Military ethics

I'm going to post and then elaborate on an exchange I had over at Justin Taylor's blog:

James Rednour March 26, 2012 at 9:01 am

Thank you, Jenny. You are absolutely correct. Although I’m sure someone is typing something about Romans 13 right about now, as if that passage trumps everything Jesus said about loving our enemies.

 

steve hays March 26, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Jenny,

 

In a fallen world, it isn’t possible to be equally kind to everyone. If a robber in a botched bank heist takes hostages, puts a gun to the head of your 10-year-old son, and the police have clear shot, they should kill the robber to save your son.

 

In addition, you’re smearing the motives of American soldiers by assuming they do it for vainglory. I daresay most American soldiers aren’t Homeric warriors. It would behoove you to emulate the charity you urge on others.

 

James Rednour March 27, 2012 at 12:32 am

Sorry Steve, but Jenny sees this situation much more clearly than you do. A Christian who enters the military is giving up his freedom to choose to make moral decisions. You are expected to obey, not question, when you join the military. There is nothing honorable about obeying an order to kill someone with whom you might actually befriend in normal life simply because the government want to plunder the wealth of some nation. And make no mistake, ALL wars are fought over territory, wealth or both. While you make think that is something to be admired, I do not.

 

steve hays March 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm

James,

 

i) You impute to Jenny an argument she didn’t use in this thread.

 

ii) You make the patently ridiculous claim that we invariably fight to plunder the wealth of other nations. Is that why we went into an impoverished country like Afghanistan and sank tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure?

 

iii) You impute your twisted interpretation to me, then express disapproval at an artifact of your own making.

 

iv) There are counterfactual situations in somebody might be your friend rather than your enemy. There’s a possible world in which a schoolyard sniper in this world is not a sniper in the alternate timeline. If, however, he’s a sniper in this world, then the police sharpshooter ought to cap him, even if they might be best of friends in some alternate timeline.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/24/can-christians-compete-in-sports/?comments

To some extent, national defense is a logical extension of self-defense. In general, one man can’t defend himself against ten assailants–unless he’s Chuck Norris. So there’s often the need for a community to pool its resources, its manpower, in a common defense.

It involves a principle of reciprocity: I will risk my life for you and your dependants if you risk your life for me and my dependants. This can also extend to military alliances.

However, the right of “self-defense” can be somewhat misleading. It isn’t just a matter of self-preservation, but self-sacrifice. We have an obligation to defend our dependants. And that means hazarding our lives to protect their lives. Husbands have an obligation to protect their wives. Fathers have an obligation to protect their children. Grown children have an obligation to protect their elderly parents (or grandparents). Big brothers have an obligation to protect kid brothers. Friends have an obligation to protect their friends.

Likewise, self-defense includes national security, for we are social creatures. We live in communities. Suburbs. Small towns. Big cities. We survive or perish as aggregates.

The alternative is pacifism. However, pacifism doesn’t eliminate war or armies. It’s just a form of unilateral disarmament. You will still have warriors and wars of aggression. You will still have innocents killed. Indeed, when aggression is allowed to go uncheck by any deterrent, by any credible threat of counterattack, the death toll rises.

So there’s a tradeoff. Both pacifism and militarism have their share of horror stories. It’s not as if one is more humanitarian than another. There’s nothing philanthropic about unilateral disarmament. That doesn’t save lives. Rather, that’s an open invitation to take lives without fear of reprisal. One side can kill with impunity because the other side does nothing.

Historically, armies often use forced conscripts. In peacetime, the enemy soldier might be your friend. He’s just following orders. Still, if he’s about to shoot your wife and kids, you have a duty to protect them. You have to play the hand you’re dealt. God will sort it out in the afterlife.

If armies are necessary, then that commits us to things necessary for armies. Like a chain-of-command. Operational control. To have an effective fighting force, someone has to devise a campaign plan, someone has to give orders, and someone has to take orders. It’s necessary to coordinate planning, direction, personnel, materiel, transportation, and communications. To accomplish the mission, you need the right men at the right place at the right time.  And you need a mission to accomplish. A common objective.

Of course, it may be necessary to adapt the campaign plan to the exigent facts on the ground, but that also requires someone in charge to make the necessary adjustments. Snap decisions must be made.

Following orders isn’t absolute. For one thing, a soldier is only obligated to follow lawful orders. He can also disobey an order, and face court marshal.

In addition, the American military is not a rogue agency. There’s the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rules of engagement. Civilian command and oversight, which is, in turn, subject to the democratic process. So there’s an accountability system. That’s not foolproof, but nothing is. 

It’s not a class apart from our legal system generally. We have good laws and bad laws. Good judges and bad judges. Abuse of power.

There are always people who keep their hands clean by delegating the tough stuff to someone else. But by leaving it to someone else, they are still complicit.  

Dr Wallace’s Problems with Protestant Ecclesiology

Dr. Daniel Wallace has recently put up a blog post lamenting “Protestant Ecclesiology”. Of course, he starts off by affirming his Protestant identity: “I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly: simul iustus et peccator (‘simultaneously justified and a sinner’).”

That’s a good start, to be sure. But then, he brings in a not very good concept when he says, “Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.”

The real tragedy of the Reformation was not that “Protestants splintered”. The real tragedy of the Reformation was that Rome had become what it had become. The Protestants of the time didn’t “splinter”. They did what had to be done. They headed away from Rome. They were unified in their agreement: what the Roman Church had become was a tragedy.

While I greatly admire the work that Dr. Wallace has done regarding our understanding of the manuscripts of the New Testament, I tend to think that he has done a bad thing here, lamenting “Protestant Ecclesiology”. The Reformers did what they had to do at the time; the results are in the Lord’s hands.

Meanwhile, some of what he says, I think, is manifestly unhelpful.

* * *

Dr. Wallace notes that “three events have especially caused me to reflect on my own ecclesiological situation and long for something different.” I’d like to take a look at these.

First, he cites a positive reaction from his associations with “Greek Orthodox folks”:

It doesn’t matter what Orthodox church or monastery I visit, I get the same message, the same liturgy, the same sense of the ‘holy other’ in our fellowship with the Triune God. The liturgy is precisely what bothers so many Protestants since their churches often try very hard to mute the voices from the past. “It’s just me and my Bible” is the motto of millions of evangelicals. They often intentionally forget the past two millennia and the possibility that the Spirit of God was working in the church during that time. Church history for all too many evangelicals does not start until Luther pounded that impressive parchment on the Schlosskirche door.

In Protestantism, one really doesn’t know what he or she will experience from church to church. Even churches of the same denomination are widely divergent. Some have a rock-solid proclamation of the Word, while others play games and woo sinners to join their ranks without even the slightest suggestion that they should repent of anything. Too many Protestant churches look like social clubs where the offense of the gospel has been diluted to feel-good psycho-theology. And the problem is only getting worse with mega-churches with their mini-theology. This ought not to be.

To be sure, I wish more Protestants had a firmer grasp of church history, prior to the Reformation. But that’s not to say that the sameness of Orthodox liturgy is always a good thing. God didn’t make two billion unique individuals only to paste them all into the same mold when it comes to worship. I admit that there’s some benefit to be gained from being able to see what a fourth century liturgy was like. But by the fourth century, Christian worship had already evolved a great deal from its first century origins (and from its second and third century struggles as well). Eastern Orthodoxy has its attractions, but it is wrong to focus on these without considering the doctrinal weaknesses that are inherent in that church as well.

Second, he points to a lack of accountability within some Protestant churches he has encountered:

a man whom I mentored years ago became a pastor of a non-denominational church. Recently and tragically, he denied the full deity of Christ and proclaimed that the Church had gotten it wrong since Nicea. He got in with a group of heretics who were very persuasive. The elders of the church had no recourse to any governing authority over the local church; they were the governing authority and they were not equipped to handle his heterodox teaching. It smelled wrong to them and they consulted me and another evangelical teacher for help. It took some time before they could show the pastor the door, and they were bewildered and troubled during the process. The congregation wasn’t sure which way was up. Doubts about the cornerstone of orthodoxy—the deity of Christ—arose. This cancer could have been cut out more swiftly and cleanly if the church was subordinate to a hierarchy that maintained true doctrine in its churches. And the damage would have been less severe and less traumatic for the church.

This is a tragedy, but again, even individuals who do have “a hierarchy that maintains true doctrine”. In fact, this man’s relatively swift exit from the church, at the hands of “the elders of the church”, may be seen as a blessing. Consider the anguish that someone like Peter Leithart, and a like-minded group in the Northwest Presbytery, is continuing to cause the PCA.

But worse than that, consider the ultimate “hierarchy that maintains true doctrine”, Rome. Consider how that “hierarchy” has gone off the rails, and the infinitely greater trouble it has caused the church of Christ than even that wrought by individuals like Leithart.

A more effective response to this would be to assure that not only elders, but whole congregations full of “non-denominational” Protestants, continue to understand Biblical teaching on “the full deity of Christ”.

Third, he appeals to “the shape of the canon in the ancient church”:

a book by David Dungan called Constantine’s Bible makes an astounding point about the shape of the canon in the ancient church. Dungan discusses the passage in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (6.12) when this church father famously spoke of four categories of literary candidates for the canon—homolegoumena, antilegomena, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha. Dungan mentions that for Eusebius to speak of any books as homolegoumena—those twenty books that had universal consent in his day as canonical—he was speaking of an unbroken chain of bishops, from the first century to the fourth, who affirmed authorship and authenticity of such books. What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church. Dungan went on to say that Eusebius must have looked up the records in the church annals and could speak thus only on the basis of such records. If Dungan is right, then the issue of the authorship of certain books (most notably the seven disputed letters of Paul) is settled. And it’s settled by appeal to an ecclesiological structure that is other than what Protestants embrace. The irony is that today evangelicals especially argue for authenticity of the disputed letters of Paul, yet they are arguing with one hand tied behind their back. And it has been long noted that the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity.

It’s on this score that I think Dr. Wallace’s comments are weakest. It’s been known and acknowledged many times that the “unbroken chain of bishops” that Eusebius was talking about, simply didn’t exist much further back than the middle of the second century. The “unbroken chain of bishops” was rather an apologetic tool, developed in the second century, to deal with growing Gnostic movements that were encroaching in various cities. Eusebius was merely looking to the status of the church in his day, and assuming that this existed all the way back to the first century.

As Jason Engwer has noted here (and others have noted elsewhere), “We have many lines of evidence for the widespread acceptance of the books of the Protestant canon, such as Eusebius' comments about the degree of acceptance of the books among the churches.” In fact, Oscar Cullmann wrote extensively about the relationship between “tradition” and the canon of the New Testament (see here and here, for example). Eusebius isn’t the only early church writer who talked about the canon. So Dungan’s point about “the shape of the canon in the ancient church” really isn’t “astounding”. It may be new to Dr. Wallace (though given his work in textual criticism, it’s hard to believe this concept is new to him), but the reality of it is that he is conflating a number of issues – “succession”, “canon”, early church ecclesiology, and other issues that require far more explanation than he can give in a short blog post by a single author.

Most importantly, for the canon of the New Testament, is something noted by Herman Ridderbos, and cited by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger in their The Heresy of Orthodoxy, pg 171, citing Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, pg 25:

When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received from Christ and from the commission he gave to them to be witnesses to what they had seen and heard of the salvation he had brought. The result of this power and commission is the foundation of the church and the creation of the canon, and therefore these are naturally unrepeatable and exclusive in character.

As Ridderbos says, “The attempt to retain some form of ongoing oral tradition as a supplement to the written canon (as in Roman Catholicism) in fact relativizes the latter and makes illusory the church’s intention in adopting the canon in the first place. By accepting the canon, not only has the church distinguished canonical from noncanonical writings, but it has established in general the limits of what it is able to acknowledge as the apostolic canon. The written canon, then, is the boundary between the history of redemption and the history of the church” (26).

In other words, the fixing of the canon necessarily excludes from the “apostolic witness” what “the unbroken chain of bishops” proposes to bring to it. “The establishment of the Christian written canon indicates that the Church itself at a definite time drew a clear line of demarcation between the time of the apostles and the time of the church, between the time of the foundation and the time of the superstructure, between the apostolic church and the church of the bishops, between the short apostolic [tradition] and the ecclesiastical tradition. This occurrence would be meaningless if its significance were not the formation of the canon (citing Cullmann on Tradition). 

In short, Dr. Wallace’s problems with Protestant ecclesiology aren’t solved by an appeal to Eusebius.

"Canon Fodder"

Dr. Michael Kruger, who is Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC, and co-author (with Andreas Kostenberger) of the work The Heresy of Orthodoxy (among other things) has a fairly new blog entitled Canon Fodder, and he's already promising to make it interesting with an upcoming series entitled 10 Common Misconceptions About the NT Canon.

Here are the 10 Misconceptions:

The Term “Canon” Can Only Refer to a Fixed, Closed List of Books
Nothing in Early Christianity Dictated That There Would be a Canon
The New Testament Authors Did Not Think They Were Writing Scripture
New Testament Books Were Not Regarded as Scriptural Until Around 200 A.D.
Early Christians Disagreed Widely over the Books Which Made It into the Canon
In the Early Stages, Apocryphal Books Were as Popular as the Canonical Books
Christians Had No Basis to Distinguish Heresy from Orthodoxy Until the Fourth Century
Early Christianity was an Oral Religion and Therefore Would Have Resisted Writing Things Down
The Canonical Gospels Were Certainly Not Written by the Individuals Named in Their Titles
Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 A.D.) is the First Complete List of New Testament Books

Subcribe to or bookmark this site!

Where's the outrage over the daily scourge of black-on-black crime?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307613183789698.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

Outreach Report: Reason Rally 2012

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."

INTRODUCTION:  That's right folks, you're seeing the photo above correctly and no, its not Photoshopped; it really is an atheist wearing a "Jesus riding a T-rex" suit.  That's about as sophisticated (but not as blasphemous) as the inaugural 2012 "Reason Rally" was.  Here's what the Reason Rally website said about how things were going to go down:

Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.

This in fact was an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically.  Yes, there was the occasional insult directed towards Islam, but for the most part, this was a highly organized rant against the God of the Bible. 

The turnout was pretty good, but not as good as I expected.

Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake?  That doesn't sound very reasonable to me!

Given the fact that most of the atheistic "pastors" and "worship leaders" had such a filthy mouth that I either had to immediately cover my 8 year old daughter's ears or they used so much blasphemy that it would make a sailor blush, I can tell you that this was indeed a flamboyant "trashing" of religion.  But again, that's about as intellectually sophisticated as it got.

ASSESSMENT

Here's a great example of the kind of nonsense I encountered this weekend (and no, I'm not interested in discussing controversies related to Kent Hovind, tax-protesting, or the like; this video serves only as one example of the type of irrationality I regularly encountered when interacting with its participants):




While that type of irrationality was plenteous, we had a great time of outreach:

Sye TenBruggencate of Sinner Ministries.

After being on the streets surrounding the Rally for one-on-one evangelism, tract distribution, and open-air preaching, we then went into the outskirts of the Rally itself and intermingled among the crowd of atheists that the street preachers gathered in order to attempt to have rational dialogue and discussion:

Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them.

Me interacting with a small group at first.

Thankfully, the guys with the big signs drew huge crowds of atheists around them and all you had to do to get your own crowd was to ask some of those on the outskirts of the already existing crowds, "Are you an atheist?" and when they said "Yes" then I asked "Why?"  This was a great way to profitably start a conversation with these folks, though not many of the conversations were profitable thereafter because atheists don't know the weaknesses in their own worldviews very well.

Some of the sign-holders agitated the atheists at times, but it made for a great way to start conversations.

Like many Christians, most young atheists only read the pop-level New Atheists and don't attempt to read and seriously grapple with the many robust criticisms of their own views nor are many of them even aware that there are serious, weighty philosophical criticisms of their views.  Many of them seemed to expect that most Christians are like those associated with the "Westboro Baptist Church" instead of having the ability to offer serious theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments against their views.  Several of the atheists I interacted with said that we were like a breath of fresh air to them simply because we knew what we believed and could defend it adequately.  These types of atheists seemed to really enjoy conversations with us, even after we explicitly told them that they needed to repent. 

Me explaining to an atheist that he is taking Scripture out of context to justify his position.  This drew a huge crowd of people who were able to hear the gospel. 

Many listening to me reason with the unreasonable.

It was heartbreaking to see someone so Hell-bent against God that they had tattooed "unsaved" on their arm. 

I found that trying to video tape any of the interactions resulted in the unbeliever trying to "perform" for the video camera rather than actually grappling with the arguments I was presenting against their position, thus further promoting irrationality.  Therefore, I have no video footage to offer.

The crowds in the perimeter were growing just as steadily as the dialogues were.

OUR APPROACH

I attacked the four areas that skeptics pride themselves on by asking the following simple questions:

1.  Truth - I asked, "What is truth in your worldview?  What's your definition of 'truth'?"

2.  Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"

3.  Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"

4.  Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"

Regarding truth, most atheists responded, "I don't have to give a definition or account of truth to know what's true."  I then responded usually with something like this, "If you don't know what truth is and can't account for it at all, how do you know that Christianity is false and atheism is true?"

Regarding logic, every atheist I interacted with in an in-depth way (which was probably 10-15 people) was completely unprepared to deal with this line of argumentation.  I essentially simplified and used Drs. Welty and Anderson's argument for God from logic.  Most of their rejoinders were of two kinds: (1) the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way humans have evolved to think, and (2) Nominalism - the laws of logic don’t really exist; claims about laws of logic are just convenient fictions.  I refuted both of these by pointing that (1) confuses a description of those laws with the laws themselves, and (2) if the laws of logic don't really exist then they do.  In other words, I pointed out that the laws of logic must exist in order to deny them; i.e., they exist necessarily.

Regarding science, we defined the problem of induction and then asked them if they knew how to answer the problem of induction apart from an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God.  Using arguments from this paper, we showed that they can't make sense out of their scientific investigation apart from an appeal to God.

Regarding morality, we defined what objective morality was, showed that it requires God to make sense out of it, and as expected, most atheists defended moral relativism.  When we showed the self-defeating nature of moral relativism, several atheists became emotional, inconsistent, and/or admitted that it would be okay to torture little girls for fun as long as society agreed to it.  Please read the italicized portion of that last sentence again, its not a typo.  

As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess.  All of the ones we interacted with were clueless about the very worldview they were attempting to critique and every one of them had a "Christian" background.  We lovingly called every one of them to repentance and weaved Scripture in and out of our apologetic discussions.  Paul nailed their predicament 2,000 years ago,

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸ being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; ¹⁹ and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-19)

FUN

Nevertheless, we had some fun by enjoying some sightseeing the day before, some fellowship the night before during the "training time" and when taking breaks from evangelism:

A decent high-definition photo of the Capitol Building.  It was a beautiful day for sight-seeing.

Elissa pondering the tulips as we overlook the National Mall.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution chiseled in stone on the side of this building.

Daddy and daughter enjoying some time together after evangelizing for almost 6 hours straight.

Mommy and daughter gettin' their grin on for the camry!

Bethel World Outreach Church - these were the only facilities we could procure for our training Friday night.

Chewing the fat with Eric Hovind and Mark Spence.

Photo opp with Pastors Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson of Apologia Church.  Both of these men are ardent defenders of the faith and good friends.

Enjoying Pastor Luke Pierson's manly beard. 

IN CONCLUSION, atheism has nothing to offer and it was further confirmed this weekend.  However, I want to finish on a good note.  The last young man we spoke with was an early twenty-something who said he was as "former Christian".  From a strategic standpoint, we didn't immediately challenge this claim as we sensed that it would have caused him to shut down to further dialogue, but we first listened to him and then asked diagnostic questions in order to show the problems with his worldview using the four categories above.  When challenged, he then started "performing" in front of the other atheists standing around listening.  They then entered the conversation but when we shut them down too, they all became very irrational and this young man picked up on their inconsistencies and irrational behavior and by his body language, you could tell that it made him uncomfortable and embarrassed.  We then closed down those conversations since they were becoming unprofitable and then the young man said, "Hey, why don't we go over here and talk since I'd really like to listen to the next speaker."  This was a sign that he wanted to ask some sincere questions, so we walked over to the edge of the Rally's main crowd while the next speaker began, and the young man began to ask me, "How do you really know that Christianity is true, how do you really know the Bible is God's word?  Why do you believe that?" and as I began to "slice and dice" with apologetics and he said, "No, I don't want to challenge you or put you on the defensive, you see, I used to be a Christian, and I want to really know why you personally and sincerely believe these things."  I essentially gave him this answer,

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. [1689 LBCF 1:5]

I then explained that when you begin with the correct foundation for all your reasoning, you're not left to "the futility of [your] mind, being darkened in [your] understanding" (Eph. 4:17-18).  He then said, "But I really don't believe in God anymore."  I then said, "I believe you're being sincere as well, but there's a part of you that's agreeing with me right now and saying, 'What's this guy's saying makes a whole lot of sense' and there's another part of you that's saying, 'No, run from this nonsense!'  I know man, I've been there!"  I then explained per Romans 1:19-32, that all people with normally functioning mental faculties intuit God through their own consciences and through the external world.  However, because he went above and beyond in his truth suppression by drinking deeply from the sewage of secularism, those mental faculties that naturally intuit God were now damaged by sin.  I then explained to him that this is the downward spiral of reprobation that God describes in Romans 1:18-32.  At this point his hands began shaking and his jaws were clenching from what appeared to be some measure of conviction of sin.  I then told him, "Many of the people in this crowd in front of you are too far gone.  They have suppressed the truth for 30-40 years and as a result, they have been given over fully to a depraved mind."  I then pointed out that he too was on that path and that he needed to beg the God that he hated for the ability to love Him.  I gave him my ministry card and it was then that I was whisked away by one of the bearded pastors in the photos above.  May God get great glory to Himself in these outreach endeavors and may He move Christians to both support those who are going into the secular mission field and equip themselves to do the work of evangelism in their own little sphere of influence.

Fallen is Babylon!

I’m going to comment on more of Gentry’s preterist reading of Revelation.

Revelation’s main focus of attention (though not its only point) is this: God will soon judge the first-century Jews for rejecting and crucifying his Son, their Messiah. Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 46.

i) This cuts against the grain of mainstream scholarship, which thinks the Roman imperial cult lies behind much of the conflict in Revelation. A conflict between true and false worship.

ii) The only evidence Gentry cites from Revelation itself to support his contention is Rev 1:7. And he interprets that verse preteristically–as having reference, not to the Parousia, but the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So he’s using a controversial interpretation of a single verse to prop up a controversial claim about the “main focus of attention.”

iii) The rest of his supporting evidence comes not from Revelation, but other NT writings or OT writings. But as a rule, when you interpret a writing, it’s best to begin with the writing itself, and–if need be–work out from there.

For instance, there’s no antecedent reason to assume that Revelation is speaking to the same situation as Hebrews. So you can’t simply use Hebrews to interpret Revelation with no further ado.

iv) He says “The ‘coming with the clouds’ language is common prophetic parlance for historical divine judgments on nations” (47), yet he also says “the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-46” (46n25). But that drives a wedge between Mt 24:30 and Mt 24:36ff. Is Mt 24:30 (“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”) really describing a different event than Mt 25:31 (“31  “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne”)? What about Mt 24:31 (“31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”)? Does that refer to the fall of Jerusalem rather than the Parousia? Where does Gentry draw the line?

The rider on the white house “bent on conquest” (Rev 6:2-3) represents the victorious Roman march toward Jerusalem to engage the Jewish war in the spring of AD 67 (53).

i) But his interpretation is far more specific than the generic language John uses. And that’s just one example. His historical correlations are arbitrary, for it’s equally possible to come up with different historical correlations. That’s what the historicist school does, as well as many dispensational date-setters.

ii) For instance, some interpreters identify the rider with the Parthians rather than the Romans. Enemies of Rome.

iii) If we do identify the rider with Rome, that would throw emphasis on Romans rather than Jews, contrary to Gentry’s preferred emphasis.

Jumping ahead in Revelation, we come to John’s visionary command to measure the temple and its worshipers (Rev 11:1-2). Again we clearly see Revelation’s focus on Israel: This “holy city” with a “temple” must be in Jerusalem” (65).

Two problems:

i) The passage goes on to say: “for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.”

How does that single out Jews rather than Romans? Pagan Roman officials who persecute the faithful.

ii) Gentry himself takes the position that this passage predicts the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But, of course, that was done by the Roman army.

iii) John may also be using temple imagery for the church.

Moving along:

v) He regards the number of the Beast as a numerological cipher for Nero. That’s certainly one possible identification. However:

a) It disregards objections to that particular identification, as well as alternative correlations. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6-16, 770-773; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 718-728.

b) Even if we think it stands for Nero, that doesn’t select for Nero rather than a Nero redivivus figure. So Gentry can’t use that for dating purposes. The Beast may be a type of Nero. 

The seven mountains obviously refer to the famous seven hills of Rome (69).

Two problems:

i) That would shift the alleged emphasis from Jews to Romans. So that undercuts his thesis.

ii) Given the pervasive use of septunarian symbolism in Revelation, the seven hills of Rome may be coincidental. Of course, it’s possible that here’s a case where reality conveniently dovetails with the numerology.

Many suppose the Babylonian prostitute represents the city of Rome because she sits on several hills. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise (74).

Yet he himself made that identification five pages back (see above)!

Revelation designates the prostitute as “Babylon the great” (17:5), that is, “the great city” (17:18; cf. 14:8; 16:19; 18:10,16,21). The first mention of “the great city” is 11:8, which indisputably points to Jerusalem, “where also their Lord was crucified” (74).

Two problems:

i) There’s a false dichotomy here, as if a reference to Jerusalem automatically exempts Rome. Yet a Roman official stationed in Jerusalem ordered the execution of Jesus. And that’s because Jerusalem was under Roman rule. Therefore, it’s not as if Jerusalem ipso facto stands in contrast to Rome.

ii) There’s also a level-confusion. It’s not a choice between the city of Rome and the city of Jerusalem. Rather, the imperial city stands for Roman dominance generally. The fall of Rome isn’t confined to the city of Rome. Rather, that has reference to the loss of Roman jurisdiction.

John’s apparent backdrop for this prostitute (17:1-6; 19:1-2) is an Old Testament text also dealing with Israel–Jeremiah 3 (74).

That fails to take into account the fact that over time, different players fill the same roles.

Of course, with the Neronian persecution currently under way (1:9; 13:5-7), Rome was stained with the blood of the saints. Yet Rome had only recently entered the persecuting ranks of God’s enemies; throughout Acts Jerusalem and the Jews were the main persecutor (75).

Several problems:

i) Many scholars think the persecution in view has reference to Domitian (late dating) rather than Nero (early dating).

ii) If Revelation is prophetic, then there’s no reason to tie it down to persecution that’s concomitant with the time of writing. It can address future persecution as well as present persecution.

iii) Indeed, the apocalyptic imagery is so generic and hyperbolic that there’s no good reason to confine it to a single period.

iv) Many scholars think Revelation was written 30 years later than Acts, at which point Roman policy had hardened against the Christians.

v) Many scholars also think Acts is, in part, an effort to ingratiate the Christian movement with Roman authorities. To demonstrate that Christians aren’t a threat to Rome. But John has a different agenda.

vi) Although 1C Jews could (and did) engage in informal persecution of Christians, the extent and degree of persecution was inherently limited, for they didn’t have the state apparatus or police powers of Rome. 

Photo purported to be first century Mark manuscript is indeed a hoax

Just updating something that came up a while ago here.

Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, who announced to the world that a number of very old New Testament manuscript fragments have been found (including a first century fragment from the Gospel of Mark), recently confirmed a comment from Jason Engwer to the effect that the photograph floating around the internet was indeed a hoax). He says, in a comment on his blog, “Yes, this is a hoax. It’s not even a papyrus manuscript! It first surfaced when an atheist group displayed it as a way to discredit the real finding.”

Hollywood's highway to Hell

So what am I saying? "The Raid: Redemption" failed as a generic success because it simplified its plot too much? Not really. It is a generic success. And yet my heart sank and I asked myself: Is this all they want? Are audiences satisfied with ceaseless violence, just so long as they can praise it for being "well choreographed?" Is there no appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality? Westerns were the first Hollywood morality plays, and it was always clear who was good and who was bad. Now it doesn't matter so much, and the cops and robbers in "The Raid" agree with Red Sanders: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

 

Another quote from my review: "There's obviously an audience for the film, probably a large one. They are content, even eager, to sit in a theater and watch one action figure after another pound and blast one another to death. Have you noticed how cats and dogs will look at a TV screen on which there are things jumping around? It is to that level of the brain's reptilian complex that the film appeals."

 

I can't take this much longer. I can't function like a butcher's scale. Is it enough to spend two hours determining if a film "achieves its generic purpose?" Shouldn't it do more than that? Perhaps provide some humor, humanity, romance, suspense, beauty, strategy, poetry. Not all of those qualities, but at least several of them. "The Raid" didn't even supply a single good-looking publicity still.

 

I've seen some incredibly brutal South Korean films recently, like "The Chaser," that contain enough violence to stun any fan of "The Raid" but also have the advantage of being very good films, with intriguing characters, puzzling plots, and ingenious situations. I watched spellbound. "The Raid: Redemption" is dead in the water. The butcher slams the raw slab on his scale and asks, "How many are you feeding?"

 

These thoughts, some readers inform me, are a function of my age. I'm too old to appreciate a movie like this any longer.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/03/hollywoods_highway_to_hell.html

Roger Ebert is a lapsed Catholic turned atheist. It doesn’t occur to him that the very thing he finds repellent about this film, and its natural constituency, is the logical and inexorable outworking of a secularized society. That’s the residual scum after you drain away Christianity. 

The devil's apprentice

rogereolson says:

This is the Calvinist conundrum I talk about all the time and that no Calvinist (to the best of my knowledge) has resolved satisfactorily. Let me put it this way: If God has sovereignty predestined and rendered certain everything that happens without exception FOR HIS GLORY, then doesn’t doctrinal error glorify God? If so, why fiercely opposed it? The key is “fiercely.” I can understand their answer “Well, God has called us to be his instruments in defeating doctrinal error and our defeating it also glorifies God.” (It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I can at least understand it.) But why fiercely? Why do they seem angry as they go about attempting to defeat doctrinal error (e.g., open theism)? And can it glorify God to use misrepresentation and demagoguery to defeat doctrinal error? I know that happens because I’m been a victim of it and I’ve seen it “up close.” (E.g., “Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves.”)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/part-2-response-to-the-gospel-as-center/comment-page-1/#comment-26550

i) As usual, Olson has blinkers on when it comes to his own position. He constantly inveighs against Calvinism, but never stops to consider obvious–and I do mean obvious–counterexamples to his own objections. For the Arminian God has the wherewithal to greatly reduce doctrinal error without infringing on the libertarian freedom of his creatures. Just take the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. Olson’s God could have inspired St. Paul to compose the The Five Articles of Remonstrance, which would become a part of canonical Scripture. Olson’s God could have inspired Bible writers to rewrite Calvinist prooftexts to make them explicitly Arminian.

More generally, the Angel of the Lord could hold a weekly audience and take questions from the audience. His answers to questions, including follow-up questions, regarding, say, the sacraments, would resolve many theological disputes.

Or God could make everyone a prophet. Make every Christian privy to special revelations. 

None of this would “violate” the libertarian freedom of Christians. Yet it would vastly reduce theological disagreement and doctrinal error. So why doesn’t Olson’s God do more to prevent doctrinal error when it’s within his power to do so consistent with libertarian strictures?

Why does God allow it? The freewill defense won’t work in these cases–even if we grant its key assumptions.

ii) When Olson talks about the Calvinist God doing everything “for his glory,” I don’t know how Olson understands that phrase, so in that respect his question is unanswerable.

iii) He imputes anger to Reformed opponents of doctrinal error. But that may just be Olson projecting. If anything, he seems to be pretty ticked off by Calvinists.

iv) How is it “misrepresentation and demagoguery” to state Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves?

v) Calvinists can logically oppose predestined doctrinal error because both the error and the opposition to error are means to an end. Error supplies the occasion to oppose error, which can be a worthwhile exercise. Error is not inherently valuable, and opposition to error may not be inherently valuable, but the combination may contribute to a valuable result.

vi) Even at a human level, we often create problems to solve problems. Take chess. Or football. Or hockey. Or poker. Or drama. Or video games. Or recreational math. Or murder mysteries. Or riddles and puzzles. We create conflict to resolve conflict. We create situations which invite competition. Winners and losers. We challenge ourselves.

Suppose Olson came along and said, “Well, if you didn’t have rival football teams, no one would have to lose.”

True, but that misses the point of why people play football (or watch football) in the first place.

So what good can come of combating doctrinal error? I can think of several:

vii) Iron sharpens iron. It forces us to study the Bible more closely and carefully. Notice things in Scripture we were oblivious to before.

viii) It’s one of God’s ways of exposing human folly, and thereby pointing us to our absolute dependence on God’s wisdom.

ix) It’s ironic that Olson thinks Calvinism is Satanic, because I think Olson’s position is Satanic. It reminds me of Satan’s subversive question in Job. Satan thought Job only worshipped God for what he got in return. For the goodies. That if God permitted Satan to afflict Job, then Job would turn his back on God.

9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

Well, isn’t that Olson’s philosophy? He follows God only so long as he thinks God is a source of blessing rather than bane. He follows God in good times, but when bad things happen–if he thought for one moment that it actually came from God’s hand, he’d cease to worship God. A fair-weather Christian. He accepts the weal but not the woe. Only his dualism keeps him from outright apostasy.