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?

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.

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

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.

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 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?

No Rick, that is the God of the Bible.

God either thinks violence is an appropriate way to bring about a desired result or he does not.

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.

#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.

“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 better best way.

#21 – OK, which one of Chris L’s sons has highjacked his IP?

#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.

Is swatting a mosquito an act of violence? Slaughtering a cow for food?

“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.

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.

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

You are welcome to that opinion, John.

I think I see the word “disingenuous” used here more often than all other areas of my life combined.

#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.

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.

Chad – Do you reject all Biblical references that God acted violent as 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?

I believe I have my answer.

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…

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.

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.

Chad: My conclusion is that no matter how you dress it up, if the end result is a Father who excludes or exterminates you still end up with a monster.

Oye vey. (To use a Hebrew quote vs one from those nasty Greco-Roman guys).

Metaphor for the day:

Isa 29:6 From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.

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

“McLaren is a dangerous heretic”.

As is Shane Hipps.

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.

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.

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…

#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.

#67 – Neil, McKnight was not even mentioned in that post. Clawson is not talking about McKnight. So not sure what you are on about.

You offered that answer as a response to my quote of McKnight.

What he said was – McLaren is not saying anything new

Duh. Which, if you read my first review of the book I say the same thing:

The first thing that I think is important is to remind ourselves that McLaren is not saying anything new or radical here.

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

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,

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…

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.

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.

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.

Chad,

re 69 – are you now affirming all religions lead to salvation?

#81.

No.

I am affirming that Rick’s little equation is a joke.

83 – OK

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.

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.

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?

I believe McKnight briefly addresses this issue in his review. He pretty much guts the premise.

Source

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?

#94 – No.

He says pretty much the same thing I have been saying here, so you won’t agree with that, either.

.

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?

Your example of me is invalid since no one should expect me to perfectly reflect God.

Same can be said for Israel.

So the OT is not the Word of God?

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.”

#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.

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”

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?

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.

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.

Meaningless:

contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

#113
How do you know McLaren isn’t doing exactly that? Why do you assume your faith is that faith?

Why do you assume your faith is that faith?

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).

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.

Neil,

It’s a shame your boss has to show up and ruin what was a good conversation with more of his usual antics.

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.

“It’s hard to separate our view with God with how we choose to operate.”

Very good point for all.

#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?

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.

Wrestling with what reference point? How can we know Who we are wrestling with?

Wrestling with what reference point? How can we know Who we are wrestling with?

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.”

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.

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.

Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried by Husband’s Sister

The church he pastor’s is planning a lavish shower.

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?

#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!

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.

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.

Yes, [the OT is] 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. – Chad

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, it’s called “goofy”.

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”.

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.

Have you read Slaves, Women & Homosexuals – Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William Webb?

No, I haven’t.

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. – Chad

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?

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.

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.

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!

Neil, I’m sorry you don’t see my question in 107 worth answering.

I tried.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Re 107

Question 1:

1- I want to marry several women. The OT is my example and God never condemns it there. Tell me why I shouldn’t. – Chad

(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.

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.

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.

Re 107;

Question 3

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? – Chad

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]

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.

“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.

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?)

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Earthly high priest now heavenly high priest, animal sacrifice now no more sacrifice, etc..

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.”

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

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.

But Chad – Many Scriptures seem problematic to you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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…

Neil,

You answered each of those questions in ways I would not (completely so).

Can you explain to me why…

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

Everything I believe is based on the incarnation and resurrection

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.

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 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.)

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Are you familiar with wresting Scripture?

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.

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.

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.

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.

wow, Neil. You’re a mess, dude

I can think of no response that would be more condescending and less compassionate.

“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.

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.

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?

Chad:

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.

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

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.

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.

Just kiddin with you, Neil. There comes a time where some arguments disintegrate so completely that I resort to self entertainment.

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.

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.

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,

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…?

2 Peter 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned,

5 and did not spare the ancient world,

6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes,

7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Matthew 14 – “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. “Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

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.

Now that that is settled…

…is slavery always sinful?

If you can’t handle real life hypotheticals with your theology than don’t get mad at me when I point that out.

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.

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.

…real life hypotheticals…

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.

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?

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.

“Your argument (and Neil’s) isn’t…”

Chad – please to reread comment 290 again and put no further words in my mouth.

Are we saying that if America changes its laws that some of you will buy slaves? If not, why?

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.

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?

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…

These conversations would probably be very different in real life. At least, I hope they would…

Hence my F2F post. I need to read my own words.

Slaves and polygamy. Can it get anymore ridiculous?

I believe slaves should be paid.

I have to remind my boss of that all the time!

Who tip toes around slavery? What a strawman.

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?

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.

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.

Slavery aside, usery is a sinful practice.

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.

#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!

So, is patriarchy a sin?

It is easier to make a case for polygamy than it is for slavery. I am contemplating becoming a eunich.

So, is patriarchy a sin?

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:

I believe the Old and New testaments are accurate, valid, and authoritative in their entirety.

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.

Chad: [we] must humbly bow to the revelation of Christ.

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.

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)

Chad,

How is your father doing?

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.

God did command the illumination of Israel’s enemies at certain times.

I’m sure Israel’s enemies considered their wholesale slaughter quite “illuminating” Just kidding – I know what you mean.

But I’m not willing to call that genocide in the modern sense.

Why?

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.

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.

The real matter is patriarchy – sine this is clearly instituted by God, yet you call it sin.

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.

#334 – such a shallow and uncharitable response is of little surprise.

…and that whatever we want to say about stories of our past (Israel, etc.) must humbly bow to the revelation of Christ.

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.

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.

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!

Now you reject the epistles. The house has fallen.

Chad – I agree completely with the word “eerie”. Your obsession with slavery is remarkable.

Your obsession with slavery is remarkable.

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.

I hate reality.

A recognition that so many of us keep repeating the same mistakes of history.

Which brings us back to McKnight’s charge against McLaren

What is remarkable is your constant dismissal of that reality,

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.

The irony of this statement, following what you just spewed, is ridiculous.

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.

As a side note – glad you father is doing well.

no one has dismissed the reality of American slavery… it has been acknowledged as sinful.

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.”

No, Neil, I was meaning what you spewed in 350.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In response to your compulsion with slavery, I am reowning mine.

Chad,

For what its’ worth – I think we all would decry the caricature of patriarchy you use as examples.

For what it is worth:

I believe the rise of the black race in America to the point of being elected president is one of the most profound phenomenons since the industrial revolution.

Wow. I’m sorry, guys. I guess I am just so used to running in circles where this stuff is a given that when I see vestiges of the “powers and principalities” (of which patriarchy, no doubt, is one) I am stunned.

It’s really quite simple.

Was patriarchy part of God’s original design in the Garden?
No.
It is a result of the fall. In fact, it is part of the curse of Adam and Eve. The OT and the NT tells a story of that unraveling and also a story of God’s remaking.

Now, in who or what was the curse of Adam broken?

Hauerwas, I believe, said that the church is still trying to get a handle on the cosmic ramifications of Calvary. It’s like a ripple effect.

378 – Phil, that is ridiculous. If you had shown evidence that I beat my wife (like I have shown evidence that the methods here are the same as the pro-slavery Christians) than you would have a point.

Have you read pro-slavery arguments? My guess, given the universal dismissal of my argument, that either none of you have or you simply refuse to at least acknowledge that FACT that your method is no different from their own.

Why not just own it? Why not just say, “OK, we use the Bible like they did, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

I’d at least respect that

Why not just own it? Why not just say, “OK, we use the Bible like they did, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

I’d at least respect that

So you would respect a false statement?

As i easily showed – we do not use the Bible is the same manner – therefore such a statement would be false.

Chad,
I’m well aware of the pro-slavery arguments. I read McLaren’s book, too, you know…

I just think it’s a big leap you’re making on a board like this. Who exactly is being oppressed by the people commenting here? Women? Homosexuals? What proof do you have of said oppression?

All I’m saying is that when you make the charge – “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”, you are asking people to prove a negative. It’s based on the assumption of guilt. It’s no different than someone saying they want proof that someone isn’t a heretic.

If you are getting a homosexuality, I’d say that the arguments that it isn’t analogous to slavery at all. It’s pretty clear that Paul did not expect slavery to be something that would exist when the Kingdom had fully come. It’s also pretty clear that he didn’t think homosexual behavior had any place in the Kingdom as well. I’ve been reading Ben Witherington’s new book, The Indelible Image, and the analysis he gives about homosexuality is pretty darn convincing.

Below is De Bow’s defense of slavery from the Bible. I didn’t include the first half, which is damning enough and deals only with Abraham. The parts in bold I highlight to show some direct connections between ways De Bow argues and ways you all argue here. This is only one of many, many examples I could provide.

From what I have written, if it stood alone, I would infer that the holding of slaves was right, in some cases. But this is, by no means, all that is found in the Bible upon the subject. After the Israelites had been a long time in Egypt, they became servants to the Egyptians. At this time, God sent Moses, as a messenger, to bring them out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave them laws by which they were to be governed. No law which came directly from him (the fountain of morality), can be considered morally wrong; it might be imperfect, in not providing for circumstances not then existing—but, so far as it does provide, the provisions are correct. Nothing which God ordained can be a crime, and nothing for which he gave express permission can be considered wrong.

In Leviticus xxv, we are told, that the Lord spake to Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them—after various provisions of the law, the 39th verse reads as follows, in regard to servitude: If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, then shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant, &c.—clearly showing that there was a distinction between bond-servant and hired-servant. After providing for the case of a Hebrew servant, verses 44, 45, and 46, of the same law, read as follows: Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmenand bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

In Exodus xxi, 20, 21, we find this law: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

The 26th and 27th verses of the same chapter provide, that if the servant have lost an eye or a tooth, by a blow from the master, the servant should go free.

The 29th, 30th, 31st, and 32d verses provide, that if an ox was known to be vicious and killed a freeman, the ox and his owner were both put to death; but if he gored a bond-servant, the ox should be killed and the master should pay thirty shekels of silver: showing the distinction between bond and freemen.

The law given to the Israelites, in regard to circumcision, required the master to circumcise his male servant, bought with his money or born in his house; and, of course, it presupposes the right and power to enforce the circumcision.

Thus, we see that at a time when the Israelites had no slaves, but were themselves, in a manner, fugitive slaves, and when they had no use for slaves, being wanderers in a wilderness, and fed by God’s own hand, he provided laws for bringing in, buying, inheriting and governing, slaves, in the land unto which they were to be brought at the end of forty years. He made laws recognizing the right of property, in man and in his descendents, forever—the right to trade in that property, without any limit, except that the Israelites could not buy each other; and the right to punish the slave, with no limitation, except that if the slave should die under his master’s hand, the master should be punished—and if maimed, in certain ways, he had a right to freedom. These laws are worse, for the slave, than the laws of any southern State. They were provided, by God himself, for his chosen people. To any man, who admits that the Bible is given by inspiration from God, they prove that, in buying, selling, holding and using slaves, there is no moral guilt. Like all the institutions of the Deity, the holding of slaves may become criminal, by abuse of the slave; but the relation, in itself, is good and moral.

In the New Testament I find frequent mention of master and servant, and of their duties. Paul and Timothy, in writing to the Colossians, in the third chapter and twenty-second to twenty-fifth verses, exhort servants to obey their masters in all things, and not with eye-service; and in the fourth chapter and first verse, they exhort masters to give their servants what is just and equal.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, tells him to teach the same doctrine; and says, if any man teach otherwise, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words: see 1 Timothy vi, 1–6. Peter, also (1 Peter ii, 18–24), exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters, not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward.

Now, we all know, that the condition of the servant of the Roman empire, was much less free than that of the southern negro. His master had a more unlimited control over him; yet, the apostles say to servants, to submit to their masters—not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward; and to masters to give to their servants what is just and equal. Now, had they considered the relation of master and slave, one criminal or immoral, in itself, they must either have omitted to speak of it at all, or have condemned the relation altogether.

Paul wrote an epistle to Philemon, a Christian, a disciple of his, and a slaveholder. He sent it to him by Onesimus, also a convert, a slave of Philemon, who was a fugitive. In it, he prays Philemon to charge the fault of Onesimus to him, saying he would repay it, unless Philemon forgave it for his sake.

Now, had the holding of slaves been a crime, Paul’s duty to Philemon would have required him to instruct Philemon, that he had no rights over Onesimus, but that the attempt to hold him in servitude was criminal; and his duty to Onesimus would have been, in such case, to send him to some foreign free country, whereby he might have escaped from oppression. But Paul sent him back. Our northern friends think that they manage these matters better than Paul did.

We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.

I think Chad has a point. I agree with him that we all use Scripture the same way. Probably not to the same degree, and definitely not with all the same subjects. In other words, I don’t think we are using it the same way to approve of the same things they used it to approve of, i.e. slavery. But I think we all come at it the same way at some point, including Chad.

Through cultural, historical, familial, educational, etc. influences we develop our sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false, and idealistic. This comes out in our descriptions/pictures/ideas of Jesus for example. (see Mark Driscoll’s depiction of Jesus vs…. McClaren’s depiction)

I’ve thought a lot about this, especially in light of slavery and racism. Some of my older family are very strong Christians, but if you heard them speak at times, you would call them racists. Throughout history there are examples of the church dealing with issues where today, it is blatantly obvious that they were in the wrong. Numerous examples can be drawn, even from the lives of men like Luther and Calvin.

We all come to Scripture at some point and use it to reinforce what we “know” to be true. Sometimes we do this consciously, but I think that we do it unconsciously most often. And we all have something in our lives that 100 years from now, the church will look back and wonder, how could they not have seen? How could they not have known? It’s clearly there in Scripture.

Having thought a lot about this, I still don’t know what to do with it… other than to continue to pray, read, live in community, worship, and serve counting on God to transform my life through His Spirit living in me.

Chad,
I actually agree with Christian’s take as well, but perhaps the reason people are putting up walls in reaction to you is that you seem to be unwilling to include yourself in the “us” in Christian’s post. You seem to be writing to us as if you are the only enlightened one here. I can only speak for myself, but, that, my friend, is what gets on my nerves.

Why don’t you admit that those on the more liberal side of the theological spectrum have some blind spots as well?

Contextually, “headship” is established by who your “source” is. In the case of woman, her “head” is the man, from whom she was created. In the case of the church, the “head” is Christ, from whom she was created.

I actually get Chad’s point here. After the Fall, the “source” relationship was reversed – man now comes from woman (through the birth process). So, to me, basing a complentarian argument on the definition of head as “source” and still saying that “source” implies a leadership role is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It seems to me that Paul isn’t so much describing a hierarchy as much a relationship based on mutual deference to one another.

Well, Chris L, thank God I don’t answer to you.

Your pronouncements are no different from the sort I have come to expect from all other “ODM’s”

I clearly and precisely showed the difference between misusing the Scripture to support slavery and the proper use of Scripture to support patriarchy.

I love the Bible. I seek to model my entire life within it. I teach it, read it, study it, pray with it, wrestle with it, and discuss it as the touchstone of my being.

People often mistreat the one’s they love. It is an admittedly extreme example – I just cannot think of a lesser one.

Some men who abuse their wives do so out of a misplaced thought that they need disciplined.

Some parents so spoil their children, out of love, that they render them unable to function in the real world.

I have no doubt that you love both the Lord and his word – the manner in which you defend him attests to this.

Yet – in your defense of his Word you are willing to question its accuracy and open the door for it to be untrustworthy in places.

And once the door is ajar…

This from the guy who supposedly welcome theological diversity amongst his writers, of which he is no doubt the “head.”

Chad – I believe you must purposefully ignore responses and dredge up old tired long rebutted arguments.

We allow diversity within Orthodoxy. We will argue against diversity that runs out of the parameters of the historic Christian faith.

Thank you, Neil. Now why don’t you react to your “boss” with the sort of indignation and sense of injustice as you would towards me if I judged others the same as he?

I defended you against what I thought was his unfairness – the fact that you have chosen to selectively ignore that makes think it was in vain and unappreciated.

Chad,

You mock me in one comment and four comments later chastise me for not defending you… I can only take so much abuse before my patience reaches its end.

the manner in which you treat Scripture is one of abuse, even if it appears to you to be love. Chris L.

I could say the same about you as it relates to people with whom you disagree, Chris L. – Chad

So – maybe both of you should change your ways.

Chris L. – lighten up on the invectives, name-calling, and derision.

Chad – take the Bible as it is written, an accurate accounting of God’s dealing with mankind from the creation to the present.

Neil, you are way too sensitive. I wasn’t mocking you.

Maybe so – but you mocked me previously and referenced my reaction.

And even in this comment, even in a correction you make yet another criticism.

Ah. So now affirmations of patriarchy and confessing that God is violent is required to be “orthodox”?

Well, if so, you can keep your version of orthodoxy.

No – and you know better. The disagreement between Phil and Chris L shows that…

What is beyond the pale of orthodoxy is your view on Scripture.

This is actually a very interesting conversation. If you remove all of the bickering, you can see that everybody already has their minds made up about the various issues.

If you look at just the bickering and forget the issues, you can see that everybody already has their minds made up about the other people.

Chad – stop looking to trap others into saying something that they aren’t trying to say. Also, you have been just as rude, if not more so than Chris L. the last few weeks.

Chris L. – what Neil said.

Christian –

…and Neil, what should he do?

And what, exactly, Neil, is my “view on Scripture?”

I understand you to believe that there are parts of the Old and New testaments that are inaccurate in their attribution of actions to God. That, paraphrasing you, fallen sinful people ascribed to God their own desires and purposes. Therefore, the Old Testament and even parts of the New are not wholly accurate and we must determine which are and which are not.

To do this we use the character of Jesus.

This is my understanding of your view of scripture.

Please correct any misunderstandings.

Why can’t you acknowledge how alike you sound to their insistence that people who disagreed with them were unorthodox and hated Scripture?

Because this is true only from your perspective. It is from you perspective we sound alike.

I have NEVER stated anyone hates scripture – yet you say this is what I sound like.

I acknowledge your love for the word and never say you have a low view of it – yet you say this is what I sound like.

Do you even read my comments anymore?

There is a problem arguing a perspective from the Scriptures with someone who says he believes the Scriptures but really does not. I’m not sure that problem can be solved.

Neil,
The “you” was a general, plural “you.” You, specifically, have not said I hate Scripture but everyone else more or less has (in so many words). If I dont “hate” it I dont believe it, don’t rely on it, reject it, dismiss it, ignore it, cut out pieces I dont like (you have said this), etc.

You have said:

take the Bible as it is written, an accurate accounting of God’s dealing with mankind from the creation to the present.

I do take the Bible as it is written.
For you to suggest otherwise is to suggest I must not like the Bible as is.

And FTR, you don’t understand my view of Scripture. The essay I link to above is as clear a definition as you will get from me, if you are interested.

Chad – You do not hate the Scriptures, you simply do not believe them.

This Proverb keeps ringing in my ears:

If a wise man contends with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

This thread will probably go well beyond 500 comments.

Neil, you’re the nicest and most patient guy here, honestly, but this is a waste of time. You are running after someone who rejects the veracity of scripture in practice, yet affirms it verbally. It just doesn’t make sense, as we’ve seen.

I suggest you wait another month and his view will have changed entirely, depending on what new book comes out.

Neil, you’re the nicest and most patient guy here, honestly, but this is a waste of time. You are running after someone who rejects the veracity of scripture in practice, yet affirms it verbally. It just doesn’t make sense, as we’ve seen.

Thank you Paul C.

I just wish he would admit he is willing to reject the portions that do not ascribe to his view of God is like – even of that view is based on Jesus as the model.

Chad – You do not hate the Scriptures, you simply do not believe them.

Rick,

trying to think like Chad I suspect the answer would be. I do believe it, I just do not believe all of it is the actual word of God. The Bible contains the Word of God.

(How’s that?)

#441- no, I would not say that.

If a wise man contends with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

I was thinking the same thing! This works both ways, of course.

I was thinking the same thing! This works both ways, of course.

Of course. I guess this was a gentler way of saying this:

“If one man calls you an ass, ignore him.
If two men call you an ass, start looking for tracks.
If three men call you an ass, put on a harness.”

Since this is open thread, I had a question (maybe for Chris L?):

In the end of Peter’s epistle he signs off from Babylon. Was this some sort of code language for Rome? If so, why would he not just say Rome? If not, did he actually (or possibly) travel to Babylon?

Phil,
If you read what I have to say in the essay neil is commenting about you will see that I am saying much the same thing.

The problem, however, is that just because we SAY Scripture is the authority of this or that community it means nothing if said community is not living or performing the text.

I can say my parents have authority but if I don’t obey a word they say do they really? Not in any meaningful sense.

So yes, Scripture is authoritative in its own right because it just is but we make that authority a reality insofar as we are living the text. So in a real way, the church lends authority to Scripture just as Scripture is authoritative for the Church.

I am told I don’t believe the Scriptures. Fine. I could say the same of my critics who don’t believe in a literal 7 day creation story or who don’t still observe the laws of the OT (yes, I know the NT puts a spin on this but even in this we are making choices about what is authoritative and what is not), or who do not greet others with a holy kiss or who do not marry a woman simply because they lust after her or who divorce for reasons other than adultery or who don’t love their neighbors as themselves or who use their tongues as weapons or who are causing division in the church rather than being ministers of reconciliation….and on and on and on.

I could say they, too, don’t believe the Scriptures.

But I do not. I try to offer them the same grace I believe God has offered me and I assume they are trying their best to live within complicated matrix we call life of which Scripture does not give all the answers in black and white and in many ways is damn hard to understand, let alone obey.

So, if believing that the revelation of God we have in Jesus Christ gives me reason to pause before attributing to God all the heinous things some stories in the OT attribute to God makes me a person you people cannot fellowship with or someone whom in your eyes disbelieves Scripture or even hates it, so be it.

What you think of me is of little consequence.

“How To Step Clear of Any Critique” by Chris Lyons.

Chapter One:

Label It

Chapter Two:

Mock the Message

Chapter Three:

Mock the Messenger

Chapter Four:

Return to Chapter One

So, if believing that the revelation of God we have in Jesus Christ gives me reason to pause before attributing to God all the heinous things some stories in the OT attribute to God… – Chad

You have done more than pause – you said that those portions were the result of men ascribing their sinful desires onto God.

you said that those portions were the result of men ascribing their sinful desires onto God.

I said it could be that. We still do it today. We are not very different from Israel.

Neil, What should you do? Are you asking me to find something to rebuke you about?

Chris L. – In reference to the census, you could just leave that question blank.

I will just say “white”. Who cares? You guys are so paranoid.

I said it could be that. We still do it today. We are not very different from Israel.

No. We do not. No one today is writing Scripture.

Why are not the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the same thing?

Chad alluded to differeing ways of recording history and the like.

But the fact remains that the Muslim does exactly to the stories of Jesus that chad does to the stories of the OT.

As far as the census race question…I will quote from that great Southern Baptist Byron de la Beckwith:

“The white man was put here to rule. It says so in the Bible”.

(Chad, feel free to put this on your refrigerator door!)