrong, and could lead others to sin and error, along with a life-time of grief and remorse.
The Bible never condones the shedding of innocent blood nor does it allow for the taking of life based on the unfortunate circumstance that someone is sick. Instead, the Bible is full of recommendations to pray and fast for the sick.
Smith and Stewart attempted to “clarify” their advice to Nicki the following day on the Pastor’s Perspective broadcast, but in doing so only made a bad situation worse.
Audio Clip of Feb. 9, 2011, Radio “Clarification”
“I am totally opposed to abortion,” stated Smith. “I believe it is a great sin. I do believe that the 50-plus million children that have been aborted in the United State since the Roe verses Wade is one of the greatest sins of America, and I think that we’re going to be judged for it.”
However, in the next breath, Smith betrays his emphatic pro-life confession.
“I do not believe in abortion as it is being practiced today. However, there can be extenuating circumstances,” Smith continued.
Smith and his co-host then go on to completely mischaracterize the conversation with Nicki the previous day.
We hate to use the word “lie” but there is no other term for what the two pastors said next.
“As the lady said yesterday, the doctors were saying that her life was in jeopardy and carrying the babies, er, uh, baby that is in her womb with two heads, that the baby would not be able to survive more than five minutes after the birth, and that her life was jeopardized by it and she has a little two-year old daughter and I would say in a situation like that with these extenuating circumstances, that God would be gracious and forgiving. But that isn’t endorsing abortion at all…I’m totally opposed to abortion for just any reason, but I believe in being reasonable.”
Smith is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. One cannot say that abortion is justifiable with one breath then say that he is not endorsing abortion with the other. This kind of double-talk only serves to create confusion amongst believers. The Bible is clear; innocent bloodshed is not reasonable, it is sin.
As far as his version of Nicki’s story, the audio recording proves that she never said her life was in jeopardy or that the babies could not survive more than five minutes after birth. She repeatedly referred to her babies in the plural sense.
Smith referred to them as a “fetus” on the first day and later as “a baby with two heads,” language that served to dehumanize the twins in much the same way as abortionists do to justify their actions.
“It wasn’t about a deformity there, it was about something being life-threatening,” said co-host Don Stewart who went on to say that Smith was trying to explain her options in a “lose-lose” situation.
It was grieving to hear Stewart is such an obvious and blatantly deceptive damage-control mode.
Perhaps Smith and Stewart have forgotten that it is God is the Giver of Life that He alone numbers our days. The two men completely discount any thought that these babies might be given to Nicki and her husband to bring glory to Himself.
Take the example of Abigail and Brittney Hensel, conjoined twins that have been the subject of a special on TLC. Abigail and Brittney share one body. A YouTube video clip shows them celebrating their 16th birthday, each getting a driver’s license, and discussing the possibility of one day being mothers.
The girls are shown on another video clip answering questions about their condition. “How did you get this way?” one of the girls read off a list. “God made us this way,” answered the other.
Yes, God made them that way, and he made Nicki’s twins the way they are. If God decides to take their lives before birth or decides to give them long, productive lives, like the Hansel twins, that is up to Him. It is not up to us to stand in the place of God and dictate the time and matter of death of innocent human beings, created in His image. Scripture calls that murder.
The least Smith and Stewart could have done was refer Nicki to a peri-natal hospice, such as the one operated by Choices Medical Clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Programs like these counsel families facing terminal diagnoses for their pre-born babies. They help the families cope with the stressful days ahead, support families through the grieving process, facilitate healing all the while allowing the families to show their babies dignity and love during their short lives.
Smith and Stewart owe their listeners a true Biblical perspective. We understand that people make mistakes, but when a mistake is made, we expect men of integrity own up to it and to do what they can to make it right. These men owe Nicki and their listeners a retraction and an apology.
Given the devastating consequences that could follow Pastor Smith’s unbiblical response to Nicki’s situation, perhaps he is at a time in his long and illustrious career that he should consider refraining giving further extemporaneous advice on call-in shows like Pastor’s Perspective.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Prooftexting natural law
Some proponents of 2k invoke natural law as an alternative to OT ethics and/or NT ethics. One of the problems with this appeal is that while there are several pretty clear prooftexts for natural revelation, prooftexts for natural law are sparse and problematic.
Keep in mind that I don’t object to philosophical arguments to support Christian ethics. I’m just dealing with the exegetical grounding for natural law.
The locus classicus is Rom 2:14-15. But as a prooftext for 2k, that’s dubious on several grounds.
i) To begin with, it’s far from clear that this passage has reference to unbelievers. For one thing, 2:15 alludes to Jer 31:33. This figures in the famous prophecy of the new covenant.
It would be self-defeating, from a 2k perspective, if the terms of the new covenant were inscribed on the hearts of unbelievers, for that would a type of special revelation, not general revelation. That would collapse the 2k distinction between the spiritual kingdom and the civil kingdom.
Of course, that interpretation is disputed. But 2k proponents can’t take their own interpretation of Rom 2:14-15 for granted. They must argue for their interpretation, and they must do so, in part, by arguing down the rival interpretation.
ii) Apropos (i), if the terms of the new covenant are directly implanted in the hearts of believers and unbelievers alike, or even that’s confined to believers alone, then that becomes a prooftext, not for 2k, but Quakerism. The doctrine of the inner light.
In that case, you don’t need special revelation either inside or outside the church. Christians don’t need the NT. For they have the content of the new covenant directly internalized. So that argument either proves too little or too much.
Of course, 2k proponents would say it has reference, not to believers, but unbelievers. However, that interpretation brings us back to the conundrum of why Paul would see Jeremiah’s oracle of the new covenant fulfilled in the hearts of unbelievers.
And remember that, from a 2k viewpoint, the unbelievers in question are not pre-Christian unbelievers who will undergo conversion. Rather, the 2k interpretation must regard the referents as unbelievers in contrast to believers, to maintain the contrast between the civil kingdom and the spiritual kingdom, general revelation and special revelation.
iii) Finally, inscribing the law on the heart is figurative language. So we must ask, what’s the literal truth which that picturesque metaphor signifies?
One explanation is that inscribing the law on the heart is a synonym for a related figure of speech: circumcision of the heart. God will give members of the new covenant a new heart.
That interpretation is reinforced by Jer 32:39: “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.”
But if that’s correct, then what the passage denotes is not moral intuition, but regeneration.
2k proponents can, of course, take issue with one or more of these objections, but as it stands, they are skipping over key assumptions in their appeal. That’s not a given.
A theology of feelings
There’s a sense in which our emotional life is the goal of life. Why seeks heaven? Because that’s a state or place of bliss. Eternal bliss. Why avoid hell? Because that’s a state or place of misery. Eternal misery.
Hume famously said the mind is slave to the passions, and, to a great extent, human ingenuity is diverted to pursuing and fulfilling our emotional needs or desires.
Consider the intellectual resources that must be applied to opera, movies, gambling, a cruise ship, a sports car, or pro football. For opera you need an opera house. You need the architects, carpenters, engineers. You need the orchestra. Trained, paid musicians. You need trained, paid singers. Consume designers. Stage sets. You need composers and librettists. All that and much more just because some folks like opera. Because it feeds their emotional life.
Or consider pro football. You need the stadium. Consider the engineering that goes into a modern sports stadium. You need trained athletes. Special diets. The gym. Sports medicine. Coaches. Equipment. Cheerleaders. And so on and so forth. All because lots of folks (especially men) enjoy watching or playing football.
Or take a movie. You need the director. Screenwriters. Actors. Photographers. Composers. Sets. Exotic locations or CGI. DVD or Blu-Ray technology. And so on and so forth. All because lots of folks enjoy watching a movie.
Or take the gambling industry. How much intellectual capital has been invested in making Vegas a tourist magnet? Or take a cruise ship. Or sports car. But you get the idea.
To a great extent we don’t value intelligence for its own sake, but for what it can do. As a means to an end. So often, brilliance is entirely subservient to our feelings. We use our intelligence to make us feel good. Much of our fabulous technology exists for the sole purpose of making life more pleasant. Entertaining us. Making us happy. A few euphoric hours.
Much of this is decadent, but it raises a deeper question: what are emotions? How important are emotions? Where do they fit in Christian theology?
Christian theologians tend to demote feelings. Feelings are secondary. Unreliable. The main thing is right belief and right behavior.
But I’d submit that emotions are a way of valuing or disvaluing things. And there are primary as well as secondary emotions. Secondary emotions are generated by primary emotions.
Take love. Love is clearly a way of valuing something. Conversely, hatred is a way of disvaluing something.
And even though love and hate are opposites, that also explains how love can switch to loathing in the blink of an eye.
If you love someone, and he (or she) betrays you, then that can easily and quickly devolve into hatred. If you’re double-crossed by a stranger or passing acquaintance, it doesn’t have the same effect. For you didn’t value that person the way you valued a spouse or best friend. You deeply valued their affection, understanding, trust, or companionship.
It’s because that person meant so much to you that if you feel betrayed, it cuts so deeply. It can instantly provoke vengeful, spiteful feelings.
Conversely, the betrayer may feel regret. For he (or she) has lost something he once valued in the process.
We feel sad or grief-stricken if we lose something we value, or if we can’t have something we value. We yearn for what we value.
We may feel envious if somebody else has what we value, but lack. We feel jealous if a rival poses a threat to something we value. Jealousy is a type of fear. Fear of loss. Loss of affection. Or admiration.
Anxiety is a type of fear. Fear of loss. Fear of losing, or never having, something we value.
We feel relieved if the threat to what we value dissipates.
We are angry if our efforts to seek or keep what we value are frustrated. We resent the impediment. And frustration, itself, reflects a failure to attain or maintain what we value.
We feel disappointed if we were hoping for something we value, but it eluded our grasp.
We feel satisfied or contented if we have what we value.
We may feel bitter, alienated, or depressed if we are trapped in something we disvalue, or if we despair of never having what we value.
In pity or sympathy, we identify our values with the values of another.
So our emotional repertoire is a complete value-system unto itself. A tacit, innate value-system. For good or ill, our emotional life will mirror our values. An expression of our ethics.
Whether emotions are good or bad all depends on what we value or disvalue. What we treasure. Cherish.
Where is your treasure? Do we value the right things? Do our values align with our God-given design?
In that sense, there’s nothing wrong with living for your feelings as long as your feelings value the right things, or disvalue the wrong things.
J.P. Holding And Richard Carrier Debate On The New Testament Text
J.P. Holding will be debating Richard Carrier on the reliability of the New Testament text this coming April 9. For more information, scroll to the bottom of the page here, and see J.P. Holding's blog entry here and Richard Carrier's here.
For those interested in reading more about the subject of the debate, I wrote a series of posts on the New Testament text here, here, and here.
For those interested in reading more about the subject of the debate, I wrote a series of posts on the New Testament text here, here, and here.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
A 2k primer
Consequences of Confusing the Two Kingdoms or Denying our Dual Citizenship
When these two kingdoms are confused or conflated, we see the rise of the "social gospel" of Protestant liberalism, American civil religion of the Christian right and the liberal left, as well as the rise of Constantianism (Christendom). The church must never take up the sword and Caesar must never enter the pulpit.
When the Christian's dual citizenship is denied (or ignored), we see the rise of asceticism, pietism, radical pacifism and Anabaptism.
Therefore, a Christian is free to work with non-Christians in the civil kingdom to promote the common good and preserve a just society. But the kingdom of Christ is tied to word and sacrament and the church (and its officers and members) must speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of law and gospel, not in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom. Yes, the church must address moral issues as they are found and framed in Scripture (through the preaching and catechetical function of the church), but the church is not to engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party or candidate.
i) So what does he mean by “the church”? Does his definition include Christ as the head of the church? But that can’t be, since Christ is king of both “kingdoms.”
ii) Does he mean church officers and church members? If so, suppose we plug that definition into his strictures:
Church officers and/or members must no “engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party of candidate.”
Really? A Christian layman must never engage in partisan politics, endorse any political party or candidate? Is he serious? Christians are not entitled to work through the democratic process?
A Christian layman must never take up the sword? Christians are not entitled to run for public office? Or serve in the military?
Is that what he means? If that’s not what he means, then what in the world does he mean?
The Noachic covenant
Some 2k proponents limit capital punishment to murder, by appealing to the “common grace” covenant (as they classify it) which God made with Noah (e.g. Gen 9:5-6). But there are several basic problems with this argument:
i) The justification is grounded in their appeal to Scripture. Indeed, to the OT. To Klinean covenant theology. But in that case, they believe the Bible ought to norm public policy. Ought to norm modern statecraft and modern penology.
So it’s no longer a question of whether the Bible ought to norm the law for believers and unbeliever alike, but where in the Bible we should look to norm the law for believers and unbelievers alike.
Yet proponents of 2k typically invoke general revelation rather than special revelation as the common source and standard of morality and law for believers and unbelievers alike.
So there seems to be a central contradiction in appealing to the Biblical witness to God’s covenant with Noah, even if we accept their idiosyncratic interpretation of the Noachic covenant.
ii) The Noachic authorization for the death penalty carries over into the Mosaic covenant (Num 35; Exod 21:18).
Yet 2k proponents say the Mosaic covenant was abrogated by the new covenant. But if there’s carryover between the Noachic covenant and the Mosaic covenant, then the provisions of the Mosaic covenant can’t be treated as if they were uniquely cultic or theocratic. For, by Klinean lights, the Noachic covenant is a common grace covenant. But if key elements of the Noachic covenant carry over into the Mosaic covenant, then the Mosaic covenant also exemplifies common grace as well as special grace. In that event, it’s not a purely timebound arrangement. Rather, it instantiates certain timeless principles. So it can’t be treated as if it were an all-or-nothing arrangement.
iii)By the same token, the injunction concerning capital punishment in Gen 9:5-6 comes on the heels of the injunction concerning exsanguination (vv3-4). Yet exsanguination also carries over into the Mosaic law (Lev 17; Deut 12).
Therefore, you can’t draw a cut-and-dried dichotomy between the “common grace” covenant that God made with Noah and the (allegedly) typological covenant that God made with Moses. Put another way, you can’t say the Noachic covenant represents culture while the Mosaic covenant represents cult. For there’s overlap.
iv) Indeed, exsanguination, as well as the kosher laws generally, are something we’d ordinarily association with the ceremonial law rather than the moral law. With cultic holiness. Ritual purity. So how can that be present in a “common grace” covenant (i.e. the Noachic covenant) as well as the Mosaic covenant?
v) Moreover, capital punishment is not an isolated penalty in Biblical justice. Rather, it’s a special case of a broader principle–the lex talionis. An eye-for-an-eye. Hence, capital punishment can’t be segregated from Biblical justice in general.
vi) Ironically, this 2k argument is also at odds with Klinean hermeneutics. According to Kline:
The counterarguments often drawn from statements concerning man’s diet in Genesis 1:29 and 9:3 are not cogent. In Genesis 1:29 the explicit assignment of the plant world to man for food is not restrictive, as though that were the only kind of food permitted him…These considerations show how unwarranted is the assumption that the silence of this passage concerning man’s use of animals flesh as food must be intended as a prohibition as such.
The authorization in Genesis 9:6a for this ultimate prerogative of man’s common grace endowment with dominion is accompanied by the statement that he is the image of God, the likeness and vicegerent of him who exercises absolute dominion over all (v.6b). In Genesis 1:27-30 man’s identity as image of God is stated first (v27a) and then the significance of that is expounded in terms of man’s investment with the God-like glory of dominion (vv28-30). In Genesis 9:2-6 the dominion is set forth first (vv2-6a) and then man’s image-of-God status is cited at the close as the explanation of his magisterial appointment (v6b).
The subject of man’s dominion over animals (9:2) leads to the topic of animals serving as food (9:3), and that to the prohibition of eating the life-blood (9:4), which leads to the matter of shedding man’s lifeblood and the judicial response to (murder (9:5,6).
Kingdom Prologue (2000), 54-55; 253, 254.
a) Notice, on this analysis, that the Noachic authorization for capital punishment is a part of literary unit which also includes the command regarding carnivory, animal sacrifice, and exsanguination.
b) And in that regard, Kline objects to the argument from silence. He points out that this command is not proscriptive.
Is the CBO nonpartisan?
One of the clichés I often hear is the “nonpartisan” nature of the CBO. As such, its budgetary projections can be trusted.
But is the CBO nonpartisan? To my knowledge, the CBO is far from nonpartisan. To the contrary, the CBO is highly partisan. It simply mirrors whichever party happens to be in power at any particular time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)