This entry was posted
on Friday, March 5th, 2010 at 1:00 am and is filed under It's Friday, Open Thread.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
985 Comments(+Add)
The Holocaust is one of those events that highlights the spectacular evil hidden in the fallen nature of mankind. And how many times have I heard evangelicals attribute it to the “His blood be upon us and our children” quip, spoken by some obscure Jew, as if the Jews deserved it?
And as a reminder to us who eften seem preoccupied with doctrinal asides, genoicide continues in several areas of the world, and suffering on a massive scale is being experienced night and day by the millions. In light of that, I own myself a hypocrite.
Movies like Schindler’s list do provide convicting entertainment to westerners like me. In a morbid kind of way, we affluent westerners enjoy being made to feel sad once in a while, as long as it doesn’t require something significant from us in response.
Life marches on, but is it really His life?
Speaking of genocide, my latest discussion with McLaren’s book is up, asking, Is God Violent?
I feel the same way as Schindler, when I leave a place where I have proclaimed the Gospel; I cry for just one more. I envision myself on the day of judgment, where I know we all will weep before he wipes the tears from our eyes for what more we could have done for Him and His kingdom.
Chad,
That is an interesting question – if not a bit loaded. To label anyone, or anything, as violent is to imply it’s a regular characteristic, a defining attribute, in some minds it even brings with it thoughts of control issues and/or enjoyment of violence and it’s arbitrary nature.
In that sense God is certainly not violent.
On the other hand (and this is where the loaded aspect comes in). To deny God is violent as a label, as a dominant attribute, is not to say that he does not employ violence when it serves his purposes. The Scriptures make it clear that he does.
That said, the latter comment should not be taken and projected as if God were some capricious human or government. If and when he employs what we would call violence it is done so within his holiness.
Here’s the first two lines of John Piper’s take..
Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right?
It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.
http://tinyurl.com/ye8arhg
#5 – That’s the God of Calvinism. No mystery – no “I do not know”. Humankind are nothing more than windup toys to do God’s bidding. God wants to rape a two year old little girl, that’s His perogative.
Not the God I believe in, and not the God named Jesus. The Old Testament God is a mystery…the New Testament revelation named Jesus is superior and more complete than is His revelation in times past.
Rick,
I think the comment about God raping children is overly extreme and certainly not in line with what Piper said.
In some respects you are right, we are God’s creation to do with as he pleases… even Paul said as much to the Romans.
The problem comes when we start projecting our thoughts of violence upon God… as if violence of any kind is beneath him.
Piper may have been overly blunt… and Corey only quoted the first two lines. But to a claim Piper is saying God can rape if he pleases is sensationalism run a muck.
You are correct that the revelation of God in the OT is much more mysterious than the NT – I guess this is the nature of progressive revelation.
That said, even Jesus returns yielding a sword… yet I doubt he’ll rape the little children in the process.
…from his mouth.
McLaren deals with this very nicely (I thought) in part 4 of the book (which I will be blogging about in the next day or 2).
trued enough, but the concept of judgment is still present. The point remaining, we are not free to use progressive revelation to drive to fine a wedge between the testaments.
I would not say God is violent.
But it cannot be denied that he employs violence for his purposes when appropriate.
I disagree. God either thinks violence is an appropriate way to bring about a desired result or he does not. The cross (not to mention the entire life and ministry of Christ) refutes that notion. God does not use violence. Fallen humans, however, do.
And “judgment” should not be confused with “violence.” I discipline my children but would not call that “violence.”
I agree that judgment and discipline should not be confused with violence. Neither should we compare how we deal with our children and how God deals with us.
It’s interesting that you mention the cross, since that is an obvious example of violence.
I guess maybe we need to define violence though. God killed people when he saw fit. Is that violence, or is it only violence if their death was in a certain manner? He sent plagues upon the Egyptians. Is that violent? God sent his son to be crucified – is God innocent of the violence on the technicality that it was the Romans who actually did it?
To say that God never employed violence is to render all Scriptures, including the gospels, as useless. Who struck the king in Acts with leprocy? Who struck the deputy in Acts with blindness? Why does Revelation say the Lamb will come to make war?
A discussion about God’s nature and how some violence was used, as well as what followers of Jesus should do now, is irrelevant with someone who denies God ever has used violence.
No Rick, that is the God of the Bible.
#13 is in RE #6, not #12
Then I would vote he thinks it is appropriate – though this is not cart blanche.
God employed violence, as I and Rick pointed out – assuming these fulfill one’s definition of violence – when it fit his desire.
He allows human governments the authority to employ violence when necessary as well.
Of course his use is always perfect – by default… and the use of it by humans is always as a last resort.
Re #3, I never have. I may focus on what I could have done better, but I never fret over the results. Not sure which one of us is right… maybe both. This is particularly true here in the States – given our Gospel saturation.
#15 – Exactly. Let us admit it is a mystery, but unless we eradicate any serious understanding of Scripture we must admit God has and will use violence.
My contention is that we as the followers of the Incarnate God are commanded not to use violence. But most violence is not of God.
The degree to which we apply this differs between you and I… though you have challenged me to swing more in your direction.
I appreciate the challenge of Chad’s question as well – it would be good for many evangelicals to take heed.
That said, removing violence from God’s arsenal (pun intended) is to do violence to the historical record and swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
“That said, removing violence from God’s arsenal (pun intended) is to do violence to the historical record and swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.”
Yes. It renders the Scriptures as fables. God admits that governments will use violence, but we are not the government. We are His bride. We live according to Jesus, and our lives should be radically – radically – different than the normal life lived by the unbeliever.
We should be remarkable in our culture. Not just some curiosity because of our clothes etc., but remarkable more loving and gracious and humble and not at odds with, but withdrawn from the manipulative affairs of fallen men.
What I am trying to say is that we should not attack and openly criticize the government or its elected officials, but our refusal to get entangled with that system should lead sinners to wonder why. Our lives should indicate a
betterbest way.Ah yes, more weirdness from the left…
…too bad Ananias, Sapphira and Herod (Acts 12:19-23) weren’t aware of this “fact”, that somehow the “violent” God of the “Old Testament” got replaced by “puppies and rainbows” God of the “New Testament”. Apparently that “old” God was still hangin’ around.
#19 – Mostly agreed, Rick. I can respect that, even if I disagree with whether or not Christians can be within the political system.
There are at least two issues on the table – maybe three… God’s use of violence, our participation in violence, and what constitutes violence.
RE: 1) It can not, not credably so, be denied that God uses violence…
RE: 3) …if we say that causing someone to drop dead (and the like) is constituted as use of violence.
Re 2) Our participation in violence that is a result of human systems is a sliding scale and continuing argument.
#21 – OK, which one of Chris L’s sons has highjacked his IP?
No son, Rick. #20 is vintage Chris L.
not even worth discussing.
have fun.
#21 – I agree that Christians “can be” within the political system. My issue is whether they should be – but I do not want to open that up again.
Chad,
I agree that the “weirdness” comment was unnecessarily and unhelpful. not every thought needs shared.
His example remains. That is, if you say that causing someone to drop dead in judgment is an act of violence.
Is swatting a mosquito an act of violence? Slaughtering a cow for food?
Hey Neil,
Thanks. But until your boss can respond to me in a way that is at least half as charitable as the Christ he claims to follow I think I’ll just shut up. But I’ll leave you with this…
That is what I am saying. Now, talk amongst yourselves.
“It renders the Scriptures as fables”
So true. And, since this discussion started around Chad’s review of McLaren’s book, it can appropriately be noted that McLaren essentially makes that argument.
“not even worth discussing”
So much for conversation…unless one means conversation only on my terms where you eventually agree with my aberrant and fanciful depictions of God and Scripture.
The problem with McLaren is not the nonviolence issue, it’s the all relgions lead to eternal life issue.
That is rank heresy…as rank as it gets.
Rick,
When McLaren’s desire to re-imagine God leads him to dismiss Biblical accounts as the equivalence of a fable, the same disregard for Scripture will bear itself out in other areas of theology, including soteriology.
I should be posting my review of McLaren’s book here today or tomorrow. I actually think there is a lot of positive in the book, but I also have some disagreements. His chapters about the Greco-Roman conception of God versus the description of El Elohim are pretty good, in my opinion. Really, that part shouldn’t be that controversial.
The part where I disagree is with his assessment of other religions. I know he’s coming from a place where he assume that Christians condemning Muslims (or whoever) will inevitably lead to violence toward that group, but, ironically, it seems to me that he doesn’t follow up with his advice and come up with a viable “third way” in dealing with adherents to other faiths.
Phil,
Actually, the GR narrative is very controversial and is not going down easily.
Check out Scot McKnight’s blog and the comments about this 6 line narrative.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/mcknight-on-mclarens-newest.html
Chad,
God’s righteousness indignation and wrath are not necessarily defined as violence.
You are playing a word game with your own rules and to intimate that the God who destroyed all mankind in the flood in Genesis and Who will personally destroy millions upon millions at the end of the Age is not “violent” boarders on disengenousness.
It’s like you ascribe to a new gnosticism where ALL is symbolic, nothing is as it seems, and you and the other high priests of this movement redefine plain words and narratives as you see fit and the common rabble must come to the new High Priests for the correct intrepretation of anything.
It’s like you are the step children of Mind Science where what we see isnt real but only a shadow and can be made it be whatever we will it.
You and most of us do not move in the same universe.
You are welcome to that opinion, John.
Chad,
I don’t know why you would let Chris L.’s comment stop a conversation between your and I. And he is not my boss, while he does own this blog and I am a staff writer, he does not dictate what I write.
I do not understand your “parting” comment. If you agree that causing someone to drop dead in judgment constitutes an act of violence, then you cannot possibly say God never employs violence.
I think I see the word “disingenuous” used here more often than all other areas of my life combined.
oh, but I should thank you, John H. You are a perfect example of what McLaren is pushing up against.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/mcknight-on-mclarens-newest.html
(see comment #197)
#36 – Neil, when your watchdog stops jumping in to do nothing but belittle me or my ideas, I’ll be happy to continue talking with you.
By his own admission he is your “boss.” At least as it pertains to this site. That’s why I said what I said.
It just gets old, Neil. Surely you can appreciate that.
When you convince your boss to grow up and treat others the way he would like to be treated I’ll have a discussion.
Not to be contrarian just for its own sake, but where in the story of Ananias and Sapphira does the text actually attribute their deaths to God? It simply says they both “fell down” and died. Is attributing their deaths as an active use of violence by God the only way to read that text?
I meant to finish the above to read, “I’ll have a discussion about things that I know beforehand we already disagree about.”
Until then, however, I’ll just seek to find points of commonality so as to not give Chris L or Eric or John Chisham or John Hughes or anyone else an excuse to be a jerk. And to keep myself from being one as well.
Phil,
What’s interesting is if I were to say of the people in Haiti, “God killed them,” (like Pat Robertson) most of the people claiming God is violent would have a hissy fit, and rightfully so.
It makes God out to be someone who acted one way at one time in history but now, apparently, has grown soft. In the past God would smite people without blinking an eye. Today, well, God must have gone to anger management class so we cannot say what Pat said.
Chad – Do you reject all Biblical references that God acted violent as misrepresentations?
Rick – depends on what you mean by “misrepresentations.”
Are all those references metaphors? And if so, are they inspired? And if so, why would the Spirit inspire a metaphor that portrays God as violent?
Rick,
I believe I address that on my blog here: http://chadholtz.net/?p=1097&cpage=1#comment-1710
So for the same reasons I won’t get into it with Neil, I won’t with you. If you are truly interested in talking about this you are welcome to do so at my blog.
I believe I have my answer.
Well, wasn’t that an illuminating discussion? I’m glad you satisfied yourself
Phil,
You are correct in your observation (#40). But it’s not like it takes much effort to connect the dots… two people lie to God, two people drop dead. Two massively stunning coincidences – or something else…
Chad,
I suppose if comments 42 & 44 are representative of how you are going to address the topic, I agree, it’s probably best we drop it.
Obviously we disagree, I was just hoping we could be serious and civil about it – guess not… not that you were not civil…
Neil,
I’m all for a serious and civil discussion about matters we disagree on. Past experience, however, has proven that this is not the site to do that.
It used to be, but not any more.
Your choice. I thought we were doing fine, though…
I suspect it would have gotten down to a discussion about the veracity of Scripture; with me demanding we stick to what the text says and you coming up with reasons why we should not…
I stick by my original comment (based on a simple reading of the historical record) that one cannot possibly deny the fact that God employs (what we would say constitutes) violence when he deems it appropriate.
I see no possible way around it.
Maybe, maybe not, Neil.
You are welcome any time on my blog to discuss the issue of violence. And I promise that your ideas will never be belittled by me or others.
peace.
#38 – Glad I could be of help.
Oye vey. (To use a Hebrew quote vs one from those nasty Greco-Roman guys).
Scot McKnight gives a lengthy review of McClaren’s book for CT.
Here is the bottom line as far as Scot is concerned:
The review is worth the read.
Metaphor for the day:
Cut to the chase:
McLaren is a dangerous heretic.
Neil,
I don’t think Scot has it right on that final analysis. Brian answers that charge himself on Mike Clawson’s blog.
http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2010/03/brian-mclaren-clarifies-some-questions_05.html#c1103083548152862691
Rick says:
Brian McLaren says:
Source
“McLaren is a dangerous heretic”.
As is Shane Hipps.
history has shown that one persons or groups “dangerous heretic” is another’s savior.
So forgive me, Rick, if your judgment doesn’t hold much weight.
Chad,
That’s a frustrating answer – that McClaren gave. I hate to delve into calling it typical blah blah blah – but it is tempting.
He spends too much time arguing against “those stereotypical neoplatonic terms” of liberal and conservative and too little time actually answering the question.
And when he says “Your question itself acknowledges that this kind of binary thinking is terribly unhelpful.” – it really smacks of condescension – as if only people who are two stupid to accept him would dare question his thinking.
Quick frankly, when someone spends so much time arguing the terms of a question, saying why the question is stupid and the terms unhelpful and irrelevant… instead of answering or addressing the gist of the question – I get suspicious.
Harnack would have claimed he held the Bible is authority as well – he just had to redefine a few dozen words first.
Some people think in binary terms while I think in concept calculus.
Chad,
His definitions of conservative and liberal are useless. I can claim to be every bit as liberal and every bit as conservative as he says he wants to be… yet oppose his views completely.
Those are silly straw men.
It only further demonstrates his willingness to delve into semantical terms at the expense of answering a simple question.
I believe in the authority of Scripture.
I believe all religions lead to eternal life.
One of those statements is not true. Can you identify which one??
Furthermore – it’s funny that McLaren spent so much time on the dualism of the terms when McKnight never brought that up. McKnight did not accuse McLaren of liberalism… McKnight did not set up this dualism.
Scot simply compared McLaren’s supposedly new ideas to someone else’s very old ideas. It is interesting how McLaren spends so much energy distancing himself from Harnak et. al…
Neil,
Equally arrogant are accusations that McLaren is simply rehashing early 20th century liberalism as if to say ALL of that is to be rejected en toto and anything that even looks like it as well. And why? Because now we know better.
What I hear him saying is, so what? Sure there are things he says that sounds like Harnack (I’ve read Harnack, What is Christianity? and not EVERYTHING he says is wrong).
Any theological reflection worth its salt is going to include some of the best ideas from any era and from numerous voices. Some of what the 20th century liberals had to say is worth hearing again. But there is also much more to say.
#66 – both can be equally true.
#67 – Neil, McKnight was not even mentioned in that post. Clawson is not talking about McKnight. So not sure what you are on about.
Scot never used the term Liberalism and never sounded as condescending as McLaren.
You are correct, we should include all the best ideas from the greats of the past. And equally true is the fact that we should reject the worst form the past as well.
McKnight is no where saying we do not learn from the past, he did not say we should not embrace the truth others expressed.
What he said was – McLaren is not saying anything new. And what was wrong then, is still wrong now.
You offered that answer as a response to my quote of McKnight.
As far as tone is concerned: comparing someone’s ideas to a great of the past is not condescending. Rejecting someone’s “not-new-idea” for the same reasons they were rejected when they were new is not condescending.
Dismissing someone’s question as terribly unhelpful is borderline condescension at best.
Duh. Which, if you read my first review of the book I say the same thing:
The difference is, the things that were wrong then are things McLaren is not focusing on now. Whereas many evangelicals have taken the bait to toss the baby with the bathwater, McLaren is not willing to do so as easily.
The answer on Clawson’s blog was not meant to respond to McKnight but to the general consensus about that critique (which is pervasive among many critics). So there is no reason to expect a point by point engagement of McKnight alone
Neil,
It’s a tired argument and one conservative evangelicals have been playing for decades. They LABEL someone as a retread of 20th century liberalism so that they can then ignore what is said (because they already know they know better than that) while making others afraid of what is said (because conservatives have done such a good job of making “liberal” a four-letter word).
I am glad McLaren is not getting sucked into that tired debate that only serves to divide.
As I said in my comment on Clawson’s blog, that is not even a discussion being had by many theological schools.
I do think that McLaren spends too much energy reacting against certain forms of Christianity (mainly, he seems to be reacting against hardcore Calvinism), and I wonder sometimes who he is writing for. But, on the other hand, I didn’t feel McKnight’s critique was really in line with what’s in the book, either. So, really, it sadly seems that Christians aren’t really able to discuss some of these things without talking past each other.
I think really that a big part of it is that Western Christianity is so based on Confessionalism at its roots, that we naturally hold someone suspect until they utter the words we want to them to say. And it actually happens all sides of the theological spectrum. To me, I don’t see much difference reading some of these reviews than reading about the Pharisees or Saducees trying to set verbal traps for Jesus. They want Him to say something that will prove He on their side or not. To me, it seems that’s way many people read these books – looking to prove if the author is for us or against us.
Phil,
I agree.
Well, I’m not saying it was just a coincidence. All I am saying is that I don’t see anything that really said God was being violent in these deaths. We aren’t told how they died, or by what means, other than that they simply keeled over. We aren’t told it was the hand of God that smote them.
I cannot find where McKnight labels McLaren then dismisses him without interaction.
The passage is silent about the means – they just dropped dead. How violent the death was or was not is not stated. I have a hunch though, that any dropping dead is too violent for Chad to ascribe to God… maybe not though.
That there was a cause and effect there is obvious… to deny otherwise is the pretty much say we cannot draw any inferential conclusions form the Scriptures.
Phil,
I agree with the latter half of 75, there are certain code words that some people require. I hope I am not such a person. And I too am becoming considerably less systematic in my theology.
That said, there are certain nonnegotiables – such as not all roads leading to the same destination, etc…
We must maintain some connection with the historic orthodox faith.
Chad,
re 69 – are you now affirming all religions lead to salvation?
Phil,
We are splitting hairs on though with Ananias and Sapphira question, it’s but one example… it is impossible to even remotely suggest God never used violence, there are way too many other Scriptural references.
#81.
No.
I am affirming that Rick’s little equation is a joke.
Neil,
Do you think it’s possible that in the same way irresponsible “pastors” today attribute natural disasters to God’s “righteous judgment” (eg. Katrina, 9/11, Haiti, Chili, Burma, etc) that the same also occurred thousands of years ago amongst people who didn’t even know about things like tectonic plates and ocean currents and pressure systems and the like?
83 – OK
re: 84 – of course, unless the account is recorded in the Scriptures. If the Scriptures ascribe something to God, I have no choice but to live with it.
Well, that is certainly a popular way of treating the Scriptures. BM calls it the “legal constitution” view. You would fall in that camp, apparently.
It’s not the only way to view them, however.
Neil, what your treatment of Scripture does, IMO, is puts God at odds with God’s self.
God acts violently to achieve God’s purposes through much of the OT but then in Jesus, who is supposedly the fullest and perfect image of the Father, we find someone who will not under any circumstances resort to violence to bring about his purposes. In fact, he instructs his followers to love their enemies rather than smite them. I would argue that in Jesus we do not get even a hint of the sort of God you claim is violent.
So I am left with this: Either Israel, in their nescient understanding of God, subscribed to God their own fallen purposes and desires thus providing a need (among others) for God to be incarnate in Christ to correct the errors, OR, Israel got it all right and knew God perfectly thus not only eliminating this particular need for Incarnation but also rendering Jesus as an impostor, one who is not accurately reflecting the full image of the Father. Either Israel reveals God rightly or Jesus does. I’ll put my money on the latter.
RE 87 – Apparently? I suppose one could site all sorts of negative examples of “Legal Constitutional reading of the Scriptures… and that’s fine. They would probably embarrass me.
That said – I am not about to start second guessing the plain reading of passages.
What one person calls “second guessing” another might call seriously wrestling with.
I must admit I have never seen correcting the errors of the Hebrew Bible given as a reason, even a tertiary reason, for the incarnation.
Here is what I am left with:
1) The OT accounts are at odds with Jesus. Therefore 2) we cannot trust the accounts of the OT since they were just mistaken interpretations by errant Jews. 3) Jesus came to set the record straight. 4) Yet, his validity, the claim to his authority, was/is based on the Old Testament prophecies… which cannot be trusted. 5) and neither can the interpretations of those who claim he fulfilled OT prophecies.
Therefore – let’s just chuck the whole Jesus thing since it is built upon an unreliable foundation… and quite frankly, it would free me up to pursue my favorite sins.
Damn – now where am I gonna get a real job with a Th.M. in Historic Theology and 20 years as a pastor?
True enough… but what another might call “seriously wrestling with” the one may call “gutting of all literal authority” – cf. comment 91.
It’s one thing to wrestle with the what the Scriptures say about God. It’s categorically something else to say it’s a record of Jewish misinterpretations.
I believe McKnight briefly addresses this issue in his review. He pretty much guts the premise.
Source
Does McLaren openly believe that other religions lead to salvation, to eternal life?
Neil,
The problem with that entire string of logic is that just because there is error in something doesn’t mean the entire bunch should be tossed. I’m sure you would not think it fair that just because you may have reflected God’s image poorly in one area of your life that we chuck all of Neil to the curb and call everything else you do pointless, right?
So I see no problem with the OT stuttering to speak fully and accurately what only the WORD of God could do perfectly. The temptation narrative after Jesus’ baptism is a perfect illustration of this – where Israel stumbled and failed, Jesus did not. Jesus articulates perfectly what Israel could or would not.
And it should be no surprise to find Israel acknowledging this throughout her Scriptures, looking forward to a day of redemption and a day where a Messiah would come. So yes Jesus did come to set the record straight. Unless you want to argue that Israel had it all perfectly figured out. Then what was the need for Christ?
I knew you had to deal with these passages somehow… somehow their literal meaning needed to be rebutted and dismissed (dismissed in the sense they are not to be taken seriously – not dismissed as in they were not dealt with). I was just not sure how you would do it.
Apparently Rick was right… they are seen as misrepresentations of God.
#94 – No.
He says pretty much the same thing I have been saying here, so you won’t agree with that, either.
.
Your example of me is invalid since no one should expect me to perfectly reflect God.
So the OT is not the Word of God?
The Old and New Testaments clearly contain records of what people erroneously thought about God. Yet, these errors are always pointed out… that is the point in including them… as a foil against which to show the truth.
To open the door to say that the OT contains errors that people henceforth believed – is to gut it of all credibility.
I know your motives are true… but can you see where one might say you are just gutting the Bible of the bits you don’t like?
If I am going to disagree with someone I want to make sure I disagree with what he actually says.
So you are saying McLaren follows a “Universal Redemption” as you do?
Same can be said for Israel.
I never said that.
You seem to be acting under the impression that the OT was dictated by God to some scribe who wrote down a formula. You wouldn’t call it that, but your responses lead me to believe this is how you view inspiration. I don’t hold to such a view.
Yes, it’s all the word of God. But the word of God comes about in conversation and in community in the midst of people living life. The word of God is also present where 2 or 3 are gathered and wrestling with this sacred story – sometimes Israel gets it right, sometimes they don’t. What is beautiful about it all is that the warts aren’t covered up or expunged. It’s all there for us to see and deal with.
Jesus helps us see what can accurately be ascribed to the Father and what cannot. If you think Jesus is violent and kills people to get his way, than you will have no problem believing Israel was right to ascribe their wars to God. But if you think Jesus had a different way (his ways are higher than our ways) and his kingdom comes in ways that are not like our own, than you realize a critical need for God to become flesh – as Athanasius said, “to fix our sorry state.”
But we are not talking about Israel – we are talking about the Word of God.
#99- that’s not entirely true. There are plenty of places where no moral judgment is made on all sorts of things Israel (or their neighbors) do.
Read Judges, for example.
And I can see where someone would jump to the conclusion that I am just “gutting” the Bible, but they would be wrong.
#100- yes
I believe the Old and New Testaments are accurate, valid, and authoritative in their entirety. They serve as a complete and wholly trustworthy description of God and his historical dealing. If the Old Testament say God did something – I believe he did it. If there is some apparent contradiction there, it is up to me to figure out where I have gone into error. If there is something that affornts my sensabilities – tough… my sensabilities are not standard.
If this is an archaic view labeled “legal constitutional” then so be it.
So polygamy is cool?
What about forcing the woman who is raped to marry her rapist? (see Deut. 28)
Careful when you use words like “authoritative” and “entirety”
Application is different from interpretation and questions of veracity. You know this.
I will not be moved from my belief that we can trust the word of God in its entirety.
If I cannot trust all of it, there is not point trusting any of it.
Neil, I’m not asking you to move from that. I trust the word of God in its entirety as well. But obviously, you, like myself, deem which parts are “authoritative” for you today and which are not. How do you decide?
At the risk of you dismissing me again and calling my questions absurd, I’ll ask you a few. I am genuinely interested in how you answer. Assume you are my pastor and I come to you and ask the following:
1- I want to marry several women. The OT is my example and God never condemns it there. Tell me why I shouldn’t.
2 – I want to own some slaves. The OT is my example (and the NT) and it’s never condemned. Why shouldn’t I own slaves?
3 – (pretend I am president and you are my spiritual advisor) – Neil, I had a dream last night that God wants me to attack country X because they are infidels and refuse to honor the living God. We shall strike tomorrow. Is that OK with you?
How would you counsel me in these?
Sorry I couldn’t interact more today. I didn’t mean to post and run. I had two practices today and I’ve had to do some stuff around the house.
I’d say the way I see progressive revelation isn’t so much in the vein of the authors of Scripture were wrong, but more in the vein that because of the way people were at the time, God chose to interact with them in a way they could understand. I imagine something like someone going to work with a gang today – they may not be able to get them to stop using violence cold turkey, but they could slowly ween them off.
So in the OT, it seems that God had the Israelites rely on violence less and less as time progressed. Finally, when Jesus came, that was the final revelation of who God is to people, and I really don’t see that we can look at Christ and say He ever relied on violence. Now, I will admit that there are different ways to extrapolate that to how violence can be used in the world now, but if the question is, “is God violent?”, I would be pretty comfortable saying “no”. But that doesn’t mean He’s tame, to quote C.S. Lewis.
The New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Any seeming inconsistencies must bow to the New Testament and the final and complete revelation of God in Christ.
Let us admit that some of things in the OT are mysteries and are difficlut to process.
“So polygamy is cool?”
No, it stinks!
Phil,
That sounds like a view of accommodation. Dr. Chapman, whom I cited in my last blog post on violence, stopped me in the hall yesterday after reading it and asked, “Progressive revelation or accommodation?” We then discussed the merits of both and it got me thinking about the latter (I had not before). While doing some research I found McKnight holding a discussion on his blog that is about this HERE.
What I am not sure I understand yet is how what you describe is all that different from progressive revelation. Even if we say that God was dealing with them in ways they would understand and making allowances for that knowledge (or lack of) are we not still talking about a progressive revelation? At first blush it seems to me that they are not so different. Maybe it is why I am attracted to both.
Just out of curiosity, what does an untame God look like? I assume it does not mean wild or impulsive.
Daryl Dash:
Meaningless:
Never heard of Daryl Dash.
How many times have I said I’d rather be an atheist than believe in the sort of God John Chisham preaches?
Yep.
#113
How do you know McLaren isn’t doing exactly that? Why do you assume your faith is that faith?
Meaningless:
Probably for the same reasons you assume McClaren has it “right” when thousands of years of church history has it all wrong.
Fortunately in your world view my having it wrong doesn’t affect my eternal destiny in any shape form or fashion (it just annoys you in the meantime).
I guess if that’s the definition of accommodation, than that seems to fit what I describe. I guess progressive revelation may entail the idea the Biblical authors themselves were purveying wrong ideas, i.e., some parts of Scripture aren’t as inspired as others.
Just out of curiosity, what does an untame God look like? I assume it does not mean wild or impulsive.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that I think that when we encounter God in a real way it will mess up our lives to an extent. Rich Mullins had a line in a song referring to the “reckless raging fury” of the love of God. So the violence that is in God is a good violence, if that makes sense. It’s like a fire that burns away the dross of our lives.
Well, McLaren doesn’t say everyone in the past has it “wrong.” (You probably didn’t read the book but have no shortage of judgments, right?)
The only thing “meaningless” here is your consistent proof-texting, using verses devoid of any context to pass judgments you have no business making.
The “faith” Scripture talks about contending for and not to desert is a one that confesses Jesus is Lord, came in the flesh, died and rose again. Paul is not speaking of particular atonement theories or reformed vs. arminian or catholic vs. protestant or liberal vs. conservative or John H. vs. Chad Holtz.
I like that.
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began
driving outgiving puppies to those who were buying and selling there. Heoverturnedput daisies on the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, andwould not allow anyonehelped them to carry merchandise through the temple courts.Or, God does sometimes use ‘violence’ within his will, and just as the harsh, heartless hard-right of today cannot accept God’s mercy toward sinners, the pantywaist left cannot accept that He might use “violent” means against them at some point. And again, as usual, God shows up somewhere in the middle, rather with the bomb-throwers or unicorn-riders on the extremes…
Reminds me of her conclusions…
If you suggest that God never has, and never could, use violence, then you must dismiss many, if not most, of the Biblical narratives. When that occues, then we are left with our own thoughts and concoctions about the nature of God.
It is true that Jesus is THE revelation of God, but to dismiss the entire OT narratives of God is to also dismiss the words of Jesus Himself. It is this same wish theology that suggests universal redemption. In the end it is an open rejection and diminishment of Scripture itself.
The argument is especially curious when its proponents will not openly and honestly deny the veracity of the Scipyures, but instead seem to dance around the issue with all sorts of slippery and nebulous verbiage in an attempt to soften their view of Scripture to others.
Even if all the charcterizations of God in the Old Testament are metaphorical and not literal, then they cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit since He would not create stories that revealed YHWY as violent, even in fiction. That would be called a mischaracterization, or in moral parlance, a lie.
Neil,
It’s a shame your boss has to show up and ruin what was a good conversation with more of his usual antics.
Neil, at least you did not resort to proof-texting, using a story about overturning tables to “prove” that God must in some way be “violent.”
The text doesn’t tell us, but I’m sure there were hundreds, if not thousands, of lives slaughtered in that episode as Jesus unleashed his fury.
I do believe that “bomb-throwers” and “pantywaists” and “unicorn riders” is unhelpful and demonstrates a risidual atmosphere usually seen in the political arena. I recall a post on labels that has obviously has had less than a substantive affect.
]
That’s the harsh reality Rick. It’s hard to separate our view with God with how we choose to operate. Whenever we view God’s violence as necessary for his plans it’s real easy to deal harshly with those with whom we disagree.
Funny how we can label and characterize with impunity and when others either return the favor or ignore us we can just ban them.
“It’s hard to separate our view with God with how we choose to operate.”
Very good point for all.
chris,
I believe another way to say that is “we become what we worship.”
If we believe that God uses violence as a means to an end than ultimately, so will those who worship such a god. It will not matter that God tells us to love our enemies or pray for those who persecute us turn the other cheek. That will all take a back seat to how we imagine God acting as God.
Parents, try raising your kids with the “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality and see how that works for ya.
#128 – But that still leaves the Old Testament in question. Hebrews 1 deals with the new reality through Jesus, but it also alludes to the OT prophets and ways through which God spoke.
Did anyone in the OT ever slay an animal in sacrifice according to God’s will?
Rick,
I don’t think that leaves the OT “in question.” Whatever it is that that means.
The OT faithfully records the story of Israel trying to follow YHWH. Sometimes they got it right, sometimes wrong. In Jesus we see with far more clarity what before was only hinted upon.
Very simplistic and makes all the God narratives as fabrications by Israel. You are openly suggesting that the stories in the OT were written by Israel and not inspired by God. Even the commandments must have been made up by Israel since some of them commanded captitol punishment.
Not fabrications – real life, real people, wrestling with what it means to be the people of God.
Not too unlike our lives today.
All is inspired by God. That does not mean it is God.
Wrestling with what reference point? How can we know Who we are wrestling with?
“All is inspired by God. That does not mean it is God.”
?
I love the smell of “What?” in the mornin’.
Let’s see:
Statement A) Jesus, who is supposedly the fullest and perfect image of the Father, we find someone who will not under any circumstances resort to violence to bring about his purposes.
Statement B) On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
While Statement B makes no claims about killing anyone, it certainly contradicts the abject naivete of Statement A.
Actually, I was trying to characterize both ends of the political scale – “heartless” and “bomb-throwers” (from the far ideological right) and “pantywaists” and “unicorn riders” (from the far ideological left).
Exactly, Rick.
If you’ve already determined what the Bible MUST say about God, if He’s going to fit into the box you’ve created for Him, then any contradictions must be wished away as mistaken impressions…
I know what I’m smelling in that statement…
I can see why this would be the question considering it is coming from someone who distrusts everyone and everything but his own personal experience.
God is not a “reference point.”
I was referring to Scripture. But they are irrelevant and immaterial if their authority rests upon metaphorical interpretation. Your metaphor is as good as mine.
Without Scripture God becomes what my serotonin has decided He is.
Those who wish to use Jesus’ prophetic sign act of overturning tables to justify their own use of violence are free to do so, so long as you don’t do anything more than flip over a table.
Keeping with the adage that we become what we worship, what sort of Christian is formed when rooted in a perception of a violent God?
I can appreciate that I could be charged with determining that God is not violent and then making Scripture fit that determination (however, I would argue that this determination is rooted in my Christocentric theology and my desire to read Scripture through the lens Christ gives us, not something or someone else).
But that aside, I have watched it played out the other way as well – here on this site, even. From a writer here who makes it a past time to mock others whom he disagrees with, a post is written that conveniently makes mockery a theological “good.” Or, because one writer is convinced that “just war” is a political necessity and “good,” a post is written to make it a theological “good” as well.
Somehow, God manages to look a lot like a certain writer here.
A theology that confesses a non-violent God and that this God calls us to be the same is not something I can write about with a clear conscious knowing that I am like this. Non-violence does not come naturally to me. In fact, when I am angry I would LOVE to believe my God is a God of wrath and one who will unleash fury on my foes if I don’t do it first. I would love to make God in my own image.
But I can’t. And I won’t. So when I confess a God who is non-violent I am confessing that I am not, yet desire to be. I am confessing that I fall way short of the God who is perfect, and calls me to be likewise.
But if a person is happy to envisage a God who affirms where they already are, than that is their choice. To such people I believe Christ said, “You already have your reward.”
I think its appropriate usage (and yes, there are appropriate usages, primarily in dealing with false gods) is much narrower than how I sometimes utilize it…
I don’t recall anyone here writing an article declaring that wars – just or not – are “good”, nor simply political necessities. I do recall an article I wrote in which I noted that there is a such thing as “just war” that could be morally supported by Christians as a “lesser evil”, without condoning sin. I also noted that its use is as a preventative defense and not as a positive advancement of the kingdom.
As such, I would agree that violence cannot be used by man in advancing the kingdom of God, even if God might use it – whether in striking down a blasphemous king Herod, wiping out pagan nations in the time of Joshua, creating a worldwide flood, or sending the wicked to destruction at the end of days. Even so, we are not given the charge or the wisdom to utilize violence by any positive means in advancing the kingdom. Our only approved usage is as a prophylactic means in incredibly narrow circumstances where all other just possibilities have failed.
Be perfect, then, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
I realize many parents employ the “Do as I say, not as I do” method when raising their kids. I assume many of them ascribe the same method to God. I do not.
Conversely, I try not to anthromorphize God to the point that He no longer resembles who He is represented as in Scripture.
“Do as I say, not as I do” CAN be hypocrisy, but it can also be a proper differentiation of role and authority.
Example: “Vengeance is mine,” says the Lord, “I will repay”.
This is not God acting as a hypocrite, but rather as One in ultimate authority, from whom the authority for vengeance has not been delegated to us.
So, while we should strive for perfection, as God is perfect, we can never be God, nor can we ever expect to be given his authority. In the case of the use of violence, our only authority is in pursuit of justice (which is not an individual authority, but a community one), or in immediate defense of the innocent (in absence of community authority).
Thus, the God-as-parent metaphor breaks down when something that “belongs” to the “parent” is something that can’t eventually “belong” to the “child”. So, in the case of violence, vengeance, etc. – where we will never have God’s authority – there parent analogy is irrelevant.
I think the “just war” discussion is different than the “Does God ever use violence” discussion.
I would agree, Rick, but they become conflated when you assume that anything God can do man should be able to model, and therefore God using ANY violence would make it OK for man to use violence. Thus, if you believe in complete non-violence and that God is completely modelable, then the “just war” discussion and the “does God ever use violence” discussion become one in the same.
Systematic theology for the non-Reformed.
Chris L,
That is one way to look at it.
For the Open Thread:
A headline that needs no parody:
Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried by Husband’s Sister
Chris L. Actually, the parent example is a good one. Dad comes home and sees son giving sister a spanking. Dad STOPS son and explains that spanking his sister is not something that is proper or in his shpere of authority to do, that is reserved for the father. This fits right in with your assertion.
Of course the Jesus of Revelation does not use violence to achieve His ends . . .
pregnant pause.
But of course if the old testament is metaphorical then we might as well rip Revlation right out of the Bible.
agreed
Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried by Husband’s Sister
The church he pastor’s is planning a lavish shower.
The future of US healthcare if the gov’t takes over…
John H –
Do you think the Jesus portrayed in Revelation is a factual picture of a Jesus who decides the way of the cross was, in hindsight, for “pantywaists” and in the end, ultimately resorts to violence to bring about God’s new creation?
Why didn’t he just do that in the 1st century?
Neil,
If you are still interested in chatting I would be interested to hear your answers to my questions in #107.
Rather than choose from the incomplete set of (A) or (B), I think I’ll let the Book speak for itself:
So let’s see… The cross wasn’t for pantywaists AND violence seems like its an acceptable tool for him to use… Option (C) seems to be the correct answer.
Or – We could jump ahead another chapter (if you want to take an amillennial or post-millennial view):
Hmmmm… I guess the answer is still (C).
#151 – A strawman. That has happened throughout the healthcare in America and without any new governmental regulations. I could present some sad guy who died because he did not have health insurance.
Thankfully, our JehovahJireh is not private healthcare of governmental healthcare. I am glad, Chris L., that you did not use some Obama slur, that is spiritual progress!
Chris L- I don’t believe I was asking you.
Rick – don’t let him suck you into that. He’s only trying to provoke.
I believe Chris L’s employment genre renders him as “slightly” biased.
What does it say about a society that has enough money for a 4 trillion dollar per-emptive war, hunderds of billions for sports, hundreds of billions for movies, thousands of restaurants in each town, hundreds of billions of fashion, hundereds of billions on pets, and yet will not extend healthcare to all its citizens?
In a word it says “fallen”.
If that is the heart of Jesus then I am a Muslim.
What does it say about a church that supports and participates in such a society?
Fallen, again.
Access to healthcare is already available to all of its citizens, just not to unlimited health insurance.
Nobody’s stopping the church or other private individuals from providing more to those with less, but that is not the function the government was created to provide. Rather, it was created to protect its citizenry from the confiscation of certain rights (speech, religion, assembly, self-defense) and to provide a common defense – to protect an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcome.
It has no more business providing health insurance than it does free movie tickets, restaurant payments, fashionable clothing or pets, yet if its citizens can afford such things, it is not the job of the government to play Robin Hood by punishing the rich to give handouts to the poor. Rather – just as with Christ and Ancient Israel – each citizen is given the freedom to provide for the poor to the degree they are led, or to selfishly hold on to everything they earn. If benevolence is coerced, it is no longer benevolence.
My apologies, I thought I was addressing a question on a public messageboard, not one in a private email.
RE 107
Chad,
Sorry for the delay – Sunday and all…
I’ll answer your questions from a pastoral and missiological point of view since it sounds like a good exercise. That said, the scenario are irrelevant to our discussion on how trustworthy and literal to take the OT historical accounts.
How we would apply such things today has no bearing on the historical accuracy of the OT.
RE 107b
Chad,
Instead of modern day application to hypothetical situations (although the first two may not be that hypothetical to some missionaries) let’s take an actual biblical account.
According to the author of Exodus 11 God promises a plague that will kill the first born males of Egypt. In Exodus 12 we see the historical account of the plague. In exodus 14 we see God given direct credit for the drowning of Pharaoh’s army.
The biblical account of this is very clear – the author quotes God and Moses. and the things God does would constitute violence – as we have been defining it.
So – did this happen? And if it did, is the author correct is attributing it to God?
If we say that this was an erroneous account by a human author applying his fallen and sinful attitudes onto God. If we say that the author was mistaken – then why should I trust the same author when he quotes Moses in the great “Shema.”
If the author has just “subscribed to God [the author's] own fallen purposes and desires” (cf Chad in 88) then why should I rust anything he says about God – even his “Oneness”?
The word of God comes from God. It was not dropped from heaven, of course, and it did “develop” in a community.
That said, God carried his authors along by the power of the Holy Spirit so that it is 100% accurate – whether it speaks of God’s history with mankind, or the accounts of Jesus. They stand and fall together.
You cannot say that these bits are good – Jesus and love and everything sensible… and these bits are wrong – a God who kills people.
In a sense this is exactly the error of Harnack and other which McKnight accuses Mclaren. They so wanted to hold on to both their modernist sensibilities and the Bible that they were forced into a corner.
And in the end they gave up the embarrassing parts of the Bible as a sacrifice to modernism.
You are not sacrificing the Bible on the altar of modernism, but you are sacrificing it’s trustworthiness on an altar of sensibility. What must this God be like to be sensible.
#165 – There is no middle ground. Either all, or even some, of the OT narratives are literal and historical or they are all metaphorical. But as I have said before, even if they are metaphors when they depict God as using violence, then they cannot be inspired by thye Spirit.
In that case everyone is welcome to toss in their own opinion and swear it is absolutely true.
As for warts and all – this is true. But also irrelevant. The warts are ours, not God’s.
And if the Bible ascribes something to God that is not true… that he did not do… then how do we even know the resurrection is true?
Maybe it is just four guys subscribing to Jesus their own personal desires and purposes.
The question, at least in my mind, isn’t so much whether or not God can use violence for His purposes – I believe it’s pretty clear in the OT narrative that He did at many times, but rather if He perpetrated the violence. And if He did in the past, will He continue to do so in the future. So it really becomes a discussion of divine immutability.
Does the fact that God used violence in the OT mean that He will use it in the future. Not necessarily. Especially, when you consider that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. So, personally, the question of whether or not God used violence in the past isn’t really that relevant to me. As Christians living under the Law of Christ, our standard for behavior is based in an NT ethic that goes above and beyond the OT law.
As far as whether the final judgment will be an act of divine violence, I’d say it depends on how we define violence. I do believe it will awe-inspiring, and it will bring fear to the hearts of some, but I don’t think that it will be God finally exacting His revenge. It’s interesting in that passage from Revelation quoted above that Jesus’ robes are dipped in blood before He even meets any of His enemies. The blood isn’t the blood of His enemies, but rather His own. Also, the sword isn’t in His hand – it’s coming out of His mouth. It’s His word. So this isn’t a typical picture of a warrior overcoming His enemies in the conventional way. He’s overcoming them through His own suffering and through the Word of God.
I guess in the ontological sense, God does have the “right” to use violence, but it seems to me that Jesus took the route of absorbing all the violence on Himself rather than perpetrate on His enemies.
Phil,
Well said, particularly the entire second half of your above comment.
Neil, I’m sorry you don’t see my question in 107 worth answering.
I tried.
But Phil,
When you extend the definition of “violence” to include the act of sending souls to eternal damnation/destruction, then in the future Jesus will still be using “violence”… It comes down to operational definitions of “violence”.
Paul uses the metaphor of a boxer. A violent sport. Rejection of the Old Testament narratives of divine violence is to create your own religion. Even Jesus referred to Sodom and Gomoraha without correcting the OT version.
Rick – it’s called accommodation
No, it’s called “goofy”.
Well, I was trying to be kind to your thoughts. If you think they are “goofy,” well….
Well, the way some people describe hell, it does make God out to be a monster. I do agree, though, I think there’s room for a correct view somewhere in the middle. I think what a lot of people react against are the Christians who have the idea that in some sense humans can enact God’s judgment on His enemies. I’d like to say that these people don’t exist and just strawmen, but unfortunately, I’ve met far too many of them in real life.
Re 108:
Phil,
Have you read Slaves, Women & Homosexuals – Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William Webb?
No, I haven’t.
Phil,
A couple thoughts…
First, if by “violence” we only mean that God sends his “enemies” to an eternal place of torment in the end, then yes, God is not “violent.”
However, those who make the move that God does not send people to hell but people send themselves, OR, that hell is not an eternal place of horrible torment and suffering, are already leaving the “plain reading” of Scripture that I am accused of doing. Wouldn’t you agree?
For those who make hell little more than a place that is seperate from God I would agree that this is not “violent” on God’s part. However, it would appear to be a change of course from the way Jesus Chrsit himself lived. Jesus did not exclude but included. He would even forgive people who didn’t even ask for it. So the image of him, in the end, changing so drastically doesn’t seem to fit either.
And by extension, this throws the whole NT into play as well. If… if we say declarative statements about God in the OT may be wrong (based on the erroneous thoughts of OT Jews ascribing things to God that were wrong/false/their own sinful thoughts) then what’s to say the record about Jesus is correct?
You are saying the NT is correct and we must use it to deem what is erroneous about the OT… that the OT has statements that are incorrect… the Muslim would say exactly the same thing – just add a layer.
The Muslim would say that the Jews of the First Century projected their false theology onto Jesus. And the Quaran is just God correcting their mistakes.
I don’t mean to be inflammatory by comparing your thoughts to Muslims… or set up a logical fallacy. But they do say the exact same thing as you… so do the Mormons for that matter.
Where does it stop? How can we have any trust in any scripture if all we need do is claim new revelation that reveals the errors of the authors of the old?
Well, one thing (and an important thing) is we are talking about different genres and totally different eras in history. Progressively, over time, the way history gets narrated changes. Surely you don’t dispute that, do you?
But even more importantly, I would answer with this: Faith.
To quote one of my favorite hymns,
You ask me how I know he lives…He lives within my heart.
Phil,
You should then… it’s an interesting book, if not really difficult to plow through. I am in the midst of it.
His premise is that the Scriptures ar not so much a final product as they are God bringing people along… moving them from one point to the next… then the next…
His point is that we are then free to envision the end goal and move even farther if possible.
I know not of the “accommodation” you speak of – but it sound like this could be a way of negatively describing Webb’s hermeneutic – that God accommodated his word to the culture of the people.
I don’t really agree with that, no. The idea that people send themselves to Hell is something that I think that a person reading the Scripture themselves could come up with. If you look at a passage like Matthew 7:21-23:
It seems to me that a “plain reading” of that passage places the responsibility to choose at the feet of those being sent away. To call Jesus “Lord” means you have to willfully submit to Him as Lord.
Well, Jesus said the Kingdom was open for whoever wanted to be in, i.e., He didn’t reject anyone who genuinely wanted to follow Him. But, He also didn’t force anyone to follow Him, and He made it clear that were ethical expectations for those that wanted to follow Him.
Chad,
This is not the point. You cannot argue against something being an historical event based on the fact that people have applied it erroneously. That is pretty much what you did in 140 as well.
Either it happened or it did not.
Either God killed a bunch of Egyptians or he did not.
And if the Bible says he did. But he did not. Then let’s chuck the whole thing, eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!
As well, there is a difference between the discussion that God used violence and whether or not he is a violent God.
i will answer them, but they are not the issue at had. How people may have mistakenly applied the scriptures is not the question. The question is whether or not the OT historical record is accurate. Please see comment 164 for more relevant scenarios.
it may be clear to you and I… but chad says these accounts are just erroneous – the event may have happened – but ascribing them to God is error.
Btw, I have to say, I don’t really see the overturning of the table in the temple courts as an act of violence, at least not in the sense of violence against people. It was more an act of violence against furniture, I guess…
It was a prophetic act indicating the future judgment coming against the temple.
#184 – Excellent point.
And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
* The former paragraphs were written by the Brothers Grimm.
Re 188:
I think it was written by Luke… but, if Chad be right, then Luke was only ascribing to God his own sinful purposes. Again, calling into question everything else Luke ascribed to God – like… say… resurrecting the Son from the dead.
Neil,
I don’t recall how you interpret Gen. 1-3, but I know many here are like myself and even though the OT attributes to God a particular way of creating (in 7 days) I do not believe it happened that way. Yet I (and Chris L and others) still believe it to be the word of God.
In a similar way, violence is attributed to God. I don’t believe this to be entirely factual, yet I still believe it to be the word of God.
Chad,
I find your comment 180 fascinating. You say that we should trust the NT accounts because of progress – over time, the way history gets narrated changes.
Yet as Rick pointed out – God seems prone to violence and vengeful even according to Luke.
Again, the Muslim, the Mormon, the 19th Century German theologian, the Jesus seminar – they all say the same as you. they just fix a different point in time as the new, the progressively better.
and as you, they all believe it on faith.
I have to agree with Neil on this. I don’t see that deferring to higher criticism really gets us anywhere. What is the standard to decide what is factual and what isn’t?
The example of the creation account is a bit different. The author’s intent wasn’t to provide a historical narrative detailing the facts of the event, but rather it was to present a poetic account of the motivations and heart behind creation. It’s an entirely different genre than a book like 1 & 2 Chronicles or 1 & 2 Kings.
While i am willing to live with mystical paradoxes about God. I am not willing to ascribe to him historical inaccuracies.
Those who hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 do it on grounds of genre.
But when the Bible records an historcal event and ascribes it to God we have two choiced – believe it is tru and accurate or deny it as false.
And if we deny the historical accuracy of the Exodus, we put into play the historical accuracy of the resurrection.
If Luke is wrong about Herod, why trust him about Jesus?
Really? How do you know that? Where is this stated in Scripture? Even Paul alludes to the creation narrative (so does Jesus) and doesn’t correct its veracity.
So I can ask your question to me right back at you:
Not accurate at all.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
SO:
Exclusion and selective Inclusion are completely within his character. Again, though, the authority to do so only rests with him – it is not passed on to us, and in fact (per the wheat/tares example) it is not up to us to do the separation of wheat from the tares.
Chad,
You are right and that is why there is an argument over whether or not Genesis 1-3 is poetical or historical. But Exodus and Acts are not in play in this discussion.
If Luke is wrong about God killing Herod, why trust him about Jesus being resurrected?
The example John H gave of the boy spanking his sister is spot on.
Just because does something does not give us free reign to do the same.
Just because some use God’s use of violence as license does not mean God does not use violence.
Genesis 1 – 3 do not in ant way suggest a literal 24 hour creation day, although that MAY be true. (I do not believe that.) But to use that as an example is a strawman and not a congruent illustration of something specific that was just allegorical.
In order for you to suggest that God never used violence is to dismiss an incredible amount of Scripture and render them metaphorical while retaining other specifics like the resurrection as literal.
At least Marcus Borg is consistent because he suggests the resurrection is allegorical as well.
Chad,
Do you believe the historical account of God killing the first-borns in Egypt, of his drowning the army’s of Pharaoh, of his striking down Herod are accurate historical depictions of the acts of God.
Did he do these things, or are they the false projections of sinful people?
Are these historical records right… in these cases did God use use violence, or is the historical record wrong?
Is what stated in Scripture? Well there’s nowhere in Scripture that explicitly stated what genre of literature the different books are, but we can certainly decide that through study.
As far as what Jesus and Paul believed about Creation, I’d say they probably did accept much of it as factual. They probably accepted the idea that the earth was flat as well. Those things don’t inherently affect anything they say, though. Even when Paul is discussing Adam, one’s view of Genesis doesn’t change the thrust of his argument.
I do actually agree with you, Chad, in the fact that I do think that it’s more helpful to look at Scripture as the ongoing narrative of God’s interaction with His people. However, I also think that being a Christian means that we are submitting ourselves to that narrative. So I have a hard time understanding how we can submit ourselves to something when we aren’t willing to accept that the authors of Scripture were basically correct. If they said God did something, than I guess I’m willing to believe that He did it. Now, I will grant that there can be valid discussion about what that means, and the mechanism behind it.
Rick,
Chad does not render them metaphorical. He says that the authors were wrong to ascribe such things to God. They were projecting their own sinful desires onto God.
That said, you conclusion about the resurrection is correct.
To be clear about my position: I believe the Scriptures about God exercising violence at times; however, I do not believe God is usuing violence during this gospel age and I do not believe we should.
The Scriptures clearly indicate some divine violence in the future, however we should not revel in that or project God in that light.
AND
Whether something is “factual” is not an issue. I would say that Gen 1-3 is factual, even if Gen 1-3 is not a scientific explanation.
Perhaps the intent of your question is “what is the standard to decide if something is scientific information, what is historical information, and what is allegorical information?”
In that case, I would say that a consistent hermeutical approach is important in answering that question. In the case of Genesis 1-3, as Phil & Neil note, it is an issue of genre that might lead some Christians to choose allegorical/symbological truth over historical truth as a lens of interpretation. There are a number of textual clues to this in addition the historical ones.
In many/most cases of commands that involve “violence” (including capital punishment, whole destruction of cities, punishment for not killing Agag, etc., etc.) there is no hermeneutical suggestion that would lead to the choice of allegory over history.
Phil – You note Chronicles and Kings as examples of history over and against, say, Genesis. Here are just a few things Peter Enns points out about the diversity in those books:
1. Chronicles greatly diminishes the sins of David. They do not mention the sin of David with Bathsheba – rather, David and Solomon are both portrayed as glorified figures, models of ideal kingship.
2. Chronicles emphasizes the unity of God’s people. The transition of power from David to Solomon is smooth and receives enthusiastic support from ALL people. There is nothing about the power struggles recorded in 1 Kings 1-2.
3. Chronicles strongly emphasizes the temple and Solomon’s role in building it – it wants to emphasize the central importance of proper worship and the king’s role in bringing this about, which is precisely what the preexilic kings of Samuel – Kings did not do.
4. Chronicles emphasizes a theology of “immediate retribution” much more than Samuel – Kings.
And these are just examples of theological diversity – there is also diversity in law, sacrifice, passover and even the 10 commandments (the differences in Exodus and Deut).
Or, what about how Scripture, the word of God, says,
“Among the gods there is none like you, O Lord (Psm 86:8)
or
The Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods (95:3)
and see, 96:4, 97:9, 135:5 and 136:2
So while there is scripture that makes the claim that YHWH is the only God and none other exist there are also those that boast that YHWH is the greatest among a pantheon of gods.
Obviously the OT is full of diversity. If you want to argue it is “God’s Word” and define this as having to be in some way exact and factual ONE thing if it is to be factual about ALL things, than you have big problems.
Re 107
Question 1:
(pastoral answer) I would recommend against it. For starters it is illegal and although you subscribe to the OT as your example, you should also subscribe to the NT as well. In the NT it is clear that we are to live according to the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict the laws of God. God no where commands we have multiple wives… so I suggest we do not.
(missiological answer) I would recommend against it. Although you subscribe to the OT as your example, you should also subscribe to the NT as well. Although it is your legal right to take more than one wife, it seems clear from both testaments that this is not how God set us up to live.
To be sure, there are lots of examples in the OT in which men took things into their own hands and did not follow God’s pattern; sometimes this worked out, lots of times it did not.
I recommend learning from the many times this did not work out… I recommend ascribing to the pattern God set forth at creation and reinforced throughout the OT and the NT. I recommend but one wife.
RE 107
Question 2
(pastoral answer) I would recommend against it. For starters it is illegal. In the NT it is clear that we are to live according to the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict the laws of God. God no where commands we have slaves… so I suggest we do not.
(missiological answer) I would recommend against it. You are correct God does not prohibit the ownership of slaves. yet, it does seem inconsistent with the fact that all are created in the image of God. That said, if you do choose own slaves you must treat them in accordance with the Scriptures. Yet, I recommend against is all together.
Well, the word “factual” was probably not the best choice. Perhaps, the word “truthful”would be better. In all those instances you point to, you can’t really point to one and say that what he wrote wasn’t true. It’s much like what would happen if you asked a bunch of eyewitnesses about an event today. Each one would describe it differently, leave out some details, add some details, etc. If there were some people who were obviously out in left field compared to the rest, than you would know not to trust them. There’s no book in the Bible that you can point as being out in left field. Also, regarding the different descriptions of the events, the solution isn’t to just throw are hands up and say that nothing happened or that the descriptions were totally wrong.
If the Scriptures gace some advice as to how to treat your numerous wives as equals because your culture permits such, that doesn’t necessarily mean God approves or that the Spirit will not lead believers out of that lifestyle later.
That statement must give all of us some thought concerning gays, doesn’t it?
Re 107;
Question 3
Mr President, while I tread lightly I suggest you are in error in your interpretation of this dream. Whether it was from God or not is another matter. While it is true that God commanded the armies if Israel to destroy pagans, this does not appear to be his way of dealing with nations since. I can think of no examples, after the occupation of the land by the Israelites, in which he commanded one nation to attack another for this reason. Furthermore, historically we see God only employing such measures through Israel, and even then at very limited times.
Just as God no longer limits the label “Chosen People” to ethnic Hebrews… just as God no longer deals with mankind through one nation… just as God has changed and expanded what it means to live in his Kingdom… so I suggest that he has not commanded you to attack the so-called infidels.
[I do not think this scenario has a corresponding missiological answer]
Chad,
OK, there are my answers – as you can see they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Now, will you please answer me this:
Do you believe the historical account of God killing the first-borns in Egypt, of his drowning the army’s of Pharaoh, of his striking down Herod are accurate historical depictions of the acts of God.
Did he do these things, or are they the false projections of sinful people?
Are these historical records right… in these cases did God use violence, or is the historical record wrong?
Could a slave owner get saved and keep his slaves even though God is against it? Can a gay person get saved and still practice the gay lifestyle even though God is against it? Can a man who has piled up loads of money get saved and keep his money piled up for himself even though God is against it?
The answer to all of the above is yes.
I can live with it being factual. If it is not we have even BIGGER problems. Or none at all, we just eat, drink and be merry – for tomorrow we die!
“Neil, I had a dream last night that God wants me to attack country X because they are infidels and refuse to honor the living God. We shall strike tomorrow. Is that OK with you?”
No, but I have no say in the matter. Let me tell you about Jesus, Mr. President.
Neil,
re: 205. What if I responded…
I’m sorry, pastor, but you mistakingly assumed I am American. In my country there are not such laws forbidding me to have more than one wife so long as I can treat them each equally.
So, in learning from the mistakes of those in the OT, perhaps I will not take as many as Solomon? While it is true that God no where commands we have multiple wives, nor does God command that I have one wife. And while not commanding either, God does not forbid polygamy anywhere in the OT – God only warns against kings have “too many” (along with horses).
So if I have half the wives Solomon had, will this be OK?
I have heard you say, pastor, that the OT is every much inspired and God’s Word as the NT, so why would God allow men to marry so many wives in the OT if that is not pleasing to God?
re: 206.
Again, pastor, in my country it is not illegal to own slaves (sidenote: I find this answer of yours terrible weak and lacking any grit – as if to say should our laws change and slavery be “legal” the church would have no real response but to say, “I recommend against it.” Really? All you can do based on what you know of the Gospel is that you recommend against it?)
True, all are created in the image of God. This was true in the OT, NT and today. Yet God did not mind slave ownership. Based on your answer, pastor, and given that it is legal in my country, I think I will buy some slaves.
(I’m surprised, again, that your response has nothign to say of Jesus or even sin, for that matter. Neil, do you believe the institution of slavery in all its forms is sinful and a product of fallen humanity? Why not just say that?)
See missiological answer.
God allows people all to do all sorts of things that he finds unpleasing.
What’s the point in this exercise?
Chad,
I gave you my answers. We could go back and forth on the oughtness of polygamy, the sinfuness of slavery, blah blah blah.
These questions are fascinating from a missiological pov – but absolutley irrelevant to the issue of the historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the scriptures.
I ask again.
Do you believe the historical account of God killing the first-borns in Egypt, of his drowning the army’s of Pharaoh, of his striking down Herod are accurate historical depictions of the acts of God.
Did he do these things, or are they the false projections of sinful people?
Are these historical records right… in these cases did God use violence, or is the historical record wrong?
Slaves and polygamy? God doesn’t specifically forbid men from wearing lipstick but as a pastor I advise against it.
unless it’s Goth Friday and the lipstick is black.
I will let St. Peter answer that question:
Also, you might as well ask why God even created man knowing we would fall.
The problem with siting the Jesus of Revelation is how to take the book – literally, figuratively, past, presnt, future…
If we stick to the original question (Does God ever use violence as an end to his means?) the historical passages (such I and others have sited from Exodus and Acts) are a better “battleground.”
It is quite a curiosity when men attempt to be more compassionate than God, which suggests that any characterization of God other than theirs is portraying God as less compassionate as He should be.
We are limited to revelation from God Himself, and all our speculations and utopian caricatures must bow to what God syas about Himself.
Honestly, this absolutely fascinating. Are we actually trying to prove God used and uses violence and someone is debating against this?
If you look beneath the surface though, the actual argument being made is challenging the validity of the Bible. If someone, especially a pastor, doubts its validity, then you’re up the creek trying to use scripture to make a point.
re: 209,
Well, with all due respect, pastor, I know what I dreamed and I know my Bible. My dream is perfectly consistent with the OT, which you yourself taught me is every much inspired and the Word of God as anything else. If God waged war against infidels then why should he not use me to do the same now? Perhaps God is tired of their sin, finally, and it is time to clear the land of them.
Pastor, are you saying God changes? Are you suggesting that God has evolved over time? Do you mean to tell me that God used to use violence to achieve his goals but does not anymore? How do you know this?
Neil,
You answered each of those questions in ways I would not (completely so).
Can you explain to me why Jesus or sin does not enter into anything you offer as an answer? Reading over your responses again it dawns on me that you could say all that even without the incarnation, death or resurrection of Christ. That’s problematic for me.
God does change in His approach. (Hebrews 1:1, law now grace, spoken communication now written communication, Israel now the church)
Earthly high priest now heavenly high priest, animal sacrifice now no more sacrifice, etc..
Some would call this progressive revelation
Thanks, Rick.
So Rick, lets assume God accommodates to our culture and changes his approach with us as we are able to comprehend God.
Would you say God allowed violence to be used in a confined way at one time in history but that this was never intended to describe who God is and how God acts definitively? Rather, Jesus was supremely necessary to, amongst other things, reveal to us the full image of God at such a time we could perceive it (in the fullness of time, God sent his Son) demonstrating to us that this is who God is – not that (that which preceded Christ).
I would think this would still render the answer to the question “Is God Violent?” as “no.”
On another note, being open thread:
Glen Beck, the fool
Chad,
Beck is becoming more and more of a rambling idiot every time he opens his mouth. He is so profoundly negative and depressing and full of bad news that it is really not even funny.
That article shows a pic of him holding a swastika and a hammer/sickle pic and him saying something about naziism and communism being about the same thing. And yet, from all I have read about Hitler, he hated communists and persecuted them as hardily as he did anyone.
Whatever. I have no use for his ‘commentary’ which is just unhinged from reality.
jerry
Jerry,
What I find even worse is his exhortations for people to leave their churches if they teach or preach “social justice” (gasp! Beck never read Jesus or the prophets, obviously). I can dismiss Beck as an idiot but sadly many Christians watch that crap and believe it like its gospel and may just take his advice.
In a way I hope they do and pastors and church leaders everywhere will confront this fear-based stupidity.
Beck is just the magnification of talk show politics in general. The sad thing is that there is no redeeming, kingdom essence in any of it. People from Bell to McArthur are rapidly seeing it in that light.
It is so obvious.
oh, and Jerry,
it’s nice to see we can agree on something political in nature for once
Ingrid: How can you even listen to that song? It didn’t have the word Jesus in it, even once?
Different argument, same tune. Just pick the next illogical argument from the bin until one (hopefully) sticks.
#235 – doesn’t negate anything I said. Just more of the same from you.
(and again, I wasn’t asking you).
But Chad – Many Scriptures seem problematic to you.
Rick,
Not at all.
Neil,
To clarify my last question to you, I am curious why you refrain from simply naming polygamy, slavery and violence as sin (missing the mark of God’s shalom) nor make any mention of what we know of God through Jesus Christ (which is how I would answer the same questions)
Rather, you make appeals to the law of the land (which is forever in flux) and then make nothing but mere “recommendations.”
That’s actually why I said further up in this thread that this discussion comes down to more a discussion of divine immutability and how it’s expressed. It seems to me that looking at any of the OT passages as a description of how God really is is problematic. They can tell us part of the story, but it isn’t the whole story. It’s like reading on the first two acts of a five act play, to steal a metaphor from N.T. Wright.
Phil,
I agree.
And if St. Paul admitted that even now we see through a glass dimly (and this even with the revelation in Jesus Christ) how much more so is this the case prior to Christ?
Contrary to the rosy pictures Chris L paints of Israel there was a poignant need for the incarnation. We were mucking up the image of God in the way we were reflecting it. Jesus offers a stark corrective to that.
You have heard it said…but I say to you…
Rick says: But Chad – Many Scriptures seem problematic to you.
Chad says: Not at all.
____________________
I hold up a green piece of paper and ask someone, “What color is this?”
They say, “Orange”.
I say, “How can you say this paper is orange?”
They say,”I didn’t”.
The Twilight Zone has arrived.
Rick,
Just because you say many texts are problematic to me does not make it so.
You may have a problem with how I read Scripture and interpret certain texts but that is your problem, not mine.
I have a difficult time discussing with a moving and mercurial target. The best I can do is point out that targets continuing mobility, or, slipperiness.
Than how on earth do you engage Scripture?
Or any human being?
Life is messy, Rick. It’s one of the reasons why faith is not a solitary activity but done in community, those alive and those who have gone before us.
Jesus: No one knows where the Spirit blows, or from where it came…
Rick: I have a difficult time discussing with a moving and mercurial target…
Are you familiar with the term “wresting Scripture”?
Never mind…
No. I will not!Everything I believe is based on the incarnation and resurrection and I find your response questions that to be highly offense.
I will pursue them no further. They are absolutely and utter tangential to the discussion. They were not intended to be the final answer. They were not intended to be everything I had to to say on the matter.
Everything I believe is based on the incarnation and resurrection and I find your response questions that to be highly offense.
I answered your
Chill out, Neil.
My questions in response are quite natural and I would think you would even expect them.
If you have nothing to say in response to my questions, so be it.
“Discussion” with you tends to be something that happens up until the point someone asks a question you don’t like, or can’t or won’t answer.
FTR, I don’t doubt that for a second.
Which is why I found it odd that your responses had nothing to do with that.
But oh well.
No. I will not!
Everything I believe is based on the incarnation and resurrection (as well as the absolute accuracy of the Bible) and I find your response to be highly condescending, petty, and maddening.
I will pursue them no further.
They are absolutely and utter tangential to the discussion.
They were not intended to be the final answer. They were not intended to be everything I had to to say on those matters.
I ask yet again.
Do you believe the historical account of God killing the first-borns in Egypt, of his drowning the army’s of Pharaoh, of his striking down Herod are accurate historical depictions of the acts of God.
Did he do these things, or are they the false projections of sinful people?
Are these historical records right… in these cases did God use violence, or is the historical record wrong?
Chad for Pete’s sake. God had a specific reason for ordering the wholesale destruction of all the heathen nations in the Promised Land i.e., (1) He was establishing Israel in the land promised them and 2, He was using Israel as His sword for punishment and irradication of these sinful nations. This was for a specific timespan in Biblical history. (and it is interesting to note that Israel did not follow all God’s instructions in this regard which caused them many problems later).
The answer to question is God ONLY used national Israel in this regard and ONLY gave these commands through Moses (and confirmed them through Joshua and the Judges which were just carrying out the original commands given to Moses) and they were given for a specific and limited mission (i.e., establishment of the Promised Land for Israel).
therefore there is no Biblical precedent for any subsequent ruler to say God has instructed him to do similarly. Also. we are now in the Dispensation of Grace and God does not operate in this manner during this present dispensation (gasp! the “D” word).
I appreciate that Chad.
I do not believe God would honor the violent act of crucifixion by suggesting that act of violence leads to eternal life. God will not use violence in any form.
(That is why I do not believe the gospel narratives are literal.)
Rick, I’m sorry, but this makes no sense. If anything, the cross is proof that God is not one who employs violence for his ends. Resurrection is a denunciation of an act of violence committed by fallen humanity. By raising Jesus to life God said “NO!” to this way of being in the world and said “YES!” to a new way – the kingdom way.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Are you familiar with wresting Scripture?
Fine.
You set up three hypothetical tangential scenarios.
I answered them all and ask ONE question in response.
You ask follow questions within the scenarios.
I responded to one and ask my single question again.
You ask several more questions within your hypothetical scenarios and started editorializing on how weak and disappointing my response was.
You demand (”can you explain…” “Why not say…”) answers in depth to tangential hypothetical that are irrelevant to the one question we are discussing.
Then, when I start to push back and insist we stick to the subject you get even more condescending with
If you have nothing to say in response to my questions, so be it.
This is not true and you damn well know it! I stop answering questions when they are irrelevant and/or when my return question are ignored. And you known that to be fact!.
Show me otherwise!
I do not give a rats ass what you think about slavery. I do not give a rats ass what you think about polygamy.
I want to know what you think about the accounts in the historical record of the Bible regarding the final plague over Egypt, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army and the death of Herod. Did God do these things?
Up until now I have resisted saying that you probably deny these things. I wanted you to speak for yourself.
I could have said “discussion” with you tends to be something that happens up until the point someone asks a question you don’t like, or can’t or won’t answer. And then you start with the diversionay hypotheticals.
I could have said you won’t answer my question because you faith or logic or trust is faulty.
BUT I DID NOT!
And then you have the nerve to pull this on me.
You are damned right I am mad.
I will chill. I will chill when you answer my simple single question and we get back to the original topic and off these interesting but tangential issues… or when some time has passed.
I leave it up to you.
Neil (if you are still talking to me),
Maybe.
It’s important, first and foremost, to remember that these stories are not told for the purpose of defining God’s character as a violent or war-like God. They are told to tell the story of a God who delivers captives from bondage. How, specifically, this happens could be more or less as the so-called historical record shows. But it need not be to be true (My faith would not be shaken in the least if it is determined beyond any doubt today that the plagues did not happen as described in Exodus).
Even if God acted as such in that period (accommodating) than we can be sure of one thing: Jesus Christ sets the record straight. Perhaps in a tribal culture where land had to be marked out God did what had to be done then. But this does not define who God is over and against the revelation we have in Jesus – who is not violent and refuses violence as a means to an end.
wow, Neil. You’re a mess, dude
This is a point separate from the original. It is also a point I would tend to agree upon. I think it would be interesting to pursue it. Yet, I am fearful and tired.
#259 – Again, the target moves.
I can think of no response that would be more condescending and less compassionate.
I was posting my answer in 258 while you were typing your tirade above, Neil.
Truth is, you do tend to get offended very easily and you stop answering questions whenever they become “sticky.” You brush stuff off as irrelevant quite often, and it always seems to be when I ask questions about applying what you believe to real life.
I don’t know why it always goes this way but it does with you.
Every scenario I asked about has direct roots to the OT through the NT and require one to imagine how something that was OK in the Bible can be seen as sinful today. My questions are an attempt to see how you marry the two.
The responses I got had nothing to do with Jesus but everything to do with legalities of the land and your own personal recommendations. As I said then, I will say again, I find that unsatisfactory.
You are welcome to say MORE or respond to my follow up questions but spare me the hissy fit and the brush offs of irrelevancy. It’s old.
“I can think of no response that would be more condescending and less compassionate.”
I can.
Neil, you continue to exist in an ever constricting world of ignorance and self blinding perspectives that are leading sincere men into the abyss.
More.
If the accounts of the plagues and Herods death are not accurate… I have no reason to trust the “Shema” or the resurrection accounts as well.
This happens most often when you refuse to answer questions and/or are condescending when I do respond to your hypothetical. Remeber – if we do not respond as you think we should at a funeral we’re just hypocrites?
You are correct. But they are tangential to the issue of God employing violence and the trustworthiness of his word.
Maybe I am just too simple and wish to take on one… maybe two issues at a time.
Chad, Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world, sort of hard for humans to do that before we were even created.
Isaiah 53.4-6 -Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Acts 2:23 – this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
But of course the honorific title “Lamb of God” has nothing to do with Christ being the ultimate sacrifice for sin (you know the penal substitution thing). It was just a cutesy familiartive And you can throw Hebrews
“Maybe I am just too simple…”
Finally, the truth.
You can throw Hebrews 9 and Isaiah 53 out and the entire sacrificial and bloody system out as God is never violent and never told Israel to do that.
Chad,
I apologize for the tirade. I should not have responded to your condescension that way. I am sorry you find my answers insufficient. Maybe sometime in the future we may delve into them deeper.
Just kiddin with you, Neil. There comes a time where some arguments disintegrate so completely that I resort to self entertainment.
This argument is like the flat earth discussion.
They may have been seen as OK in the times that the books were written, and therefore were incorporated into th accounts. But I see nowhere that the Bible approves of or condemns either slavery nor polygamy.
I still do not see what that has to do with God and violence. But those are my thoughts.
I understand, Rick. In some respects I am much simpler… I believe that the things the Bible attributes to God – God actually did.
That of course sets up other issues… issues I must deal with… but my simplicity means I must deal with them on God’s terms… not the otherwise.
I find it all too convenient that one can just dismiss The Revelation of Jesus Christ as totally irrelevant to the argument because it contains a lot of symbolism. It also contains future history. Of all the books of the bible the Revelation of Jesus Christ comes closest to being “dictated” and dropped from heaven, so to speak, and yet it is conventienly dismissed with the wave of a hand and will not even be given the time of day and allowed to address the question at hand.
Sad.
The use of “I recommend” was tongue-in-cheek. You as a pastor know full well that after they hear us out – people do what they want. All we can do is recommend. I went to the legalities of the land as the quickest and easiest answer… it was also biblical. I did not realize my answer was suppose to incorporate direct references to Jesus. I did site the Bible – I thought that would suffice.
Chad,
Do you not see how I refrained from playing the “You will not answer because the question is too hard” card against you? That is why I responded in anger when you played the very card against me.
Chad,
Here is my take on our trends.
We get into a discussion.
You eventually ask hypothetical scenario questions (sometimes they are relevant sometimes they are not – from my pov)
Sometimes we answer.
When we/I do – you always find the answer insufficient because we come from two different starting positions…
And once the answer is out there the follow-ups begin as well as the accusations of being a hypocritical or inconsistent or whatever.
And when I/we try and stop the cycle you claim we do so because the questions are too tough.
So in the process you do the following:
YOU create the scenario.
YOU determine what answers are appropriate and consistent.
YOU set up the quiz, you create the answers, you grade the papers.
It has to be played on your terms…
OK – I have given this way too much thought
Damn – I am messed up.
Throw me something Chad – an apology for condescending. An acknowledgment that you refused to answer until I got hissy. An admission that you tried to make me mad…
something…
anything…?
It is impossible for God to do something that is outside His character. “Gee, that was very out-of character for God”? no. If he does it (which the OT AND NT says He does), then that must be some facet of His character.
If we can’t rely on the scriptures to be inerrant, than we can’t accept anything. This goes to the POMO argument of “there is no absolute truth”. If God isn’t capable of preserving the Bible as absolute truth, then Big “G” becomes little “g”, and he is rendered weak.
Chad said earlier: “In the past God would smite people without blinking an eye.” Firstly, that is quite an indicator of Chad’s feelings for the God of the OT, and why he may feel the need to whitewash him. Secondly, IF God is love, and patience, and mercy, but he is also omniscient and just judge, then there must be (amazingly enough) a side of the story or God that we don’t understand, but it is still within the framework of the absolute truth of the scriptures. It isn’t really about how we feel about what the text says about God, but the fact of what it says. We can feel “bad” or “uneasy” or even “appalled” by the character of God as witnessed to in the Bible, but that doesn’t give us permission to change the text. Ever.
These New Testament Scriptures (and many more) prove that the [righteous] “violence” we claim was perpetrated by God in the Old Testament was, indeed, performed by God as the Righteous Judge of all.
Oh Neil, grow up.
I wasn’t condescending to you. You throw that word around whenever you get in a hizzy.
There has never been a time I have not answered questions asked of me. You, however, do this ALL the time.
If you can’t handle real life hypotheticals with your theology than don’t get mad at me when I point that out.
Now that that is settled…
…is slavery always sinful?
Nope.
I was answering the question and posted it before I even read your hissy fit.
I can handle them just fine. Chad, I am sorry it came to this once again.
I think you impose onto me your expectations.
You think I dodge your questions.
So be it.
If you cannot see how you condescended to me – I cannot convince you.
If you have nothing kind to say to me after all this – I cannot change you.
If you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize or retract – I will move on none-the-less.
OK – is it hissy or hizzy?
What am I?
281-
That you would even have to ask this question reveals much.
Which is why I asked the questions I did.
If you cannot confess that slavery is always sinful than I surely don’t expect you to see or understand why violence is.
Again, what you dismiss as irrelevant is nothing more than smoke screens.
Chad, I have recently stopped to think why do you keep your [to me] very unorthodox view and attack of historic christianity going on this site. It must be exhausting to you because it is to me with just my input. I could only surmise that your interaction here must be a part of some term paper or thesis that you are writing regarding the historical orthodox response to your beliefs.
Are we your test subjects?
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Personally, I have a hard time imagining a pastoral conversation where anyone would honestly ask me if slavery or polygamy were right, at least in America.
PHil – lol.
By “real life” hypothetical I mean they are not entirely abstract or devoid of reality.
As for America, well, our theology ought to transcend our cultural barriers, at least in some aspects (like who is God and what is God doing). As I responded to Neil, I said he was assuming I am American in his answers (by making a legal move) Are we saying that if America changes its laws that some of you will buy slaves? If not, why?
Was slavery ever condemned in the bible? I am not saying it is the best choice, but did the bible, in this instance, possibly allow for some cultural differences through the ages?
The question was tongue-in-cheek.
But then again, maybe your refusal to answer it is just proof that you cannot.
Again, that is also tongue-in-cheek… for I do not believe that, but it is a tempting card to play.
Zan, just because the Bible doesn’t condemn something outright doesn’t mean it can’t be sinful.
Your argument (and Neil’s) isn’t too different from the anti-abolitionists. If you don’t believe me I’d be happy to send you letters from pastors and theologians from the 1800’s who make the same claims. They were wrong then, too.
Phil,
I would appeal to you for your rendering. Have I been evasive? Have I been immature? Was I wrong to take Chad’s comments as condescending?
“Your argument (and Neil’s) isn’t…”
Chad – please to reread comment 290 again and put no further words in my mouth.
This is why I gave two answer to each question… one from a pastoral pov and one from a missiological pov.
I was unaware that references to Jesus would be required… I simply appealed to the Bible as a whole.
Personally, I’d like to invest in some oompa-loompas…
Seriously, there plenty to be gleaned about what Paul says about slavery in various to realize that he wasn’t saying that the institution of slavery as it existed at the time was A-ok. For instance, in Philemon when Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, he calls him his son and says that Philemon should welcome him as a brother. There are plenty of other examples where the social strata is flattened in the Kingdom.
As far as why Paul didn’t advocate a complete overthrow, I’d say the issue is complicated. Paul was trying to make the best out of a bad situation, and he saw the spread of the Gospel tantamount to what he was doing on earth.
Neil,
I don’t know what you mean by 290.
I’m not putting words in your mouth. You said in your “missiological” answer about slavery that if I do have slaves, treat them in a biblical, decent way.
I can cite verbatim that same argument by those in the church who fought abolitionists. The argued that they would stop abusing their slaves and treat them the way they ought, hoping this would win them more support.
I honestly didn’t think that you were being evasive. I could see how someone could interpret Chad’s questions as inquisitorial in nature. It would tick me off a bit to give someone an answer and then proceed to tell my why I was wrong.
So, yeah, I can see why it could come off as condescending. It’s hard not to sound condescending here many times. These conversations would probably be very different in real life. At least, I hope they would…
Chad,
I was addressing the slavery issue in the same manner I would address the polygamy question – and I answered it from the pov that someone may actually already own a slave… as some already have multiple wives.
When it comes to wives, the easy answer is – keep the first and send the others away. But this raises a lot of issues as I hope you could imagine. Sometimes the better situation for all is for the wives to stay. Yet still acknowledge to others that this is not a best case scenario.
I was just imagining a similar scenario with slaves.
I admit, I did not answer the scenarios fully or with a lot of depth since I thought them tangential to our discussion on the reliability of Scripture.
Hence my F2F post. I need to read my own words.
I believe slaves should be paid.
Slaves and polygamy. Can it get anymore ridiculous?
Phil,
I think it’s deeper than that. Just like the way women were seen and treated in society then I don’t doubt that Paul say slavery as a social given. Not to mention he anticipated the imminent return of Christ and therefore some things, quite naturally, would be given a back seat (his pastoral advice about marriage is a good example).
Either the Spirit is leading us into deeper truth or not. We have come to see that patriarchy, misogyny, polygamy, slavery, segregation and violence (some of us) are not acceptable and are sinful – they are not actions congruent with our prayer, “Thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.”
I have no problems saying slavery is sinful in all its forms. It was then, it is now. It wasn’t realized then in the way it is now, but it is still a product of fallen humanity and does not reflect the shalom of God. There will be no slaves in heaven.
Frankly, I find Christians that tip-toe around this and demure rather than name slavery as sin, an offense to the gospel of Christ.
I have to remind my boss of that all the time!
I don’t see anyone here doing that. Do you really think some people here are honestly saying that slavery isn’t a sin?
Just because something is a sin, though, doesn’t mean that we don’t deal with in a realistic way. I have no problem saying that divorce is a sin and isn’t “congruent with our prayer, “Thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.” That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real pastoral considerations to consider when dealing with divorce.
I guess I’m just confused as to what you’re actually trying to get at.
Who tip toes around slavery? What a strawman.
Heaven is populated by nothing but slaves as we are all slaves of Christ.
And what a mis-directed argument. Neither are there husbands or wives in heaven for example, nor lenders or borrowers, nor kings or peasants. It’s a new order.
However, the Kingdom is not egalatarian as there are elders and various rewards and some “shine” more brightly than others and there are different rewards. Who knows with certainty how it will be?
And to Neils’ point what does slavery and polygamy have to do with the interpretation of scripture or dismissal thereof? Who is advocating slavery and why is that such a touchstone?
AND
AND
You see, “slavery” is the gateway “bible drug” of choice for the left. So the (discredited) argument goes:
1) Surely we can all agree that slavery is abhorrent (using the slavery of 18th-19th century America as the cultural touchstone for defining “slavery”).
2) The Bible doesn’t outright condemn slavery. In fact, you might argue it condones slavery (especially the OT) since it gives instructions for both slaves and slave owners w/o telling the slave owners they must immediately set their slaves free!
3) Therefore, anything the Bible says – particularly in the OT – which happens to be inconvenient to whatever bit of sophistry or deviancy is on our agenda to push today (be it homosexual practice, complete non-violence, etc., etc.) is irrelevant, and our “enlightened” view of (homosexuality, violence, etc.) takes precedence since God would be a monster if He agreed that (false argument X).
Wash, rinse, and repeat, tossing in polygamy if your argument isn’t taking hold or if you’ve overused slavery as an example.
Granted, this completely falls apart when (A) you examine the contextual differences in the commonly practiced “slavery” in first-century Palestine and Rome in comparison with the barbarism and racism of American slavery in the 18th & 19th centuries; (B) You examine the actual Biblical passages in play; (C) Utilize progressive revelation in a hermeneutically sound manner; and (D) examine the obvious Biblical positions on whatever the liberal agenda of the day happens to be.
THAT is why slavery, despite its modern Western cultural irrelevance, is relevant to Chad.
Why do I find it such a paradox that Chad can dismiss the entire Old Testament narratives and yet magnify a slavery technicality?
Phil,
Given Neil’s responses, even after I asked him if slavery is a sin, and Zan’s question in 289, yes, I see people tip-toeing
So does everyone here say that slavery, in all its forms, then and now, is sin?
Yes, I see slavery in all its forms as sin; every bit as sinful as interrogating people about it as if you are the sin police.
Rick: Asking for clarification on something and drawing real parallels with how the Bible is used in modern times is equally as sinful as owning people.
Brilliant.
In intellectual process I own you. Does that make me a slave owner?
Since the most common form of “slavery” in Ancient Palestine was agreeing to work the land for a land-owner in exchange for being able to live on that land, no I would not. I would say that its practice in American history could be categorized as such (for a number of reasons), but since what is included in the Biblical definition of “slavery” is rather broad, no I would not categorically say so.
Granted, someone could take this view uncharitably to claim that I am trying to “justify” slavery (or mischaracterize me in numerous ways), but I have a view that what is “sin” (since, by definition, is an affront to God) is defined explicitly by God. Treating people as simple objects would be a violation of “love your neighbor”, and would be sinful. However, if I was to go by the ancient view of slavery, then I would currently be a slave of the bank which owns my mortgage, and I do not consider my banker to be a sinner for expecting me to pay back what I owe.
Slavery aside, usery is a sinful practice.
I cannot say that ALL slavery as an institution was a sin as it was common practice to sell ones self into slavary to pay off a debt and to eventually buy ones self out of it in some Eastern cultures. There were even provisions for a freed slave to remain with his former master if their love for each other warranted it.
However, mistreatment of a slave was sin as mistreatment was probhibited as would the violation of any other proscription.
Slavery was definately not God’s design and to me it would be basicaly very difficult to remain always humane given human nature.
I agree with Chris that American and European slavary was vastly different from ancient slavary which seemed to be a common practice in almost every ancient culture. But was it God’s design, God’s best? No.
Chad, and sorry to disappoint, but I really don’t think about it much except when modern-day stories about it appear from time to time.
Rick,
Separate subject. How are you doing health wise and with the divorce and all?
This is actually an interesting point. Charging interest was generally was considered sinful by Christians until 16th and 17th centuries. Then the Church’s attitude kind of changed when the New World began to be explored, and really it was key factor in the Western economic expansion that occurred. Now no one gives it a second though, really.
You did read my responsse – didn’t you?
#316 – Thank you for asking, John. My health remains a problem but I now receive my prescriptions from Canada so they are 20% of what I used to pay without insurance.
My son and his wife and daughter, and my youngest son live with me and help with my needs. God has allowed me to re-establish a relationship with my daughter and so I am happy with that.
I do not expect any contact with my ex-wife but by God’s grace I have no bitterness at all. I fear for her spiritual condition.
I am 58 years old and am content with being single until I meet Christ. I have my dog Rudy and my son’s dog Solomon as my congregation. They are good listeners but shallow tithers!
Slavery is probably the most difficult to deal with of Chad’s list from 302 since the Scriptures are ambiguous about it (specifically) and it is so emotional (given the American version of it).
The bible does not prohibit it so I would take pause before assuming I knew better. That said I am hard pressed to think of a scenario in which it would be acceptable.
So, is patriarchy a sin?
The Scriptures deal with the reality of slavery. However, as slavery is defined as people selling and buying other people against their will, the Scriptures never endorse that practice. In fact, since we all came from Adam, and since we all are equal sinners, and since the golden rule is still in effect, and many other Scriptures and principles, we can safely believe that God is against slavery.
It is easier to make a case for polygamy than it is for slavery. I am contemplating becoming a eunich.
Rick,
As defined I would agree.
yes
Neil, I hope you can see more clearly the point of my questions in 107. The reason this came up, if you forgot, is because you made this statement:
Obviously, polygamy, slavery and genocide are the result of sin, not shalom, and are not things that at least I would not be comfortable assigning to God’s character. Yet they are part of the “historical record” and no moral judgment is really made on any of them.
Is it all God’s word? Yes! But in the same way Abram didn’t have descendants as numerous as stars on the day God promised it would happen or in the same way he wasn’t a blessing to all nations on the day God said it would be, Israel had to be formed on the anvil of God’s hammer (to quote Torrence). We have a record of what that process looks like, and with the aid of the Spirit who is leading Christ’s church today, ought to humbly accept the authority Christ himself gives us to bind and loose.
History will look back on us in similar ways we look back on others. For centuries it was a given that slavery was a God-ordained institution. The voices that began to emerge, slowly, were condemned of many awful things, the least of which being called heretics and false teachers. They were told they did not care for God’s Word and they were gutting the Bible of its authority (again, if you have never read the arguments of anti-abolitionists I recommend you do. I can send you a number of them if you want). Honestly, their arguments are more “sound” as far as “hermeneutics” go than the ones offered by abolitionists. They are more logical.
But slavery is still sin, no matter how some people want to use the Bible (what many of us today would call abuse of the Bible).
The connection to the question “Is God violent?” should be obvious. Does the Bible seem to suggest in some parts that God is violent? Yes! If I read the Psalms (which is equally authoritative and as much as God’s Word as anything else, right?) I could conclude that God is my personal avenger. OR, I could conclude that God is going to have mercy on everyone. I could conclude that God has a raging temper (like myself at times) OR that God is long-suffering and slow to anger.
So given what I know about God as revealed in Jesus Christ, I have no problems saying God is not violent and that whatever we want to say about stories of our past (Israel, etc.) must humbly bow to the revelation of Christ.
Too many words. Condensed down to this simple fact:
You do not believe any of the Old Testament narratives are literal.
(This saves time.)
But Chad, you totally dismiss “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” in regards to the character of Christ and you totally discount the Lion of Judah and only recognize the Lamb of God. To my understanding you have a very myopic view.
John H-
No, I don’t.
I’ll be posting something later this morning or today about Revelation.
I do not like the many revelations about God in the Bible that seem to indicate He has employed some violence. Therefore I suggest a different way to view God.
___________________________
(Fill in your own blank)
Rick, #319. I rejoice that God has given you forgiveness. My 1st wife left me in the early 80’s and God also gave me the gift of forgiveness. Several years later I remarried and we just celebrated our 20th anniversary this year. But you are still going through your trial but I can testify that God is faithful. Remember that you can only be responsible for your own actions, not your ex-wifes’ and that God’s forgiveness of you gives you the foundation for your continued forgiveness of her. Also remember that you are complete in Him! Knowing that was also a great comfort to me at the time. God bless.
Chad,
How is your father doing?
John H-
He is doing much better, thanks for asking. We had a scare 2 weeks ago where he was having chest pains again but they changed his meds and re-cathed him and since then he feels great.
I just posted my discussion with McLaren’s question: Who Is Jesus? which addresses, I think, the Revelation of St. John.
Chad,
God never commanded polygamy or slavery. Therefore the fact that people did that in both the OT and NT is irrelevant.
Genocide – that’s an interesting take. God did command the illumination of Israel’s enemies at certain times. But I’m not willing to call that genocide in the modern sense.
The real matter is patriarchy – sine this is clearly instituted by God, yet you call it sin.
The bottom line is: you are willing to remove from the Bible the bits and pieces (even if they are many many pieces) that you modern sensibilities find offensive.
Instead of taking God’s Word as our standard and fitting our beliefs and action to it – you are taking our cultural standard and human sensibilities as the standard and making God’s Word fit it.
Which is exactly what the 18th century German theologians did ion the name of modernism – Harnack being the example McKnight chose.
#325.
Summation: The Bible says whatever the hell I want it to say.
I’m sure Israel’s enemies considered their wholesale slaughter quite “illuminating”
Just kidding – I know what you mean.
Why?
No, I am not. I am reading all of God’s word with an eye to Christ, who is the one who “illuminates” the entire story.
So, Neil, you believe men lording over women is not sinful? You believe that men holding all the power and authority to the exclusion of women is the way God intends things to be? If it is not sin, then why not return to it? Do you advocate for women’s rights? If you do, why?
Honestly, to even entertain the idea that patriarchy is not sinful is every bit as bad as justifying slavery on the same grounds.
#335: See #334
#334 – such a shallow and uncharitable response is of little surprise.
“Honestly, to even entertain the idea that patriarchy is not sinful is every bit as bad as justifying slavery on the same grounds.”
Goofy. Again. The husband is the authority over the wife. The pastor is the authority over the congregation. To suggest that is as bad as slavery is to reveal again your self righteousness concerning race.
But Chad… the stories of Jesus are just the mistaken ramblings of First Century Jews who, desperate to overthrow their Roman oppressors – ascribed to this Jesus their own desires.
What we need to do is humbly bow to the completed revelation which was given to Muhammad – and this time it was dictated verbatim so that no human error would get mingled in.
Therefore we must reject all these stories of a divine Savior… we must reject all these accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection… we must ignore teachings that he was G-d incarnate… because G-d cannot condescend to be human… and he is certainly not a Trinity.
Chad,
When you are willing to discuss the issue of patriarchy as God intended it without jumping to an obviously sinful caricature of it – I will.
The teaching w/in Scripture that different genders have different roles is no different than other places where people are given different roles (priests vs. Jews vs. high priest vs. foreigners vs. children vs. parents, etc., etc.). Nowhere does it teach that men are to “lord their power over women” – it simply gives different roles. Part of the dumbing down of Scripture is identical to the dumbing down of our culture which teaches that anyone can be anything and that a difference in role or authority is somehow congruent to “inequality”.
The view Chad espoused is certainly inspired … as an example Romans 1:18-32…
Attention! Jesus misrepresents Scripture!
21Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Jesus agrees with the account of God’s judgment and removal of Sodom. Of course He of all people should realize that is not literal.
Ahh yes. And to do this they crucified their “Messiah.” Their plan to overthrow Rome came not in the way anyone expected or could dream up themselves but through a Roman execution. How brilliant of them!
Yes, yes, we know. And slaves are subject to their masters….
Funny how we pick and choose which parts we take literally and which parts transcend culture.
How convenient that patriarchy is defended by a bunch of men here. How surprising.
Now you reject the epistles. The house has fallen.
The way you guys use Scripture makes me believe without a doubt that if we were blogging in the 18th and 19th centuries you all would be calling the abolitionists a bunch of heretics who hate the Bible.
It’s eerie.
Chad – I agree completely with the word “eerie”. Your obsession with slavery is remarkable.
God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:28).
Patriarchy is a result of fallen humanity, as many other things are. One could argue that God accommodates with the culture, working within and through it (eventually subverting it, as God does in Christ), or whatever, but the bottom line is patriarchy is sin – it is a rupture from the way God has created us and a failure to realize the vision of the eschaton. God is calling creation to something more – something beyond patriarchy (and slavery and misogyny and polygamy and violence, etc).
This is not crazy, radical stuff guys.
Not an obsession. A recognition that so many of us keep repeating the same mistakes of history.
What is remarkable is your constant dismissal of that reality, as if making fun of me or shrugging your shoulders absolves you of anything I have said.
364 – You are exactly right! I want women in the home not out getting jobs… not out voting for heaven’s sake… but home caring for the children and pregnant if at all possible… breeding and baking… that’s all they are good for… and IF they wear shoes at all they should be square-toed shoes, not pointy… that way they can get closer to the stove and sink.
Chad – you can only argue using caricatures and hyperbole.
I hate reality.
It was pretty much a requirement if you are going to say that God did not strike down Herod.
Luke was mistaken about that detail – but we can trust him on the bits about Jesus being resurrected.
Which brings us back to McKnight’s charge against McLaren
The irony of this statement, following what you just spewed, is ridiculous.
Another false caricature based in hyperbole – no one has dismissed the reality of American slavery… it has been acknowledged as sinful.
Others of us have gone even farther.
As I have said, at least Marcus Borg is consistent. He treats the resurrection as a metaphor as well.
I suppose you are referring to 339…
I was simply taking the hypothetical role of the Muslim and applying to the NT the exact same methodology that you apply to the OT and the bits of the NT you do not like.
See Chad – theology does have practical ramification, and I can apply that to you just as easily as you apply it to me.
All I did was take your standard… I took your hermeneutic and put into the hands of someone one step further.
it’s an easy step once you have allowed for God’s word to be unreliable.
It’s ironic you use a quote about Israel being formed on the anvil of God’s hammer – that’s a rather violent metaphor and all…
As a side note – glad you father is doing well.
No, Neil, I was meaning what you spewed in 350.
And as I point out in 343, your methodology doesn’t make any sense. To argue that way is nonsensical for a variety of reasons.
It’s like you don’t read what I am saying Neil but so quickly jump to conclusions that have nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
I’m not talking about the reality of slavery. What is “reality” is the fact that the same methodology employed by anti-abolitionists during the 18th-19th centuries is the same being employed by each of you.
THAT is the reality I am speaking of. THAT is the same mistake being repeated here.
I’ll say it again: Given how you guys are using Scripture there is no doubt in my mind that 200 years ago you each would be calling abolitionists heretics and despisers of God’s word and saying they have found the Bible to be “unreliable.”
As I pointed out earlier, the house (to use the same analogy) was never there. Discussing scripture with someone who rejects its validity is a non-starter. This is becoming clearer and clearer.
The wild-goose chase he took Neil on was ridiculous.
Not to worry… in a month or so he’ll change his tune when a new book comes out by some LSD-tripping “authority” who is has just unlocked the Rosetta Stone of scripture.
He is not even wresting scripture, just ignoring it.
It is interesting how many times I say things using sarcasm and/or tongue-in-cheek and you take them as if I were serious…
i was simply pointing out your hyperbole and use of caricature when you try equating all patriarchy with slavery.
#361:
Read: you are a bunch of slave-owner-mentality bigots that have your head in the sand.
Those are serious, injurious and disgusting charges Chad. Seriously.
As for 339 and your response in 343…
Seriously, this is not what i said… and given you intelligence I know you know that.
There is little to no difference between what you are doing to the the bits of the OT and NT that you find offensive and what the Mulsim does to the bits he finds offensive.
The details of the method differ, and the result are more extreme – but they are just bursting through the door that you left ajar.
Paul C –
If the shoe fits…
As if they are any more serious than being falsely charged as one who doesn’t take Scripture seriously or find it reliable.
Pot, meet kettle.
Already debunked in #’s 313 & 315
Not really. See #307. When you’ve already determined what the outcome must be, and that the Bible (particularly the OT) is an obstacle to the tripe your peddling, the “progressive” path is through slavery and/or polygamy.
Who knew that Jesus’ model of his relationship to the church was simply a product of his fallen humanity?
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
[Noting that, if men took this to heart - modeling their relationship to their wife as Christ's to the church - their assertion of "authority" would be quite scarce. Even so, the difference is roles between sexes is not a "result of the fall", but part of God's design.]
As of today I have set all my slaves free.
(All but the one who gets me my medicine.)
I stand corrected as to the reference of your reality statement.
You are stsill wrong.
It is one thing to force the scriptures to say something they do not say… based on an argument from silence. God never condemned slavery, nor did he endorse it. And to use the that fact as a biblical argument for it – particularly in light of the nature of American slavery is assinine and I agree – it was wrong (both the slavery and the use of God’s word).
But your comparison fails.
While it is wrong to apply the Bible where it does not speak (slavery) it is not sin to apply it where it is clear (patriarchy).
So, you may conjecture all you like about how I would have behaved in the mid 1880’s – but your logic is apples and oranges.
I believe you take the scriptures seriously. You yourself have admitted that parts are not reliable… massive parts.
And at this point I am making the logical connection that if something is not historically accurate when it speaks of the acts of God – it is not reliable.
Good morning everyone. I hope you have a blessed, sun-shiney day in Jesus!
Hey, by the way, since this is open thread Friday…check out a new blog featuring nothing but book reviews:
Book Review Thoughts
I think you will like it since it features the writing of some familiar people.
jerry
You all are welcome to convince me that the methods you use with Scripture are not the same as the Christian slave owners of the past.
For a helpful introduction to how the two work, you can read my essay on the issue HERE
In response to your compulsion with slavery, I am reowning mine.
Let’s start with a foundational reality: When the pro-slavery folks used the Bible they did so from a position of silence. Since God never condemned it, since parameters were given, since even Paul sent a slave back – it must be acceptable.
We all see this as weak and fallacious.
On the other hand… there are very clear statements setting up patriarchy. Once this is set in place, there are parameters and waarnings and exanples. But these expand upon the positive statements.
In one case – an argument from silence upon which a system is erroneously built.
In the other case – an argument built on positive statements.
There – that’s the difference… clear, simple, and precise.