Wednesday, August 15, 2018
The scandalous catechism
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/an-appeal-to-the-cardinals-of-the-catholic-church
"Marry your rapist law"
Citing Biblical injunctions (particularly Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30)...
I've discussed the Deuteronomic passages before:
By contrast, Exod 22:16-17 concerns a shotgun wedding in the case of consensual premarital sex. For instance:
The primary and secondary rulings in these verses concern a man who entices an unbetrothed girl to have intercourse with him. The inference appears to be that the girl agrees to this; she is not raped as in Deut 22:2-29. J. A. Thompson describes it as "seduction". T. D. Alexander, Exodus (IVP 2017), 498.
Puzzling numbers
A stock objection to the inerrancy of Scripture is the presence of apparently unrealistic numbers as well as numerical discrepancies between different books. In some cases this can be chalked up to scribal error, but there seems to be a more pervasive pattern. Here's an interesting observation:
It is widely recognized that the totals attributed to each tribe in Num 1 ought to be viewed with some caution. At the outset it is remarkable that in this census of all 13 tribes, the total for every tribe is a round number, divisible by 100 in most cases, and 50 in others. In a census of the tribes we would surely have expected some uneven numbers, as reflected for example in the 22,273 firstborn males mentioned in Num 3:43. This latter figure creates another unusual statistic. If the total number of adult makes is 603,550, the total number of all males is likely to be in the region of 800,000, at a conservative estimate. If the total number of firstborn males of all ages is 22,273, this gives a ratio of about one firstborn male for every 36 adult makes. Assuming that there were roughly equal numbers of males and females born within a family, these statistics would imply that on average each married couple had about 72 children. T. D. Alexander, Exodus (IVP 2017), 241.
This is further evidence that modern readers are at a loss to understand how OT numbers work. Presumably, they made sense to the original audience, so there's a numerical idiom that we're missing at this distance.
Aisha
1. I believe White is responding to Steve Camp. It's my impression that Camp engages in virtue-signaling rather than serious apologetics or evangelistic outreach. This is just sending a message to other people that he's tough on Islam.
2. In addition, I agree with White that there are many other issues we can bring up besides Aisha. Islam is a target-rich environment.
3. Likewise, leading with Aisha can shut down discussion before discussion ever gets underground. A conversation-stopper rather than an opening.
4. That said, is White suggesting that Muhammed didn't have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl? When he makes dismissive comments about "ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks" on Muhammad in reference to Aisha, that seems to be what he means.
5. Moreover, White seems to be suggesting that Christian apologists should never bring up the issue of Muhammad's pederastic marriage. Yet this isn't just ad hominem. Muhammad is the role model for Muslims. And they consider unfitting behavior to discredit prophetic or messianic claimants.
Are we not supposed to talk about child rape in relation to Muhammad? What about cult leaders who practice child rape on the compound? Is that verboten?
White appears to be saying that Muhammad's sex life is offlimits in Christian apologetics and countercult ministry. That there's absolutely no circumstances under which a Christian can legitimately raise that issue. Does White think it's always wrong to "attack" Muhammad's character?
What about the moral credibility of Joseph Smith? Are Christian apologists not allowed to point to evidence that Joseph Smith was a con man? What about Benny Hinn? Does White have a consistent standard in countercult ministry?
What about the subculture of pederasty in the Catholic priesthood and episcopate? Are Christian apologists permitted to raise that issue?
Further, do you really, really think Dr. Yasir Qadhi has never heard surface-level, ignorance-laden, bigoted attacks upon Muhammad in reference to Aisha? Seriously? You think you have something to tell him on the matter? I can assure you, you don’t.
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
If he had equal time he could bury you under references from historical sources off the top of his head that you wouldn’t even know how to pronounce, let alone access, let alone understand. 4) There is more than sufficient reason to discuss the Islamic claims concerning the role
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
of Muhammad as an example, as THE example, upon which morals and ethics in sharia are to be based. I have repeatedly asserted that I believe a significantly better, less emotional, and more profitable discussion is to be had regarding Zaynab bint-Jash,
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
for this allows one to go directly into the text of the Qur’an and make direct application to key apologetic issues—issues that, Steve, I do not believe you to be proficient in even outlining, let alone pursuing in such a conversation. But even here we have gone outside the
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
parameters of the intended focus and topic of discussion, and again, I will honor the person with whom I am speaking, I will honor my word, and I will honor the audience, by not engaging in such grand-standing. 5) Finally, the only way to honestly approach the Aisha issue is
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
with a broad and firm historical foundation. One must be prepared to answer such obvious questions as, “If your accusation is true, why are there not other examples alongside Aisha? Why are all of Muhammad’s other wives not only older, but had already been married?
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
And why does it seem that, aside from Kadijah, Aisha was the closest to Muhammad throughout the rest of his life (not the norm for such relationships)?” There is no question that the example Muhammad established has been destructive to many young women down through the centuries,
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
but you are actually *distracting* from that serious and real issue by using Aisha as a brickbat without fairness and accuracy as your goal. Muslim apologists are often unfair with Christian history (look at what many of them do to Paul, for example), but we as Christians
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
do not have the right to turn around and return the favor. It is far better to be cautious and careful than it is to be bombastic and in the process profane the truth.
— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 11, 2018
Duplication
In general, Internet atheists copy each other. Most of them are reading from the same script. They raise the same formulaic objections to Christianity.
Logically, that means you only need to refute their script one time. If there are 10,000 duplicate scripts, it's only necessary to refute one copy–because they all say the same thing.
Yet the average atheist hands you his unmarked script, and expects you to do through it page-by-page as if this is the very first time we encountered these objections. As if there aren't preexisting answers.
The average atheist makes no effort to keep up with the opposing side of the argument. They act like Christians are supposed to start all over again every time they talk to yet another overconfident, uninformed atheist. Separately comment on each duplicate script. Start from scratch each time. Respond to the same stale objections.
If you point them to resources that already address their objections, they're to lazy to check that out. They demand that you comment on their duplicate script.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Runaway plane
For those who find Catholicism appealing, a major source of appeal is the notion of a living oracle. It's a nice idea. No doubt most Bible commentators wish they could interview the Bible writer they strive to interpret.
There are some familiar challenges for Protestants. A few books of the canon are less securely attested than others. The text of the NT is very secure. The text of some OT books less so–although that's more problematic if you're an Orthodox Jew.
The OT contains some passages that make Christian readers queasy. Mind you, we could say the same thing about what happens in the world around us. And it's not as if atheism is in a position to moralize.
But despite the difficulties of the Protestant faith, which are easy to exaggerate, the Bible doesn't change. There are no surprises. It is what it is. We know exactly what we signed up for.
By contrast, Catholicism is a runaway plane. The pilot is locked in the cockpit, behind an impenetrable door. The passengers are trapped. They must go wherever the pilot takes them. Francis is like a pilot tripping out on acid.
Just in the last few weeks, there's the ever-enveloping Cardinal McCarrick scandal. Like vampires, queer bishops propagate their own.
You have the death penalty bombshell dropped by Francis. And now there's the grand jury report in Pennsylvania:
Extrapolate from that to other states and other countries, then just imagine the scale of the contagion.
That's one of the problems with a living oracle. It's destination unknown, and you're along for the ride whether you like it or not. Can't open the door and walk away at 40,000 altitude.
Over at Called to Communion, they live under a glass dome. A climate-controlled utopia with fawns and flowers, songbirds and butterflies.
Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report Details Thousands of Abuse Cases by Hundreds of Predator Priests
The attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania has just released a report of an extensive grand jury investigation that names more than 300 priest-abusers across six of eight Roman Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania (encompassing 54 of 67 counties).
Just for the record, the Diocese of Pittsburgh website names about 200 active priests in the six-county area. Here are the findings of the report, just in the Diocese of Pittsburgh (which is my home town):
I have mentioned in the past that two of the four priests that I knew while growing up (and into my early 30s) were removed from the ministry because they had been accused of sexual abuse.
Here is the local (Pittsburgh) newspaper’s account of the overall report:
We will be hearing more about this as the hearings are held to determine whether the full unredacted report can be released.
We can only hope that more such investigations are forthcoming.
Just for the record, the Diocese of Pittsburgh website names about 200 active priests in the six-county area. Here are the findings of the report, just in the Diocese of Pittsburgh (which is my home town):
Pittsburgh:
The report lists 99 priests -- including one individual aspiring to be a priest -- who allegedly sexually abused minors in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
According to the report, the abuse included "grooming and fondling of genitals and/or intimate body parts, as well as penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus." Some bishops and other diocesan administrators in Pittsburgh, the report said, placed the priests in ministry even though they had knowledge of the conduct.
The report also found that in Pittsburgh, the diocese held discussions with lawyers regarding the sexual conduct of priests with children and made settlements with victims that prevented them from speaking out under the threat of some penalty.
Three cases -- those of Fathers Ernest Paone, George Zirwas and Richard Zula -- were detailed in the report as symbolizing the “wholesale institutional failure that endangered the welfare of children” in the Pittsburgh Diocese.
Father Paone, who served in the late 1950s and 1960s at five separate parishes, was kept in active ministry for 41 years after the Diocese first learned that he was sexually assaulting children.
I have mentioned in the past that two of the four priests that I knew while growing up (and into my early 30s) were removed from the ministry because they had been accused of sexual abuse.
Here is the local (Pittsburgh) newspaper’s account of the overall report:
This latest report, which grew out of the Altoona-Johnstown investigation, covers the remaining six dioceses in the state: Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg and Scranton. Together, those six dioceses count more than 1.7 million Catholics — just over half of the state’s Catholic population, according to church estimates.
…
Over the course of two years, 23 grand jurors met regularly in private to hear testimony from dozens of victims, from perpetrators and, in one instance, from a bishop himself. By the time their work concluded in 2018, the grand jurors — with help from prosecutors — had produced a lengthy report detailing allegations of what Mr. Shapiro has described as widespread abuse and a “systemic cover-up” by church leaders.
The full report identifies 301 “predator priests” and describes efforts by some diocesan administrators to dissuade victims from speaking to police, pressure law enforcement to end investigations or conduct lackluster internal reviews.
But portions of the report also remain blocked from public view, because they are under a protective court seal. A group of roughly two dozen current and former clergy members have asked the state Supreme Court to shield the portions pertaining to them. They argue that those sections are inaccurate or unfairly tarnish their reputations, which are protected under the state constitution.
The high court agreed to release a redacted report while it weighs arguments about whether those sections of the report should eventually be released — or should remain forever shrouded in secrecy. Arguments in that case are scheduled for late September.
Mr. Shapiro has promised to continue to advocate for the release of the full report. He said last week, “Real justice will come about when the full report is released.”
We will be hearing more about this as the hearings are held to determine whether the full unredacted report can be released.
We can only hope that more such investigations are forthcoming.
Parachurch ministry
1. Are parachurch ministries biblically warranted? To begin with, what are parachurch ministries? Examples include apologetic/countercult organizations, publishing, campus ministry, athletic outreach, evangelistic organizations, Christian media, hospital chaplains, educational institutions, and Bible translators. We might include Christian blogging.
2. Sola scriptura doesn't mean we need direct biblical authorization for everything we do. We don't need a special right to do what's right. We have a standing right to do the right thing. If I see a kid drowning, I don't need to text-message my elders for permission to rescue him. I don't need to thumb through the Bible for a specific command.
3. We need to examine the unspoken assumptions that underlie this question. Is parachurch ministry supposed to be answerable to "the church". That raises a number of subsidiary questions. What authority do elders have over laymen?
Unlike highly regulated religions such as Islam, Second Temple Judaism, and Hassidic Judaism, the responsibilities and activities of evangelical laymen are largely unregulated. If you're a Muslim or Hassidic Jew, there's a social blueprint that regiments your daily life in prying, excruciating detail. That, in turn, gives the clergy tremendous authority over laymen because the clergy are the experts on halakha or sharia, and laymen must consult the clergy to know what's commanded or forbidden. Their interpretations are binding. And they adjudicate ethical and religious disputes. To some extent, traditional Catholicism was fairly regulated.
By contrast, evangelical elders don't have anything like the same authority over laymen because there is no evangelical counterpart to halakha or sharia–although Puritans like Baxter and Ames produced textbooks on Protestant casuistry. In general, the ethical issues confronting the average evangelical laymen boil down to a few basic categories: deception, abortion, premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, military service, civil disobedience, capital punishment, end-of-life care, contraception, homosexuality. There's not as much occasion for laymen to consult their pastor. Moreover, there are books on evangelical ethics which laymen can read for themselves.
Evangelical laymen don't submit a daily itinerary to the pastor for his prior approval. They don't generally seek the advice, much less the consent, of the pastor or elders, in making most of their decisions. In fact, they don't think that's anyone's business but their own.
4. Assuming that a parachurch ministry should be subject to ecclesiastical oversight, what's the unit of supervision? The local church? Presbytery? Denomination? Interdenominational coalition?
Take Bible translators. No denomination, much less a local church, has a monopoly on Christian linguists. Moreover, Bible translation committees are deliberately interdenominational to curtail sectarian versions.
5. Some critics of parachurch ministry complain that it usurps the role of the church. But that reflects an envious attitude. Christians shouldn't be keeping score. Is my side winning? A competitive spirit is out of place. If someone is doing God's work, we should be thankful rather than resentful.
Monday, August 13, 2018
An apologetic shortcut
A popular atheist trope is to act as though Christians must run through a long list of pagan gods and disprove them one-by-one.
i) To begin with, it isn't always necessary to directly disprove something in order to disprove it. It's unnecessary to send probes to Mercury or Pluto to disprove the existence of carbon-based lifeforms on those planets. Rather, that can be demonstrated indirectly by the fact that those planets lack the conditions necessary for carbon-based lifeforms to survive.
ii) It isn't necessary to individually disprove every pagan deity. If Christianity is demonstrably true, due to an abundance of evidence, then that indirectly falsifies every alternative position that contradicts Christianity. And pagan alternatives don't remotely have the same amount of evidence.
I confess
Confessions, in the 17th century, were not seen as candy-store-like documents from which a person could take some from one, some from the other, and still some from another, and formulate their own theology in isolation from a historical church tradition. That way of thinking is relatively innovative from the perspective of ecclesiastical history. Surely, fringe individuals have existed at all times throughout church history, but the scope and fervor of their subjective choosiness has never been so explosive until now.Is one allowed to take any exception and still be considered confessional? Are we really not confessional if we fail to believe the Pope is the antichrist, as some confessional documents have stated (including the 1689)? Admittedly, the answer to this question is not always easy, and there are many dear brothers who would consider themselves confessional while at the same time not holding to every jot and tittle of any one document (though, I would disagree with their approach).
i) I have no a problem with creeds and confessions. That's a legitimate and even necessary expression of the church's teaching mandate.
ii) That said, is there something intrinsically wrong with creedal eclecticism? Is the objective fidelity to a creed or fidelity to revelation?
iii) Is there any presumption that lengthy creedal statements like the WCF and LBCF will be inerrant? If anything, is there not a presumption that any inspired human document of sufficient size is likely to make mistakes? The longer the document, the greater opportunities for error.
In fairness, 17C creeds have more shakedown time than primitive creeds. They distill centuries of theological reflection. In that respect a long later creed might be more accurate than a brief primitive creed.
Nevertheless, creeds and confessions are consensus documents. It comes down to which side has the most votes. That's a very fallible process. So we can't reasonably treat creeds as unquestionably true. Indeed, that isn't even possible since different creeds represent divergent theological traditions. Hence, you have to evaluate creeds on a case-by-case basis.
iv) Moreover, some creeds are predetermined to be radically wrong. Given the theological agenda of the framers, the Racovian catechism is inevitably heretical. Tridentine theology is another example. So creeds can't be the ultimate benchmark.
Defer to your husband
13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Pet 2:13-25-3:1-7).
1. 1 Pet 3:1-6 is a complementation prooftext. Unlike some Pauline prooftexts (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13), 1 Pet 3:1-6 doesn't ground uxorial deference in the natural order, so I think it's a weaker complementarian prooftext than the Pauline examples–although it's certainly consistent with complementarianism. Eph 5:22-33 is another one of the stronger complementarian texts, grounded in a Christological analogy.
2. Because this is paired with Peter's discussion of slavery, some egalitarians use this as a wedge tactic: if complementarianism is the norm, so is slavery. In 1 Pet 2-3, they rise and fall together.
3. That's an interesting argument, but the issue is more complex. To begin with, biblical regulations don't necessarily indicate approval. Biblical codes of conduct aren't utopian. Biblical codes of conduct are sometimes pragmatic, given the vicissitudes of life in a fallen world. It's important to consider the underlying rationale for biblical regulations.
4. Imagine how dangerous it would be to a slave to be insolent to his master. Imagine how dangerous it would be to a 1C wife to be insolent to her husband. At a minimum, this is prudential guidance.
5. Although Peter counsels wives to be deferential to their husbands, that's only half the story. It has a subtext. The implied context is Christian wives married to pagan husbands. Presumably, both were heathen at the time of marriage, but the wife is now a convert to Christianity. But as one commentator notes:
Peter's advice to women married to [pagan] husbands "should be understood against the social background in which a wife was expect to accept the customs and religious rites of her husband…In society's eyes these women were already highly insubordinate just by virtue of their Christian commitment. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Thomas Nelson 1988), 157.
So Christian wives are expected to be both submissive and independent. They are bucking the system by refusing to accede to their husband's religion. So it's not just about assuming a subordinate role. For the backdrop is assuming an insubordinate role. Those are balanced.
6. In addition, Karen Jobes says Greco-Roman wives were not supposed to have any friends outside her husband's social circle, but as a Christian she will develop friendships within the Christian community. K. Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker 2005), 203. So there's a maverick element to the role of a Christian wife. In a mixed marriage, her duties include uxorial independence as well as uxorial deference.
7. Peter's counsel includes the duties of a husband as well as a wife. His should be an understanding husband who honors his wife.
What does Peter mean when he says the wife is the weaker vessel? Since he doesn't explain his terminology, we can only speculate:
i) Presumably it includes the fact that women in general are physically weaker than men.
ii) In addition, Jobes quotes Aristotle and Xenophon who say women are not as psychologically hardy as men. They are less aggressive than men (Aristotle, Xenophon). In addition, a man's mind and body have greater stamina to endure heat and cold, outdoor tasks, journeys, and military campaigns (Xenophon).
In the ancient world, full of bandits, burglars, rustlers, wild animals, feral dogs, and warfare, men are wired to protect and provide for women, not just physically, but by virtue of their natural psychological makeup. And that has modern counterparts.
iii) Jobes thinks it may also refer to lower social status. Ibid. 209.
Make men masculine again
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." - C.S. Lewis.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Betting on a dark horse
There are different approaches to Christian apologetics. One approach is evidential. I don't mean in the brand name sense of evidential apologetics. I just mean in the generic sense of stressing the evidence for Christianity in contrast to the evidence against atheism or other religious options. And that's a that's a very important approach. There's much more direct and indirect evidence for Christianity than the average Christian (much less the average atheist) is aware of.
But suppose we turned that around. Suppose for argument's sake that Christianity appeared to be false while atheism appeared to be true. Suppose the apparent evidence for atheism was overwhelming. In that case, would it not be irrational to continue to preach, pray, go to church, sing hymns, read the Bible, and so on?
Consider an analogy: Suppose the odds are 30-1 that if I bet on Secretariat, I will win. The more money I put on Secretariat, the larger my winnings. Would it not be irrational for me to bet on a dark horse rather than a proven winner?
All things being equal, that would be irrational. If it's just a comparison between the odds of Secretariat winning in contrast to a dark horse, I'd be crazy not to bet on Secretariat.
But here's a wrinkle. The owner of the race track loses money if I bet on Secretariat. The payout isn't cost effective for the owner of the race track. So he abducts my kid brother and threatens to cut his toes off if I bet on Secretariat. If, on the other hand, I bet on a losing horse, he will release my brother unharmed.
Is it still crazy for me to bet on a dark horse? If I'm really pissed off at my kid brother, that might be a dilemma. But seriously, I'd put my money on the long shot because the basis comparison isn't the odds of me losing but the odds of my kid brother losing his toes. Let's shift to a real life example:
I had a disease I had never heard of before: myelodysplasia. Its origin is unknown. If I did nothing, I was astonished to learn, my chances were zero. I’d be dead in six months...There was only one known means of treatment that might generate a cure: a bone-marrow transplant...Even with the perfect compatibility, my overall chances of a cure were something like 30 percent. That’s like playing Russian Roulette with four cartridges instead of one in the cylinder. But it was by far the best chance that I had, and I had faced longer odds in the past...One after another, I popped 72 of these pills. It was a lethal amount. If I was not to have a bone-marrow transplant soon after, this immune-suppression therapy by itself would have killed me. It was like taking a fatal dose of arsenic or cyanide, hoping that the right antidote would be supplied in time. Carl Sagan, “In the Valley of the Shadow,” Parade Magazine (March 10 1996).
Sagan bet on the dark horse. On the one hand, if he let nature take its course, he'd be dead in six months. Even even if he underwent aggressive cancer therapy, he might die from immunosuppressant drugs, and the bone marrow transplant only had a 30% chance of success. Not to mention the excruciating pain of the medical procedures.
Was it not irrational for Sagan to gamble on the long shot? Was it not irrational for him to undergo what was in all probability a futile course of treatment? But of course, that wasn't the basis of Sagan's comparison. Sagan wasn't making an abstract comparison between the chances of cancer treatment succeeding or failing. Rather, he was making an existential comparison between life and oblivion. He didn't believe in life beyond the grave. For him, this life is all you get. For Sagan, the existential criterion overrode the evidential criterion.
By the same token, the choice between Christianity and atheism isn't a disinterested choice between different alternatives. For these have drastically different consequences, if true. Even if atheism was the odds-on favorite, it would still be irrational–supremely irrational–to be personally invested in that alternative. Sometimes it's foolish to bet on a winning horse. You're better off if you bet on a dark horse. If there's a slight chance that the underdog will win, there are situations in which the long shot is far the shrewder bet.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Modal collapse
I'm going to comment on a post by Joshua Sommer:
. . . if God is identical with his essence, then God cannot know or do anything different from what he knows and does. He can have no contingent knowledge or action, for everything about him is essential to him. But in that case all modal distinctions collapse and everything becomes necessary. Since God knows that p is logically equivalent to p is true, the necessity of the former entails the necessity of the latter. J. P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 525.
Stanley interview
Jonathan Merritt recently interviewed Andy Stanley:
Stanley's an intellectual lightweight, but he's influential, which is why it's important to evaluate his statements.
1. Introducing the program, Merritt acted like the Enlightenment brought reason and logic into the discussion, as if Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Maimonides, and medieval scholastics never existed. He also acted as though the historical criticism of Scripture was a 19C invention, which ignores pagan critics (e.g. Porphyry) and Muslim critics (e.g. Ibn-Hazm). Maybe he really is that uninformed.
2. Is Stanley unaware of the fact that Merritt is a homosexual activist? Is Stanley unaware of the fact that Merritt is using Stanley's concessions, evasions, and obfuscations as a wedge tactic to mainstream homosexuality in the church and the general culture?
There's nothing wrong with pastors talking to homosexuals, or homosexual journalists and activists, but you need to be cognizant of their agenda and not allow them to control the dialogue. Apparently, Stanley is such a babe-in-the-woods that it never occurs to him that he's a tool for Merritt's social agenda.
3. Stanley says there was no "the Bible" before the 4C. That's straight out of Dan Brown's playbook.
4. He chronically alternates between the Mosaic covenant and the OT in general, as if those are equivalent.
5. He says
If I didn't believe in the virgin birth, do you think I'd tell anyone? That's a career-ending move.
So by his own admission, he has no credibility when he assures us that he really does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
6. He says
The only reason any of us take any of the stories in the OT seriously is because Jesus did. If there had been no NT, no Jesus, you and I wouldn't believe [Adam and Eve and the flood]. We'd put that in the category of ancient myth.
i) It's true that for Christians, our belief in the NT contributes to our belief in the OT. But Stanley disregards the fact that Christianity must be validated by the OT.
ii) There are independent reports of the flood in Mesopotamian traditions. Likewise, there's archeological corroboration for many things in the OT. Why does Stanley ignore that evidence?
7. He says:
Then they have to wrestle to the ground when Jesus referenced many of these things, was he referencing these things as something that happened in history, or was he referencing them like [the apocryphal story" of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree. Why we watch fictitious movies. We cry even though it never happened, but we walk away inspired.Then a person has to decide, what did he mean? And I'm comfortable letting the conversation go from there. They should have the same view of the OT that Jesus did. But then the challenge is to discover how did Jesus view his own scriptures. I'd never press anyone that if you can't accept all of as historically true then you can't really be a Christian. I think that's a little bit absurd.
So he just leaves those two options hanging out there. Are they historical reports or apocryphal tales? Flip a coin.
It doesn't occur to him that he has a pastoral responsibility to explain and defend how Jesus viewed the OT. Not just leave it open-ended, but take a stand and give supporting arguments.
Perhaps that's because, in reality, he's skeptical, but he doesn't want to put his cards on the table, face up, so he constantly plays coy.
8. He says
The base of faith Is not about a text. Christianity did not begin because somewhat read something but because someone saw something. The text is secondary to the event. Unlike other religious systems we have an event-based faith.
He makes a big deal about relative chronology, but as far as that goes, when did Christianity begin? He acts as though Christianity began with the Resurrection. But is that the starting-point? Or did it begin with the Incarnation? What about the public ministry of Jesus? The ministry of Jesus consisted of words and deeds. Not just events. And not events first, then words later. Rather, the ministry of Christ constantly alternates between things he says and things he does. On the one hand he performs miracles and exorcisms. On the other hand, he makes speeches, has conversations.
He predicts his own resurrection. So his words precede the event.
From the get-go, the Christian faith was as much about what observers heard as what they saw (Acts 4:20). Equally word-centered and event-centered.
9. He says
Over time it's become a text-based faith. Whole theological systems built around either one of those camps.
That's because we lack direct access to the events. We weren't there. Our only point of entry is mediated by historical records. So we can't turn the clock back and put ourselves in the position of eyewitnesses to the public ministry of Christ.
10. He says
Who is Jesus is answered for us by what Matthew said, Mark said, Luke said, John said, what Peter said, what James said, what Paul said. Seven 1C witnesses.
True, but that's text-based. And if you're going to appeal to the NT witness, you have to defend the historicity of the sources.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Good truths and true goods
There's a cliche that's often spouted by Christian apologists: follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Up to a point that's wise advice although it can suffer from a naive positivism.
Problem is, Christian philosophers and apologists often discuss the true in separation from the good. They argue that we should believe Christianity because it's true, and they discuss how God is the exemplar good and source of finite goods. But this tends to be compartmentalized.
If, however, the true and the good don't converge, then why should anyone care about truth? If the truth isn't good, why should we pursue whatever the cost? You might pursue the truth, but once your pursuit convinces you that it doesn't lead you to the good, what's the point? If life is a cosmic tragedy where there's no happy ending for anyone, why should I follow it over the cliff? Even if I can't avoid it, that's hardly a noble goal.
Don't get me wrong: the truth can be bad in sense that, say, cancer is bad in itself (although it can be a source of good). I mean bad in an ultimate, unredeemable sense of cosmic nihilism. There's no reason anyone should have a commitment to that.
I'm not suggesting that truth is dispensable. There are churchgoers who don't think Christianity is true. They think it's a myth, but a good myth. It gives structure and direction to their lives. They don't have anything better to replace it with, so they continue singing traditional hymns and reciting a traditional liturgy.
On the one hand there are atheists who separate the true from the good, pursuing truth for truth's sake, even if that diverges from the good. Even if there's no good to be found.
On the other hand, there are churchgoers who separate the good from the true, pursuing good for goodness sake, even if that diverges from the truth. Even if there's no truth to be found.
We need to oppose both those extremes. The true and the good must coincide for either to be of ultimate value. If the good isn't true, then the good is illusory. If the true isn't good, then it has no claims on us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)