Archive for December, 2008

"Not the same God" – Gene Robinson backs into the truth

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Obama and Warren

The uproar (among a vocal few) about President-elect Obama asking Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has been illuminating. On the one hand conservatives who complain that Warren is somehow “endorsing” what they view as Obama’s more repugnant policies need to chill. (Although note Cal Thomas’ warning that Warren might do well to follow the example of Nathan the prophet – not because of Obama but because of the problems of being too friendly with any government.) On the other hand liberals who demonize Warren because of his opposition to (a) abortion rights and (b) same-sex marriage have perhaps revealed too much of themselves to the rest of the nation.

“Goodness gracious – I thought you guys were like you know liberal and tolerant and inclusive and all that. This is how you treat someone who practices a great deal of what you talk about – and more than you do quite frankly – but does not line up with you on a couple key moral-social issues?”

Amidst the brouhaha is an astonishing comment by Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire whose consecration in 2003 catalyzed the crisis-already-in-progress within the Anglican Communion:

“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

(From article at New York Times. You do not have to register.)

The part of what Robinson says that is so shocking is this part:

The God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.

Whoa.

The whole issue of “do those people (in that different religion over there) believe in the same God we do?” has generated much discussion the last several years particularly with regard to Islam. Even President Bush (although I cannot confirm this years after the fact with a specific citation) tried to forestall violence toward American Muslims by claiming “we all pray to the same God”.

Do we?

The problem of course is it all depends on what you mean by “same”. I addressed this at length in a post at Baptistlife.com:

There has been some debate/discussion on this board concerning “is Allah the same as God?” (Also expressed exactly as the article does. “Do Muslims pray to/worship the same God (as Christians)?” Some even replied that Jewish people do not – because of the Trinity.

I have always thought this a tough question if only because… well… what does it mean exactly? The “same God“? Haruo and Hal point out correctly that one can find texts which seem to indicate some overlap between what “others” worship and the one true God who has revealed himself and acted most decisively through his son Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul in Athens. “What you worship as unknown…” The quote from James. And also in Acts – God shows no partiality but accepts everyone who…

Hal’s question – are there actually other Gods that can be worshiped? I think the Hebrew and Christian scriptures for the most part would say, “Well yeah. Duh!” There are places where other gods are other deities (real – but they s@ck compared to Yhwh) or “mere idols” (and therefore theoretically… not real – but they are worshiped as gods). I believe there is tension within Scripture on this, although the “only God is even real” seems to be the dominant position (hence Genesis 1 and exilic/post-exilic theology).

When people answer the “do Muslims worship same God?” question with reference to language – that is where they truly mess up. Linguistically Allah is not more a “different God” than is Dios in Spanish. My Arabic Bible quite plainly translates elohim (meaning Yhwh) or theos (meaning the one God who created heavens and earth) as allah(u). Just because Muslims call God “Allah” absolutely does not mean a different (not-same) God. So some critics of Islam need to be careful there. I think most people on this forum have that figured out.

But when we are careful, we might ask, “The same concept of God? same understanding? conceptualization? story of God?” Latter Day Saints use almost the exact same language. Even to Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But the theology is radically different. The “same“? The Islamic concept of God is also different. (Not sure I am prepared to say “radically”.)

How about “the same in terms of a religious idea and its development?” Then one could argue they are indeed the same. Muhammad was trying(?) to follow in the “Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) tradition”. He saw Allah/God as a continuation(?) of Yhwh in the Tawra(tu) and the Injil(u) (Torah and Gospel). He saw himself as a prophet of the same deity/God as that of Moses and Jesus. And if one is talking “history of religion”, yeah probably the same. ….

How about “the same ontologically”? Whether Muslims understand/conceptualize/describe God “correctly” or not – is this the same deity (in terms of the being-that-is-there-getting-worshiped)? I ain’t much of a philosopher (got A’s but hardly remember anything) and would not know how to answer the question. I’m not quite sure I can agree with Jim that Muhammad “fashioned, created, constructed” Allah. I believe Muhammad had a real experience with a real, powerful, spiritual being/force. (Read any biography of the prophet – such as ibn Tabari – and how Muhammad experiences God and/or Jibrail/Gabriel. I don’t think he’s imagining anything.) Just not the same, uh, being that we normally call “God“. (And no I will not elaborate.) I suppose I would agree with Jim if we mean Muhammad mistakenly called this being “Allah (God)”. And especially on the issue of Muhammad borrowing from the Bible (one has to qualify that – he had no Arabic translation, only Syriac, and clearly was borrowing from jumbled second hand oral retellings as well as from non-canonical “pseudo-Christian” writings.)

But the question also leads to “the same in terms of intent?” Ah. Perhaps.

And how about “the same in terms of God’s point of view?” Does the God who became human in Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity to be more precise) accept worship of Allah/God (that is, Muslim worship) as if it is to himself? Christians of good will debate this. I think Scripture actually seems to answer sometimes yes, sometimes no. (I believe there are “tensions” within Scripture. The challenge is what to do with them.)

How about “phenomenologically the same?” The experience of God? The intent to worship the same God (again – whether correct or not, accepted or not)? This is where I tend to be a bit more “liberal”. I would say “Mormonism is not a true Christian religion”. But what if a Mormon sincerely believes in (even a deeply flawed understanding of) Jesus as Lord and Savior? Perhaps the Mormon is subjectively a “Christian”. I still think their theology is whacked. But do I really know what the heck is going on in the deep places of the heart between that person and Christ? Can one be a follower of Christ with a screwed up theology (Christian or Mormon or…)? Subjectively, I mean.

All of which is a long, messy post intended to argue that the question “the same God or not?” is almost unanswerable unless one is careful to specify “the same in terms of what? theology? linguistics/name? experience? ontology? phenomenology? history of religions? how God accepts or not the worshiper? and so on”. Even then – I hardly know how to answer sometimes.

(Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.)

Okay – time to put all this together.

The point is that those of a more “liberal-tolerant-inclusive” presentation often tell us “golly gee whiz we are all God’s children and pray to the same God”. They do this in order to emphasize unity for the sake of getting along peacefully. We should not fight because gosh we are all kinda the same. And conservatives get frowns when they talk about real differences between religions or even real differences within a religion. “We shouldn’t talk about our differences. We should just talk about what we have in common”. (For the record – I believe that is complete and utter rubbish and in fact shows less true respect for othe religions. We can and should talk frankly about our differences as well as our similarities. Otherwise what kind of friendship is that?)

Meanwhile – Anglicanism. And the conflicts within the Episcopal Church.

The leadership of the Episcopal Church tries to emphasize same-ness. Why? So that conservative Anglicans will not leave along with their money and buildings and relatively high attendance. Critics of the Episcopal Church (or more precisely its current leadership and dominant direction) maintain we functionally have two religions which is why we need to separate.

So… in light of all this… in light of:

  • the liberal tendency to emphasize commonality and same-ness
  • and the Episcopal tendency to minimize theological differences that might generate conflict and departure

It is remarkable and astonishing that Bishop Gene Robinson of all people should state “the God he prays to is not the God I know”. As if there really can be such a thing as “not the same God” or at the very least “functionally not the same religion that I follow”. (And think about the implications. That Robinson prays to the “true” God while Rick Warren does not. Fair enough I suppose.)

Robinson has backed into a powerful truth. (Although – see the long post above – one has to be careful here.) And has accidentally endorsed what more orthodox/conservative Anglicans have been saying for years.

We do not believe in the “same” God. (I do not necessarily mean ontologically.)

So why on earth should we remain in the same church together – hmm?

Posted in Anglicanism, Media, News, Religion, Theology | No Comments »

Yes Virginia – there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

Not everyone knows that for most of my life I have been an astronomy buff. Was given my first telescope around age 8(?). Built a telescope (six inch Newtonian) in eighth grade. Took daily observations primarily of the sun and planets. And if I had several thousand dollars to spare on whatever a good eight inch reflector with excellent mount would be on my short list. (Meade. Plus a Super-Plossl eyepiece or two. Thanks for asking.)

For sixteen years astronomers have been trying to figure out if yes indeed there is – as had been theorized for decades – a black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. What they did in a nutshell was observe the motion of a tight cluster of stars – one of which passed within one light day of… something. Sure enough – the observations confirm what many had thought.

Galactic center of Milky Way

There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy – about four million times the mass of our Sun.

Check it out at Astronomy Picture of the Day archive. You do not have to register.

Posted in Astronomy, Media, News | No Comments »

Dog bites human, sun rises in east – and Presiding Bishop lies

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

Oh where to start?

PB Jefferts-Schori

There is plenty with which to find fault in what Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori had to say to the National Press Club on December 16. Baby Blue characterizes it as:

… an amazingly sophomoric speech (which she lectures the press to be nicer and stop writing about schism and sex).

But what deserves particular emphasis amidst the usual drivel is a good old fashioned outright lie.

Concerning the Episcopal Church’s various lawsuits against dioceses, parishes, and even individual parishioners the Presiding Bishop asks us to believe:

We tried for a very long time to negotiate and came to a place where there was no willingness to negotiate so at that point you ask the courts to enforce the laws of the land.

If you ever are tempted to wonder if these are basically good honest people who are sincere in their “error” do keep such statements like this in mind. The Presiding Bishop is lying.

The Diocese of Virginia was all set to work out a settlement with parishes leaving the Episcopal Church – and then 815 (which is shorthand for the leadership of the national church including especially the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor David Booth-Beers) stepped in and told Bishop Lee to change course and sue the dickens out of these people.

Posted in Anglicanism, Law and Justice, Media, News, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Sandlin and his tiger – giving Louisiana a bad name

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

Tony the TigerI am not sure I believe in animal “rights”. But I do believe human beings have a divinely given responsibility to care for animals. This is a theological conviction rooted in exegesis of Genesis 1-2. God created human beings to represent God within creation and to “manage” (my loose translation of yirduu < Hebrew rada[h] – got this from a Chinese visiting scholar in forestry) the world with God and for God. So “rule over the animals” does not mean “dominate them and do whatever you want with them” because that is not the Hebrew/biblical concept of rule. To “rule” has in mind the ancient ideal of the shepherd-king (rather than king-as-tyrant) who cares for those in his charge.

Human beings – who image God within creation – are supposed to take care of animals.

And so I have little sympathy for Michael Sandlin who for eight years has kept a tiger in a steel-and-concrete cage at his truck stop in order to attract people to his business. Iberville Parish is trying to enforce a rule against displaying wild animals. Sandlin is suing for an exception because – and at least he comes out and admits this:

“A large portion of the business at Tiger Truck Stop comes from customers stopping to view the tiger exhibit,” his lawsuit seeking an injunction stated.

“Mr. Sandlin will suffer irreparable harm if he is required to relocate his tiger,” the suit stated. “If he is forced to relocate the tiger or if the tiger is seized then he will most likely be prevented from bringing it back to the State of Louisiana.”

Read the whole thing at the Baton Rouge Advocate. You do not have to register.

Okay – I sympathize a little bit. It would hurt him financially (along with the people he employs which includes family members). Not that other businesses somehow manage without something like a tiger-on-display-in-a-cage. And it could be worse. The tiger can stand up and move around. He is cared for – more or less.

How would Sandlin like to be stuck in a cage like this for eight years? “But you get plenty of water and food. You are well fed. These animals rights wackos should not move you from the only home you have known for eight years”. It could be worse – but that is a far cry from being good or right or appropriate for a wild animal. Louisiana State University grew a brain and a heart and built the new habitat for Mike the Tiger. (Which is not to endorse the whole tiger-on-display thing.) Animals need more than water and food when they are stuck in a bare boring steel and concrete cage. They need stimulation. Things to do. Otherwise we suggest that prison is no big deal – right?

The animal rights activist should not have allegedly called Sandlin’s sister an “inbred” (which nearly led to fisticuffs outside the courtroom). But other than that…

What kind of people are these? Who would use a tiger like this?

No wonder some people think Louisiana is backwards.

Posted in Animals, Hebrew Bible, Law and Justice, News, Theology | No Comments »

Jim Engster and Peter De Lorenzo on NPR dodge the U-word

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

This week was listening again (why oh why) to the Jim “the Soporific One” Engster Show on local public radio station WRKF Baton Rouge. His guest was Peter DeLorenzo of Autoextremist.com and The United State of Toyota: How Detroit Squandered its Legacy fame. Discussing the proposed government bailout of the “Big Three” automobile manufacturers based in Detroit – General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.

Listen to a steaming MP3 recording of the program here. You do not have to register.

DeLorenzo supports the bailout. Period. Okay so far even though I believe he is completely and dangerously wrong.

More significant is the discussion of how/why the Big Three got to this point. Why are they in such bad shape?

According to DeLorenzo the main problem was poor quality control in the 70’s through early 90’s – which is when these automobile companies gained(?) their reputation for making cars of low quality. They “squandered their legacy”. And Americans are still stuck in that mindset. Hey they are making very fine cars now that are reliable and do not have the problems of the past.

What is the one word – well okay two – that DeLorenzo and Engster do not mention for the first several minutes?

Unions.

(And legacies – that is pension and health care and job security obligations to retirees.)

About $2000 of every car sold just goes to take care of pensions/benefits. It almost does not matter what they make. Or how good their cars are. Or how well they market their products. (I rented a Ford Focus once and I loved it. I still would rather buy a Toyota any day of the week and twice on Sundays.) In fact let us quote Mr DeLorenzo to reinforce this point:

Yet, the congressmen had to be reminded over and over again that Detroit had been restructuring and revamping since 2000, that Detroit hadn’t been operating in a vacuum, that Detroit does build competitive and class-leading products, that Detroit has pioneered new technologies, that Detroit is a viable, relevant, strategic industry that’s part of the crucial fabric of America’s manufacturing base, that the worst financial crisis in seven decades had wreaked havoc on their ability to do business, and on, and on, and on.

You don’t say! And still they are in trouble. Why?

And here comes this guy to say not only is this bailout absolutely categorically necessary for the American economy… but cannot bring himself to mention or discuss what some argue are the main reasons American car companies are in such dire straits. (And Jim Engster does not help either.) In fact he argues that automobile companies in other nations are supported by their governments. Perhaps and that is a point worth considering. But to discuss the “fifteen hundred dollar price advantage” that Toyotas have when they arrive here (because the Japanese government supposedly manipulates the value of their currency the yen) without mentioning once the unions/legacies issue… just boggles the mind.

So we can mention why Japanese cars have a price advantage… but not why American cars have a price disadvantage?!? Oh – and if the dollar is doing badly compared to other currencies then theoretically people will buy less imported products because they will cost more yes? And if – as DeLorenzo argues toward the end of the broadcast – the bailout means GM and Ford will survive in order to bring to America the amazing innovative vehicles they sell abroad? (And that part is true – about what they sell overseas.) Dare we ask why we do not see those cars being sold here?!? And why – if we do not address that – can we assume so casually that yes oh yes just wait a few years and we will see those fantastic cars here?

Finally… finally… the very last caller brings up the union/wages issue. Listen to DeLorenzo crash on this one. He complains that this is another example of an “unlevel playing field”. See – American car companies have to provide health benefits to their workers. Foreign companies do not – because the government provides national health care. (It is the first and only time De Lorenzo says a caller is “not entirely correct” and it is the fellow who brings up the union/wages issue. The fellow was not – he had a valid point but mangled it.)

Um… Pete? Mr DeLorenzo? What about the 100,000 American workers at manufacturing plants in America who work for Toyota, Nissan, and so on? They make more, have benefits, and still the companies shell out less per hour on labor – and in a nation that does not provide national health care. The comparison (and complaint) is problematic.

To DeLorenzo’s credit he acknowledges the difficulties involved with Congress attempting to run American car companies.

Not good Jim. Bad enough to have a guest who (in my opinion) grossly misrepresents the situation. Worse for you to let him get away with it.

PS. Mr Engster – any plans to have someone on your show to provide what some might call “another point of view”? When you have a conservative – you usually do that. So when you have someone passionately in favor of the bailout…

Just asking.

Posted in Economics, Media | No Comments »

Newsweek declares its opposition to fair, honest, balanced reporting

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

The blogosphere is abuzz with the recent controversy surrounding not just a front page article in Newsweek magazine but also how the editor responded.

This week Newsweek featured an article by Lisa Miller entitled “Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy“.

Well darn – the title alone tells you what is coming right?

It is bad. Really bad. Even if you agree (1) Ms Miller has a right to her opinions and (2) is entirely correct on this issue… still… it is a truly dreadful article. It misrepresents the issue. Misrepresents the views of millions of people. Misrepresents the arguments involved. Misrepresents the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. (And why oh why do proponents of gay marriage ignore what other religions such as Islam and Hinduism have to say about this? Why single out Christians?)

Mollie Hemingway in “Sola scriptura minus the scriptura” (the Bible only without the Bible) offers an utterly devastating critique of the piece:

And yet preach with unhinged emotion is precisely what Miller does. She never once speaks with an actual opponent of same-sex marriage. She never once speaks with someone who knows anything about the Biblical model of marriage as understood for thousands of years. This piece is disgusting, unfair and unworthy of a high school graduate. It is the opposite of thought-provoking. It’s a post-frontal lobotomy exegesis of Scripture. This is journalism? This is how people are supposed to cover the news, today?

… This is a serious topic. We have had the majority populace of three dozen states now vote to define marriage as a heterosexual union. I know the news industry is suffering but perhaps one reporter could go actually research what these people think.

Instead we learn nothing about the principled opposition to same-sex marriage and instead get blasphemy and some of the most cliched reading of Scripture to appear in print. Thanks, Newsweek. Thanks a bunch.

Read the whole thing at Get Religion. You do not have to register.

But what really takes the cake is how Jon Meacham responded to the strong backlash (including fair well known public figures taking issue with the article and how it handles the subject matter). Rather than “no no it was not a report – it was an opinion piece” or “this is an important point of view in a larger debate” he openly declares a theological-political position. Among other things Meacham writes:

This conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism…

Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their ‘agenda,’ a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.

(I cannot find a link to this – these excerpts are from other articles which quote Meacham.)

Wow. Tell us what you really think.

Christianity Today in a three page editorial about the Newsweek article and Meacham’s defense thereof offers this trenchant summary:

And so ironically, even before the first word of Miller’s religious case for gay marriage has been read, Meacham has conceded that it is not a case at all, but a simple assertion. And while they both claim they are arguing against exclusiveness and for inclusivity, they have managed to exclude from this crucial national conversation a significant proportion of the American population who happen to believe there is a strong biblical case for traditional marriage.

Read  the whole thing at Christianity Today. You do not have to register.

If the editors and staff at Newsweek or any other nationally recognized publication wish to make a case for one side in a larger debate – that is fine. Let them do so. But what Newsweek has done is not make a case. It has offered assertions not arguments. Rhetoric designed solely to marginalize the opposition rather than engage in serious conversation.

So… when ‘orthodox’ Christians wonder if the Mainstream Media has an axe to grind against the Christian faith…

Apparently it is not all in our imagination. That is one very positive thing we gain from Newsweek. We know precisely what they are trying to do. They have told us as much.

Posted in Bible, Media, Religion | No Comments »

Is grace-ful parenting even possible?

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Partly because pastors need to eat as well as feed and partly because I was sick of listening to the Jim Engster Show (which often is on NPR when I drive) I made an effort to find and download sermons which I would listen to in my car.

I chose Paul Zahl now rector or All Saints Episcopal(?!?) Church in Chevy Chase, Maryland and before that dean of Trinity Episcopal(?!?) School for Ministry near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Zahl enjoys science fiction and old movies and rock music. I think (more on this in a moment) I like his theology which centers largely around the idea of grace. He often critiques the Christian church for (according to him) becoming largely centered around law and judgment.

He has a short series of sermons/talks on parenting by grace. Rather than by law and judgment. Law and judgment are “do this or else” and “you disobeyed me what is your problem I am going to let you have it!” Zahl makes much of the Pauline argument that (1) human beings are naturally sinful/messed-up and (2) while law judges sin it does not improve behavior or increase love in fact it does the opposite – it sparks rebellion disobedience and anger. He gives a few examples of what parenting by grace might look like (such as when a son wants to move to live with a girlfriend the parents do not approve of, or when the teenage daughter in a devout evangelical family chews out her mother with vile language at the dinner table).

But still – while it is a great idea how exactly does one parent by grace? List the examples and the situations. Then tell me what exactly you say or do when your child (especially a teenager) speaks and behaves in certain ways?

For about the last two weeks I have been sharing this with my wife and trying it out even if imperfectly. Feeling my way clumsily through a principle that is long on power but short on specifics.

One daughter “cops an attitude” all day and is blatantly disrespectful to her parents at the dinner table. “Go to your room”. No – I won’t.

(Wow. It is one thing when a child does something wrong. It is quite another when they will not even accept discipline for what they do wrong.)

We tried something along the lines of “your mother has spent a lot of time with you today, bought you some things, and that is why it is difficult when you treat her this way” and “we would like you to spend some time in your room so you can have some peace and quiet”. And although we threatened to make her stay in there all evening and not attend a major school function later that week… after about an hour we said “we would like to enjoy spending the rest of the evening with you” and “if you still want to go to this event you can find some ways to show that”.

Rather than you are a disrespectful disobedient and ungrateful wretch and your punishment is… blah blah blah.

I thought that was roughly what “parenting by grace” might look like in this situation.

Last night our two children were fighting/arguing. Over something to do with the computer (often that or something to do with television). “We would like you to go to your rooms so that you can have a peaceful and quiet evening” and even “yeah that is frustrating that she got twice as many points on that website than you”.

They go to their rooms and start getting ready for bed.

I head back there to check on them and sure enough one child is in the other’s bedroom looking for and demanding something (a frequent problem and source of contention). I get that child into her room and try the “grace” approach. “Yes that is frustrating” and “How about you get ready for bed so that you can get enough rest for tomorrow?”

But she would not shut up. Kept beating the issue. She has and I don’t and she has and I don’t and that’s not fair and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. interrupting me and not stopping and not responding positively to my several minutes of trying to be non-law and non-judgment with her.

And that is when I lost it. Big time. Did and said things no father (let alone a Christian or a pastor) should say and do.

I don’t know.

Either Zahl is brilliantly correct or stupefyingly wrong about all this. And frankly I cannot figure out what grace-ful parenting specifically looks like in these situations. “Don’t judge. Don’t throw the law at them. Forgive. Love. And always pray for them”. Sounds great in theory but exactly what does one do and say in various situations?

Frankly I am ready to give up on the whole enterprise. But law/judgment does not seem to work much better – all that seems to get is more disrespect back-talking and disobedience and certainly more contention in the home.

Is grace-ful parenting truly possible?

Posted in Children, Family, Parents, Personal | No Comments »

As Chasidism so Christian witness

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

The terrorist targeting of the sole Jewish center in Mumbai India has been particularly rattling. This is what human beings driven by religious fanaticism are capable of.

Enough of that. Two of the five (six?) Jewish people murdered at Chabad House Mumbai were the rabbi and his wife. (I recall when a Chabad House was started in ithaca New York. I also dimly remember an article on this in a local newspaper and what the rebbetzin – rabbi’s wife – had to say about cheeseburgers.) David Klinghoffer writes poignantly about his own appreciation for the Chabad movement.

In which I came across this:

Though their work entails outreach to Jews who haven’t yet been fully acquainted with their spiritual heritage, being judgmental is foreign to Chabad. That’s on principle. In the Tanya (1796), the fundamental work of Chabad philosophy, Chabad founder Schneur Zalman of Liadi urges that alienated and unlettered Jews be drawn in with “strong cords of love.” The Tanya is not worried about whether, in the process, the non-observant Jew actually turns fully to observance.

I thought “what a wonderful description of what Christian witness should look like”. Imagine:

Being judgmental is foreign to Christianity. That’s on principle. Christian theology urges that those alienated from the Christian church and those who have never learned about Jesus be drawn in with strong cords of love. Christian mission is not worried about whether, in the process, the non-practicing Christian or the non-Christian actually turns fully to faith in Christ.

I can live with that.

Posted in Judaism, Media, Missiology, News | 3 Comments »

Alas – again with the inerrancy thing

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

I occupy an awkward middle ground between “conservative evangelical” and “flaming liberal”. On the one hand I no longer have a place in Southern Baptist life (although I serve a congregation that contributes to the Southern Baptist Convention and frankly that does not overly bother me – there is still much that is good and praiseworthy). On the other hand I identify increasingly with “orthodox/conservative Anglicans”.

One of my best friends Chris Brady (now Dean of Schreyer Honors College at Penn State) once observed that he and I are theologically almost identical – and yet among Southern Baptists I am considered a “liberal” (which I most certainly am not) and among Episcopalians he is considered a “fundamentalist” (which he most certainly is not).

I have on this website advocated for a “critical orthodoxy” (thanks to William Witt for the phrase and the concept). That we can be orthodox in our theology and practice – and yet not reject completely modern biblical scholarship. (In fact we find that modern biblical scholarship properly applied supports orthodoxy quite well.)

Turns out that the big presentation at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting (in Boston – right before Society for Biblical Literature I assume?) was by G. K. Beale of Wheaton College on “biblical inerrancy”. Southern Seminary professor Jim Hamilton summarizes:

Beale argued that Inerrancy is not a scholastic theological deduction made by interpreters of the Bible, but rather that it is an exegetical observation of a theological deduction that at least one biblical author has already made within the text of the Bible itself.

Okay fair enough. Inerrancy is not a “scholastic deduction” but rather it is…

Hold that thought.

Reading the summary provided by Prof Hamilton I find myself thinking, “That sounds like a pretty scholastic argument in order to deny that inerrancy is a scholastic deduction”.

I offer a caution/apology and a point.

Caution/apology. I was not there, did not hear the lecture, have not read Beale’s book – so my reaction can only be incomplete and contingent.

The point is that so often “inerrancy” (and there are multiple version of this slippery concept) is defended with an argument – not observation (except such as in this case the observation of a handful of verses interpreted a certain way). As if (and here is a second significant point) logic always wins over observable reality. If scholars who have studied the Bible for decades if not centuries observe certain details and compare them to what else we know about the ancient Near East (excuse me ancient West Asia – a better term) and conclude the Bible does indeed contain “mistakes” if by mistakes you mean (and this is the kicker – pay attention) assertions that taken literally (or heck just taken a certain way – such as the books of Daniel and Esther) are contrary to scientific/historical fact.

But rather than dealing with facts – defenders of inerrancy offer… an argument.

The Bible has to be inerrant. It does not matter what evidence you supply to the contrary. It has to be inerrant. And we have an argument to prove it.

The logic generally goes like:

  • God is perfect and does not lie or deceive or make mistakes (no argument from me)
  • God inspired the Bible (again – no argument from me)
  • Therefore the Bible is perfect and does not lie or deceive or make scientific-historical mistakes (ah – now this is where it gets messy)

And since the Bible itself – according to Beale – contains this logic… *poof* the Bible has to be inerrant. No matter the evidence you supply to the contrary. You are wrong a priori. You just have to be wrong if you question (which version of?) “inerrancy”.

But let me add another point. Precisely what good does a doctrine of inerrancy (and again – which version?) accomplish?

Does it mean we suddenly interpret the Bible correctly? That suddenly we all agree on what the Bible teaches? Well – no apparently not because even inerrantists do not always/entirely agree. We still do not know absolutely what this absolute truth of the Bible is. Unless – and there are some who do this I believe – you more or less assume your interpretations/understandings of this inerrant Bible are at least implicitly… inerrant.

Do not misunderstand. Even with a PhD I am not much of a scholar. Have hardly produced anything and am not actively involved in research/writing. People like Beale and Hamilton are far better scholars than I am or ever will be. So I am not saying they are dumb or ignorant. But I wonder if they are so committed to a theological conviction (the Bible must be inerrant) that logic takes priority over details/evidence.

Not “what kind of Bible would God give us (or should give us)” but “what kind of Bible has God actually given us”? If we observe a Bible that (annoyingly? maybe maybe not) is not always literally accurate in terms of science or especially history (Daniel and Esther are post-exilic I just see no way around that)… and yet God is a God of truth…

Then what does this tell us about God?

Scholastic arguments to prove that the idea of biblical inerrancy is not a scholastic deduction. Hmm.

Posted in Bible, News | 4 Comments »

Dennis Prager – By their hatred of (the) Jewish people shall ye know them

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

I have a soft spot for the Jewish people. (Not necessarily mean the modern state of Israel.) Many of my teachers as an undergraduate and graduate student were Jewish. One of my best friends at Cornell was Orthodox and lived at a Jewish coop house.

For years I have believed that the instant someone on the public stage expresses an anti-Jewish sentiment (not necessarily a critique of modern Israel) one should no longer trust (perhaps even no longer respect) that person. Period. (Granted one must be careful about judging what is truly anti-Jewish. Is that person anti-Jewish? or are they disagreeing with Jewish people on solid grounds?)

How large a city is Mumbai? How many terrorists came to this huge economic capital of India to kill thousands of Indian citizens? And yet how and why did they take the time and the trouble to target no not the Christians not the Hindus but the tiny little and only outpost of Judaism in a city with a population of millions? To torture and kill a 28 year old rabbi and his wife.

Are we permitted to learn anything from this? Or are we concerned too much for the sensibilities of others?

Are we in fact allowed to describe this – the actions and the mindset behind them – evil?

Dennis Prager explains why a terrorist attack on the Indian city of Mumbai specifically targeted the tiny Jewish minority:

For years I have warned that great evils often begin with the murder of Jews, and therefore non-Jews who dismiss Jew-hatred (aka anti-Semitism, aka anti-Zionism), will learn too late that Jew- and Israel-haters only begin with Jews but never end with them. When Israeli Jews were almost the only targets of Muslim terrorists, the world dismissed it as a Jewish or Israeli problem. Then it became an American and European and Filipino and Thai and Indonesian and Hindu problem.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I would take very slight issue with Prager concerning his mention of “anti-Zionism”. I believe there should be some room for debate concerning modern Israel. (Which – for the record – I generally support. I do not equate concern for Jewish people with unqualified support for modern Israel. But Israel for all its flaws is the most sane and democratic nation in that region.)

I vaguely recall one of my teachers (a Jewish scholar) at university saying, “You can always tell the health of a society by how it treats its Jews”. They are in a sense the barometer of any given society.

Posted in News, Politics, Religion | No Comments »