Wednesday, August 01, 2012

A moral argument in favor of capitalism

The Wall Street Journal carried an article on Saturday that was designed to bolster the business-friendly sentiments among us. According to the author, Charles Murray, things have sunk badly, and “the principled case for capitalism must be made anew”.

I think this is worth a look.

in today's political climate, updating the case for capitalism requires a restatement of old truths in ways that Americans from across the political spectrum can accept. Here is my best effort:

The U.S. was created to foster human flourishing. The means to that end was the exercise of liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism is the economic expression of liberty. The pursuit of happiness, with happiness defined in the classic sense of justified and lasting satisfaction with life as a whole, depends on economic liberty every bit as much as it depends on other kinds of freedom.

"Lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole" is produced by a relatively small set of important achievements that we can rightly attribute to our own actions. Arthur Brooks, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, has usefully labeled such achievements "earned success." Earned success can arise from a successful marriage, children raised well, a valued place as a member of a community, or devotion to a faith. Earned success also arises from achievement in the economic realm, which is where capitalism comes in.

Earning a living for yourself and your family through your own efforts is the most elemental form of earned success. Successfully starting a business, no matter how small, is an act of creating something out of nothing that carries satisfactions far beyond those of the money it brings in. Finding work that not only pays the bills but that you enjoy is a crucially important resource for earned success.


Making a living, starting a business and finding work that you enjoy all depend on freedom to act in the economic realm. What government can do to help is establish the rule of law so that informed and voluntary trades can take place. More formally, government can vigorously enforce laws against the use of force, fraud and criminal collusion, and use tort law to hold people liable for harm they cause others.

Everything else the government does inherently restricts economic freedom to act in pursuit of earned success
. I am a libertarian and think that almost none of those restrictions are justified. But accepting the case for capitalism doesn't require you to be a libertarian. You are free to argue that certain government interventions are justified. You just need to acknowledge this truth: Every intervention that erects barriers to starting a business, makes it expensive to hire or fire employees, restricts entry into vocations, prescribes work conditions and facilities, or confiscates profits interferes with economic liberty and usually makes it more difficult for both employers and employees to earn success. You also don't need to be a libertarian to demand that any new intervention meet this burden of proof: It will accomplish something that tort law and enforcement of basic laws against force, fraud and collusion do not accomplish.

People with a wide range of political views can also acknowledge that these interventions do the most harm to individuals and small enterprises. Huge banks can, albeit at great expense, cope with the Dodd-Frank law's absurd regulatory burdens; many small banks cannot. Huge corporations can cope with the myriad rules issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and their state-level counterparts. The same rules can crush small businesses and individuals trying to start small businesses.

Finally, people with a wide range of political views can acknowledge that what has happened incrementally over the past half-century has led to a labyrinthine regulatory system, irrational liability law and a corrupt tax code. Sweeping simplifications and rationalizations of all these systems are possible in ways that even moderate Democrats could accept in a less polarized political environment.

To put it another way, it should be possible to revive a national consensus affirming that capitalism embraces the best and most essential things about American life; that freeing capitalism to do what it does best won't just create national wealth and reduce poverty, but expand the ability of Americans to achieve earned success—to pursue happiness.

Reviving that consensus also requires us to return to the vocabulary of virtue when we talk about capitalism. Personal integrity, a sense of seemliness and concern for those who depend on us are not "values" that are no better or worse than other values. Historically, they have been deeply embedded in the American version of capitalism. If it is necessary to remind the middle class and working class that the rich are not their enemies, it is equally necessary to remind the most successful among us that their obligations are not to be measured in terms of their tax bills. Their principled stewardship can nurture and restore our heritage of liberty. Their indifference to that heritage can destroy it.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Choosing apostolic successors

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.


Three quick points:

i) If you compare this tendentious summary with what Acts 1:15-26 actually says, the Catholic apologist is clearly getting out of the text what he is putting into the text. Stuffing the ballot box.

ii) It’s noteworthy that Matthias disappears without a trace.

iii) But let’s assume for the sake of argument that choosing Matthias is the exemplar of apostolic succession. Compare Acts 1:15-26 with Universi Dominici Gregis (subsequently amended by Benedict XVI) and ask yourself if the rules for papal election match the alleged exemplar:


If the case of Matthias is the yardstick, then papal elections don’t measure up.

Conservative Judaism, Intellectually Untethered

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/30/conservative-judaism-intellectually-untethered/

Roundtable with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus

http://michaeljkruger.com/roundtable-with-michael-licona-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/

Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/key_events_in_the_life_of_the_historical_jesus_a_collaborative_explora

God Without Parts

James Anderson reviews God Without Parts by James Dolezal.

BTW, here's a video interview with Dolezal on his book:

Britain's NHS

"Britain's NHS: No Fun and Games"

HT: Steve.

Roundtable Discussion Of Matthew 27:52-53


Mike Licona writes:

"The 2012 summer issue of the Southeastern Theological Review includes a roundtable discussion on the interpretation of Matthew's raised saints I proposed in my book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010). The roundtable is combrised of six evangelical scholars who discuss the viability of my interpretation and whether it infringes on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Participants are Charles Quarles, Michael Kruger, Daniel Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Mike Licona. Norman Geisler declined an invitation to participate and Al Mohler was not able to. Critical essays of my book by Gary Habermas, Timothy McGrew, and C. Behan McCullagh and my response essay also appear in this issue but do not appear online. A hard copy of this issue may be purchased at www.southeasterntheologicalreview.com. The roundtable discussion may be read for free and may be viewed HERE."

The man with the muck-rake

BW3 praises the NHS in this post.

BTW, I have a lot of friends and family from the UK. I've lived and studied in the UK. I'm a bit of an Anglophile too. So I hope any remarks I make about the UK and NHS won't sound like an outsider criticizing someone's mom/mum or anything along those lines!

The Brits are fiercely proud of this.

I have to wonder why someone would be so "fiercely proud" of a gov't organization like the NHS? I'd be a bit perplexed if a fellow American told me he's "fiercely proud" of a gov't organization like, say, the IRS or FDA or Homeland Security. It just sounds strange to my ears. Maybe it's because I'm not from the UK.

And rightly so. A country can and should be judged by how it treats its least fortunate, weakest, and most vulnerable members of society. On that scale, America is a pretty selfish country.

1. Why should we judge a country by this standard? Should it be a country's purpose to help the least fortunate and weak and vulnerable? If so, in what sense and to what degree should they be judged? What about judging a nation by how it holds up against crime or national defense?

2. Related, don't private individuals and groups like churches and charities tend to do a better job helping the least fortunate in society than the gov't?

3. America is a country made up of Americans. From what I've read Americans are one of the most generous peoples in the world. I'm not talking simply about money either. I've read American conservatives including American evangelical Christians are especially generous. I think someone like Arthur C. Brooks has studied the matter.

4. Among the least fortunate and weak and vulnerable are infants in the womb. Although Roe v. Wade is current law, and although there's surely tremendous room for improvement, we also have a strong pro-life movement. Can the same be said about the UK?

It would rather have a universal right to have guns of all sorts than universal health care.

1. Why should health care and gun ownership be analogous to one another?

2. This assumes universal health care is a human "right" too. Is it?

3. Gun ownership (or perhaps the right to self-defense via guns) may or may not be a human right. But the right to bear arms is part of our Bill of Rights.

But let’s be clear its [the US health care system] patchwork and piecemeal compared to the British National Health.

1. I'm not exactly sure what BW3 means to imply by "patchwork and piecemeal."

2. But is the US health care system "patchwork and piecemeal compared to the British National Health"?

3. If it is, why should "patchwork" and "piecemeal" necessarily have negative connotations? On the one hand, I think the US health care system could be vastly improved. But on the other hand, I also think it may be good that we have such a diverse health care system. For example, a single centralized gov't entity can't dictate what doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals can and can't do. So I think it's possibly a good thing to be "piecemeal" in this respect, if this is along the lines of what BW3 means by the term.

No, its [the NHS] not a perfect solution to health care problems…. but it’s way better than what we’ve got. I for one would gladly pay lots more in taxes if it meant we had a truly comprehensive healthcare system for everyone in this country. I just would.

I'm sorry to say but that's quite unreflective.

We could debate how best to make that happen, but not, I think, that it would be the most humane thing for it to happen.

1. Why assume the NHS or universal health care is "the most humane thing"? As mentioned above, this assumes universal health care is a basic human right. Is it?

2. BTW, I wonder what BW3 thinks about stuff like:

"Government Control Leads to Denial of Care"

"Patients are denied high cost drugs by NHS trusts"

"NHS waiting list rise prompts government U-turn"

2. A lot of people might have the idea that U.S. hospitals are almost entirely private, and that private entails for-profit (and that for-profit is bad at least when it comes to hospitals).

While it's true most our hospitals are private hospitals, private doesn't necessarily mean for-profit. Let's look at how the numbers breakdown. U.S. hospitals can be more or less divided into three broad categories: non-profit; for-profit; and public aka government. According to the American Hospital Association (2010), there are a total of 5754 hospitals across the nation. Non-profit hospitals number 2904 or approximately 50% of all hospitals. For-profit hospitals number 1013 or approximately 18% of all hospitals. Local and state public/government hospitals number 1068 and federal public/government hospitals number 213 or approximately 22% of all hospitals. (The remaining 556 hospitals or approximately 10% of all hospitals are miscellaneous types of hospitals including prison hospitals, college infirmaries, and most numerous of all psychiatric hospitals.) In short, only 18% of all U.S. hospitals are for-profit hospitals.

As noted, these numbers are based on the most recent AHA data (2010). As far as I can tell, the AHA numbers seem to be on the conservative end. However, other organizations appear to have different numbers. For example, a University of Pennsylvania affiliated source (2005) cites the number of non-profit hospitals as 70% (not 50%) of all U.S. hospitals and likewise claims this 70% has been stable for decades.

If I'm not mistaken, most the non-profit hospitals were originally founded by religious organizations - predominantly Christian but also Jewish.

Of course, in addition to our hospitals, we have other health care providers such as private specialty clinics (e.g. surgical centers). These very often regularly work in tandem with hospitals. Unfortunately, I don't know the numbers of these other health care providers and so I can't compare them to our hospital system.

I'm not sure if military hospitals, VA hospitals, and hospitals for Native Americans (i.e. the Indian Health Service) are included or excluded from the non-profit, for-profit, and public/government numbers.

3. Even if we assume the NHS is more or less on the right track or workable (not that I do assume this), what may work in other nations like the UK may not necessarily work in the US.

4. Anecdotally, here is what one commenter (who favors universal health care) said about the NHS:

I am an American who has married a British national in the UK and currently live in the UK. Because of multiple health situations in the family, we have had frequent use of the NHS health system. This has helped me appreciate the goal of the NHS: to make sure no one is left on their own, but to provide care even for the poorest.

On the flip side, it has helped me appreciate the high quality of care available in the US. The NHS is NOWHERE close to it. Service in the US is much quicker, high quality, and is not strapped by huge government debts and cutbacks. Even elderly people are released here in the middle of the night to free up beds – they are really cutting back. Hospitals are generally clean, but not fresh looking like US hospitals. Capitalism may not be very Christian in the way it motivates healthcare in the US and I would be interested in there being changes, but I haven’t been impressed enough by the NHS to want to switch to that system. I would be more interested in how places like Denmark, Sweden, or Germany are set up. I hear that they are better, but I have no experience of that like I do in the US the UK.

Is the church a "mixed multitude"?

Covenant theology does not draw the same Israel-church distinction. Even though there are differences between the two communities, they are basically the same in the following ways: they are both the one people of God; they experience a similar salvation experience including regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit; their covenant signs (circumcision and baptism), though different, basically convey the same meaning; and by nature they are a “mixed” community versus a regenerate community, so that the locus of the covenant community and the locus of the elect are distinct. This latter emphasis has led to the “visible” versus “invisible” distinction, with the former referring to the “mixed” nature of the church and the latter referring to the elect throughout all ages.

We [the authors] affirm that old covenant believers were regenerated and they were saved by grace through faith in the promises of God.

The church, unlike Israel, is new because she is comprised of a regenerate, believing people rather than a “mixed” group. The true members of the new covenant community are only those who have professed that they have entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith and are partakers of all the benefits and blessings of the new covenant. This is one of the primary reasons why we argue that baptism, which is the covenant sign of the new covenant church, is reserved for only those who have entered into these glorious realities by the sovereign work of God’s grace in their lives.

P. Gentry & S. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 684-85 (cf. 72-76).

i) That’s very idealistic, but I think the authors are drawing an unstable and unsustainable distinction. They have to qualify their distinction in ways parallel to the Presbyterian position they oppose.

ii) Seems to me that NT churches are conspicuously mixed communities. In Acts and various NT letters, we see churches, which include heretics, schismatics, apostates, and impenitent sinners or backsliders.

iii) I also see a pretty direct parallel between the old covenant community and the new covenant community at a compositional level. Both religious communities are largely composed of families. Both communities contain both true believers and nominal believers.

iv) The way the authors formulate their position is equivocal. For instance, they gloss over the crucial distinction between regenerate Christians and professing Christians. Likewise, they say baptism is “reserved for only those who have entered into these glorious realities by the sovereign work of God’s grace in their lives.”

But how, for instance, do Demas, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, or Hymenaeus and Philetus fit into that framework? They were (at one time) professing baptized believers.  Were they regenerate? Were they elect? Did or didn’t they belong to the “church” and/or the new covenant community? Were they “true” members? If not, then are the authors tacitly admitting a two-tiered membership scheme?

Kingdom through Covenant

Both on his own blog as well as the aomin blog, Jamin Hubner has posted a typically wide-eyed, gushy, hyperbolic paean–in this case for the new monograph by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum entitled Kingdom through Covenant. Permit me a few brief observations.

i) The way the authors frame the issue is somewhat misleading. This isn’t so much as alternative to dispensationalism and covenant theology as it is an alternative to dispensationalism and Presbyterianism of the Westminster Confession variety (or its Dutch-Reformed counterparts).

ii) Although the work tries to stake out the middle ground between these two positions, it doesn’t really break any new ground. Instead, it’s an extended defense of Reformed Baptist/new covenant theology, a la Tom Schreiner & D. A. Carson.

Now that’s a very respectable position which merits a careful and respectful hearing. And Kingdom through Covenant is an able, up-to-date exposition and defense of that position. Well worth reading.

But it doesn’t change the state of the debate. It’s a lengthy restatement of a familiar position, with familiar arguments. There’s nothing revolutionary about the thesis or the supporting arguments. We’ve been around this track a few times before. It’s only a game-changer for the uninitiated, or for highly impressionable minds like Hubner, who believe the last thing they’ve read.

At best, it nibbles some of the edges off dispensationalism, but astute dispensationalists are already well-acquainted with the stock objections the authors use, and have well-rehearsed replies. So the work is rather naïve in that respect.

iii) In addition, there are some serious and striking omissions. There’s precious little discussion of Rom 11, even though that’s a central prooftext for “Zionism.” The authors need to present a sustained engagement of that text in relation to commentators and other scholars who think it has reference to the future restoration of ethnic Israel.

The authors also fail to interact with the restoration of Israel motif in Luke-Acts, which scholars like Bock and Bauckham have detailed.

iv) The monograph also has an excellent defense of limited atonement (670-83).

v) Since I’m noncommittal on “Zionism,” I don’t have a personal stake in this debate. That said, I think many (maybe most) anti-Zionists are ultimately motivated by envy and resentment. They feel that God is treating Gentiles as second-class citizens, and they rankle at the demotion. Their attitude  reminds me of Mt 20:21,24-25, which–not coincidentally–comes on the heels of 20:1-16.

But I don’t think Christians should be status conscious. Isn’t it more than enough to be saved? To have the hope of glory?

Links: oldies but goodies

Here are a couple of “oldies but goodies” from my series on “the nonexistent early papacy”:

The Nonexistent Early Papacy: An introduction to the series, it highlights several of the actual contradictions to be found in Roman doctrine concerning the papacy.

As a “Key” to Understand Peter, See Reuben: Biblical, Old Testament “prophecy” that Peter was not ever destined to be “pope”.

Emperor Worship and the Ancient Roman Mindset: Here’s where Jason Stellman’s early church found its urge to be authoritative.

House Churches in Ancient Rome: It’s not enough simply to “tear down” something like the papacy. It’s important to “build” the history of what it was actually like during that time period. This series on “House Churches in Ancient Rome” discusses some of the leaders, and leadership structures, where we have solid information about that time period.

The Papacy’s Missing Link: “The Shepherd of Hermas” wrote in Rome in the years 135-150. He gives a fairly extensive first-hand account of what the church leadership in Rome was like. I’ll give you a hint, he uses these words: “sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart”.

Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome: The “rise of the papacy” corresponds with a burying of Paul’s letters and theology in Rome.

Newman, “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”, and Rome’s Foundational Assumption: The “fallback position” on the nonexistent early papacy.

On church “authority” as a harmful impulse


In the search for “hard edges” of doctrine, a writer named Burton asked me this question:

I assume you believe in the necessity of some means of defining orthodoxy versus heresy regarding doctrine and morals. Is this what you mean by the ministerial role of the church? How, exactly, does the church exercise this ministerial role?

Do you see a distinction between heresy and schism? If so, how does the church in its ministerial role define and correct schismatics?

Too, Jason Stellman talked about an early church that thought of itself as authoritative:

Catholics believe they discover in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative.

Aside from the concept of how “a church” might “think”, of this church, Jason equivocates,

The woman at the well eventually concluded that Jesus was the Messiah. Once she discovered this fact, her responsibility was to submit to and obey him all her days, right? But her initial discovery of who Jesus was did not come because he simply claimed to be the Messiah, but rather, he “told her all the things she ever did” (in other words, the initial discovery resulted from something independent of any claim Jesus made about himself). But just because that discovery was made independently, that did not mean she could continue to subject everything Jesus said to her own rationality or interpretive agreement.

It’s similar with people who become Catholic (it’s not a perfect illustration, but it conveys the basic point). They weigh the biblical and historical evidence and make a judgment. But once that judgment is made, they are responsible to obey the church because of its divine authority.

In response to both of these, I said:

Certainly there is a means of “defining orthodoxy vs heresy” and in that regard, a council such as Nicea (325) or Constantinople (381) or Chalcedon (451) is very helpful. But I think that conceptions of “authority” that the churches of these centuries had was not very helpful at all. Ephesus (431) is counted as one of the “ecumenical” councils, and yet, it was an embarrassment and blot on the history of the church. That is being kind to it. Such shenanigans led to major rifts in the church that have never been healed.

In a similar vein, historically, the papacy is at the pinnacle of those harmful claims to authority.

I have a series I’ve written, both at Triablogue and elsewhere, called “the nonexistent early papacy”. I’ve put together this timeline of the early papacy, which is necessarily incomplete but very revealing nevertheless:

135-150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.

235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).

258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.

306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)

308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).

325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.

366: Followers of “pope” Damasus [hired gravediggers armed with pick-axes] massacre 137 followers of rival “pope” Ursinus following the election of both men to the papacy.

381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)

431: Cyril, “stole” the council (Moffett 174, citing “Book of Heraclides) and “the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings…”

451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome …”

Again and again, “they argued among themselves as to who was greatest”. This is the story of the struggle for “authority” in early Christianity. As Jason Stellman pointed out in comment 296, as he studied the early church, he “discover[ed] in Scripture and the fathers a church that is said to be, and thought of itself as, authoritative”. This is the fruit of that urge to think of themselves as authoritative.

As I’ve stated repeatedly in this comment thread, the Eastern church “never”, ever accepted the claims of the papacy.


You asked, “Do you see a distinction between heresy and schism? If so, how does the church in its ministerial role define and correct schismatics?”

On the basis of the things I’ve written above, I’m willing to say, I don’t have all the right answers, but I’m certain it excludes the Roman way.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Perception

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2012/07/perception.html

The crime of kosher

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3  who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim 4:1-5).

The German court ruling that effectively criminalizes Judaism has gotten a lot of press. But that’s only the first step. Kosher food is in the crosshairs as well:


Today’s kosher meat comes from the same abusive factory farms as all other meat. Despite the humane intention and spirit of the Jewish dietary laws, there are no standards to ensure that kosher slaughter is any less cruel than conventional slaughter. In some instances, it’s been shown to be much worse.

In the face of horrifically cruel and ecologically devastating factory farms and a kosher industry that has sanctioned even the most grisly abuse of animals, it’s difficult to see how eating animals is compatible with Jewish values.


So it’s only a matter of time before they target Jewish delis.

Back in the 70s (I think it was) I used to frequent a Jewish deli in Lake City (Seattle). It was a father/son operation. The elderly proprietor had a lot of old world charm. That’s one reason I went there. After he suffered a heart attack I stopped going.

It only occurred to me years later that he was probably a Holocaust survivor. I’m sure most of his relatives perished in the death camps.

I’m not Jewish, but it’s often virtuous to defend others when we don’t have a personal stake in their wellbeing, viz. the parable of the Good Samaritan. 

Next up they will try to outlaw meat and dairy consumption. And they don’t have to do that directly. They can regulate it to death through red tape, fines, and lawsuits.

And that would violate Christian freedom. Although the Christian faith doesn’t have any dietary requirements, Christians have the right to eat meat and dairy products. 

First they came the brit milah,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a rabbi.

Then they came for the kosher delis,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the meat and dairy products,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a farmer.

Then they came after the pharmacists,
     and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a pharmacist.

Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The Shape of Complementarian Husbanding

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/30/the-shape-of-complementarian-husbanding/

Is William Lane Craig dishonest?

For some reason, Chris Hallquist has a personal vendetta against William Lane Craig. He’s convinced himself that Craig is “dishonest.”

Actually, even if Craig were dishonest, I don’t see why an atheist should get so lathered up over the issue. Does Hallquist think dishonestly is intrinsically evil?

I myself don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a blind follower or fanboy of Craig–although I salute his contributions to the cause.

Here’s a telltale example of Craig’s alleged dishonesty:


There have been debates where Craig spoke second, such as his debates with Kagan and Tabash. But he speaks first in the vast majority of the debates he does. According to this article about how the Harris debate was arranged:

http://www.religiondispatches....

Craig basically tries to dictate the format of his debates, including his speaking first, if he can get away with it. Apparently, "if he can get away with it" ends up being most of the time, but a few times his opponent (or the organizers) will be more assertive about the format they want.


This is just plain paranoid:

i) To begin with, Hallquist makes it sound like a political campaign where one candidate has a commanding lead in the polls. This gives the leading candidate leverage in dictating the terms of the debate. If anything, the leading candidate is looking for a pretext to avoid debating his opponent. He’d like to sit on his comfortable lead. A debate is risky. Unpredictable.

It’s the challenger who desperately needs the debate to shake things up and (hopefully) change the momentum. So the challenger has to make concessions. If he doesn’t, that gives the leading candidate a face-saving excuse to opt out of the debate. If debate negotiations break down, the leading candidate has nothing to lose. And he can blame his opponent.

But that’s hardly analogous to Craig’s situation. He’s initiating debates, not evading debates. And he doesn’t have a mountain of bargaining chips. 

ii) More to the point, why does Hallquist imagine that giving the first opening statement is a tactical advantage? Isn’t that backwards? Seems to me that it’s not who speaks first but who speaks last who enjoys the edge.

The debater who gives the final closing statement is in a position to shore up his earlier performance. Give a self-serving précis of his argument as well as  his opponent’s argument. Because the final closing statement is unrebutted, the debater is in a position to misrepresent his opponent’s position. Make it seem weaker than it really is.

After a long debate, audience is more likely to remember the last thing they heard rather than the first thing they heard. The debater who speaks last can shape the final impressions of the debate.

The exilic sanctuary

14 And the word of the Lord came to me: 15  “Son of man, your brothers, even your brothers, your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, all of them, are those of whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, ‘Go far from the Lord; to us this land is given for a possession.’ 16 Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Though I removed them far off among the nations, and though I scattered them among the countries, yet I have been a sanctuary to them for a while in the countries where they have gone.’ (Ezk 11:14-16).

i) Dispensationalists accuse amils of “spiritualizing” the temple in Ezk 40ff. However, the basic reason amils interpret the temple figuratively is because Revelation interprets the temple figuratively when John understands the Ezekielian temple to prefigure the new Jerusalem.

So that’s not an amil interpretation of Ezk 40-48. That interpretation isn’t generated by filtering Ezk 40-48 through amil hermeneutics. The amil understanding isn’t the result of an amil interpretation; rather, the amil understanding is the result of John’s interpretation.

ii) However, what about Ezekiel on its own terms? Ezekiel “spiritualizes” the temple too. Take the above passage. The unexiled Judeans equated God’s presence with proximity to the holy land. They were left behind when their compatriots were deported. They still inhabited the holy land. They could still worship in the ruins of the Solomonic temple (e.g. Jer 41:5).

They assumed the exiles were far from God because the exiles were far from the holy land. Far from the temple precincts. Banished from the presence of God.

But Ezekiel says God was present with the deportees. God himself was their “sanctuary” for the duration of the Babylonian exile. Even though that exilic sanctuary was spiritual, it was more real than the material temple, for Solomon’s temple was just a token of God’s presence rather than the reality.

The temple in general, and the inner sanctum in particular, was just a physical emblem of God’s presence. The deportees experienced the reality of God’s presence without the physical emblem. The two were always separable in theory, and in this case the separation was patent. They had access to God without the outward medium.

Of course, that doesn’t prove the figurative interpretation of Ezk 40-48. It does, however, lay the groundwork for that understanding within the same book. For Ezekiel himself articulates the principle of a spiritual temple. So viewing Ezk 40-48 as an extended metaphor is not extraneous to Ezekiel’s outlook. Indeed, a rebuilt temple would be retrograde on Ezekiel’s own terms.

Ezk 11:16 likely alludes to Ezekiel’s theophanic visions in Babylon. The theophanic storm cloud is a dynamic (rather than static) sanctuary. A portable sanctuary. Heavenly rather than earthly. He himself experienced God’s presence in exile.

A false Euthyphro dilemma

A Quick Euthyphro Dilemma Reply to Craig's Argument Against Atheistic Significance, Meaning, and Purpose
 
1. Either (a) the purposes God sets for our lives are significant because God wills them, or (b) God wills them because they're significant.
2. If (a), then what counts as a significant life is arbitrary.
3. If (b), then what counts as a significant life is independent of God
---------------
4. Therefore, what counts as a significant life is either arbitrary or independent of God.


That’s a false dilemma. For instance, what makes the life of a dolphin significant isn’t interchangeable with what makes the life of a man significant. That’s because a dolphin is a different kind of creature, with a different habitat.

The respective significance of their lives isn’t simply due to God’s sheer will, but to God’s design. On the one hand, that’s not arbitrary. Rather, that’s grounded in the nature of the creature, as well as the nature of world to which the creature is preadapted. On the other hand, that’s not independent of God.

Exbrainer hasn’t made any intellectual progress since I first debated him, years ago. He’s not smart enough to be an atheist. No one is.

Does inerrancy die the death of a thousand qualifications?

I think John Piper’s definition of inerrancy as “perfection with respect to purpose” is good EXCEPT most people would not think that’s what “inerrancy” means. The vast majority of people who hear about “biblical inerrancy” THINK it means technical, precise, exact correspondence with reality with no room for estimates, rounding up or down of numbers, reliance on errant sources, etc., etc. During thirty years of teaching theology I have had the constant experience of showing students the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and conservative evangelical theologians’ qualifications (e.g., Millard Erickson’s) and having them laugh. When I asked them why they laughed they always said “That’s not ‘inerrancy’.” Exactly.

What has happened is that conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars like Piper and Erickson and others have realized, as a result of their higher educations and researches, that the Bible DOES contain what most people (including they in the past) consider “errors.” But they want to hold onto the term “inerrancy” because it is such a useful litmus test for excluding “liberals” and other undesirables from the evangelical movement. So, instead of simply discarding the term “inerrancy,” they redefine it to death. But, almost no lay person and few pastors understand that’s what’s happening. They think the leading defenders of “inerrancy” believe what THEY do. The secret is, the scholars don’t.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/further-thoughts-on-why-inerrancy-is-problematic/

This is a hackneyed attack on inerrancy. Because Olson can’t think for himself, he simply parrots the cliché-ridden objection. According to this objection, inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

But that way of broaching the issue is fundamentally misconceived. It’s not like conservatives begin with a crude, ready-made definition of inerrancy, then proceed to refine it with ad hoc qualifications. For inerrancy is, itself, a theological construct, which derives from the self-witness of Scripture. We’re not taking a generic, preexisting definition, then redefining it. We’re not adding to, or subtracting from some off-the-shelf definition.

Both liberals and conservatives bring their expectations to the Bible. Both liberals and conservatives come to the Bible with mental preconceptions or qualifications. The concept of inerrancy is no more or less qualified than the concept of errancy. Both sides have prior understanding or considered opinion of what it would mean for the Bible to be true or false. Conservatives haven’t tacked on special riders.

Olson himself clearly has a preconceived notion of what the Bible ought to be like it if were completely true. And the Bible doesn’t measure up to his expectations. So he has his own set of caveats and codicils. It’s not like he begins with a pure, value-free concept of truth.

The ‘Rule of Faith’ and the New Testament Canon

David Anders #224:
I think perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in my question.

I wasn’t asking about how we identify the canon.
(For the record, however, I have glanced at Kruger.)

For the sake of argument – even if I were to grant Kruger his thesis – (‘self-attestation’) – this still does not get at my question.

The question is not, “how do we identify the canon?”

It is, rather, “How do we know that the canon is (or is not) the rule of faith?”

My understanding of the Protestant confessions leads me to the understand that

1) All articles of faith must be established by divine revelation.
2) Sola Scriptura is an article of faith.
3) Sola Scriptura means that the canon (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.

Presumably, then, Sola Scriptura must be established by divine revelation.

My question: where does divine revelation establish that this canon of Scripture we possess (however we come to recognize it) is the Rule of Faith.

Why Miracles Aren't More Documented


Though I've given some examples of miracle accounts that are supported by a lot of evidence, people often ask why there aren't more such accounts. Why isn't there more documentation of miracles, especially miracles that supposedly have occurred in our era of widespread technology, political freedoms, and other advantages? Asking why there isn't more evidence doesn't explain the evidence we have. Still, why isn't there more?

Sunday, July 29, 2012

The in-group

I’m going to propose a modest little argument for infant baptism. Mind you, I don’t think there’s much riding on this issue one way or the other.

The usual arguments for and against infant baptism are theological. Mine is sociological. Let’s begin with some illustrations.

When I’m born, I’m born into a community. I have an individual identity, but I also have a social or familial identity. I have a built-in set of relationships. I’m born into a family. I’m related to my parents. I’m related to my siblings, if I have any. I’m related to aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents.

By “relation” I don’t mean a blood relation, per se. After all, some of my relatives are in-laws.

Rather, there’s a sense in which I belong to that social unit. I’m a member of that nuclear family or extended family. And there’s nothing I did to achieve that status. Rather, that’s an ascribed status.

Likewise, if I’m born to rich parents, that puts me in a differential social class than if I’m born to poor parents. And I did nothing to merit or demerit that social status. It’s a role I’m born into by virtue of second parties I’m related to.

Or take nationality. I was born in America to American parents. That automatically made me an American citizen. The United States claims me. I have certain rights and responsibilities as an American, in contrast to rights and responsibilities I’d have as an Italian or Scotsman or Frenchman.

Suppose your parents belong to a church. They belong to a religious community. If you’re born to your parents, you are thereby born into their religious community. Because they belong to that religious community, and you belong to your parents (“belong” in the sense of being a family member), you belong to that community. You acquire their preexisting social attachments. Their affiliation becomes your affiliation via your affiliation to them.

Infant baptism is a public acknowledgement that you’re a member of that religious community by virtue of your relationship to your parents, and their relationship to the religious community. It carries over. (This would also be true if your parents joined a church.) You are born into whatever in-group your parents belong to.

You’re not treated as an outsider. It’s not like you just walked in off the street.

To take another illustration, when I was a young kid, the principal of the school where my father taught held a summer picnic on school grounds for the faculty. But, of course, attendance wasn’t restricted to faculty. Spouses and children of faculty members were both allowed and expected to come. They were part of the in-group. Although they weren’t employed by the school, they were treated differently than a stranger who simply walked onto the campus to crash the party. The man on the street wasn’t invited to the picnic.

By the same token, it’s possible to lose your ascriptive membership. In principle, I could renounce my American citizenship. I could apply for citizenship in another country. That would be analogous to apostasy. Or I could be convicted of treason and deported. That would be analogous to excommunication.

Ascriptive membership is different from communicant membership. That’s not transmissible. Communicant membership requires a credible profession of faith. Kinship doesn’t cut it.

A Catholic conundrum

Traditionally, Catholic apologists have tried to prooftext Catholicism from Scripture, church fathers, church councils, &c. However, that’s a double-edged sword. For Protestant apologists can cite the same sources to disprove Catholicism.

The point is not that Rome can’t find any support for some of her dogmas in the church fathers or church councils. The problem is that while these sources lend support for Rome in some respects, they undermine Rome in other respects. What they give with one hand they take with another.

As a result, Catholic apologists have to fall back on the Magisterium to sift and sort authoritative traditions from unauthoritative traditions. However, that raises the question of how Catholic apologists establish the authority of the Magisterium in the first place. You can’t cite tradition to ratify the Magisterium if the Magisterium must winnow authentic tradition from the chaff. So the appeal is viciously circular.

More recently, Bryan Cross and Michael Liccione have taken a different tack. When Protestant apologists quote Catholic sources or patristic sources against them, they say that begs the question. For that assumes you can interpret the sources apart from the Magisterium. That’s a “solo-Scriptura” methodology.

So they deny that you can directly prooftext the issue one way or the other. Rather, your prooftexting is only as good as your interpretive paradigm.

However, that maneuver comes at a cost. It means Liccione and Cross can’t directly prooftext their position either. Moreover, their tactic relocates the problem. Instead of furnishing evidence for Catholicism, they must now furnish evidence for their interpretive paradigm.

And they need evidence that’s independent of Catholic or patristic sources, for their interpretation of the sources is only as good as their interpretive paradigm. They can’t derive their paradigm from the sources if their interpretation of the sources is paradigm-dependent. So how do they establish their interpretive paradigm in the first place? How does the process ever get started?

Mapping Ezekiel

I’m going to discuss how some of Ezekiel’s mises en scène relate to each other:

Portable Sanctuary


1  In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin), 3 the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.

4 As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. 5 And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, 6  but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. 10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. 12  And each went straight forward. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. 13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning.

15  Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. 16  As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. 17  When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. 18 And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. 19  And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. 20  Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21  When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads. 23 And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body. 24 And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.

26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance. 27 And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. 28 Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.

Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
(Ezk 1)

12  Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great earthquake: “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place!” 13 It was the sound of the wings of the living creatures as they touched one another, and the sound of the wheels beside them, and the sound of a great earthquake.
(Ezk 3:12-13)

1 Then I looked, and behold, on the expanse that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in appearance like a throne. 2 And he said to the man clothed in linen, “Go in among the whirling wheels underneath the cherubim. Fill your hands with burning coals from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city.”

And he went in before my eyes. 3 Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the house, when the man went in, and a cloud filled the inner court. 4 And the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub to the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the Lord. 5 And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks.

6 And when he commanded the man clothed in linen, “Take fire from between the whirling wheels, from between the cherubim,” he went in and stood beside a wheel. 7 And a cherub stretched out his hand from between the cherubim to the fire that was between the cherubim, and took some of it and put it into the hands of the man clothed in linen, who took it and went out. 8 The cherubim appeared to have the form of a human hand under their wings.

9  And I looked, and behold, there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub, and the appearance of the wheels was like sparkling beryl. 10 And as for their appearance, the four had the same likeness, as if a wheel were within a wheel. 11  When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went, but in whatever direction the front wheel faced, the others followed without turning as they went. 12  And their whole body, their rims, and their spokes, their wings, and the wheels were full of eyes all around—the wheels that the four of them had. 13 As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing “the whirling wheels.” 14  And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was a human face, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

15  And the cherubim mounted up. These were the living creatures that I saw by the Chebar canal. 16  And when the cherubim went, the wheels went beside them. And when the cherubim lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the wheels did not turn from beside them. 17  When they stood still, these stood still, and when they mounted up, these mounted up with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in them.

18  Then the glory of the Lord went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19  And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the Lord, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.

20 These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the Chebar canal; and I knew that they were cherubim. 21  Each had four faces, and each four wings, and underneath their wings the likeness of human hands. 22  And as for the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces whose appearance I had seen by the Chebar canal. Each one of them went straight forward.
(Ezk 10:1-22)

22 Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them. 23 And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city. 24  And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen went up from me. 25 And I told the exiles all the things that the Lord had shown me.
(Ezk 11:22-25)

i) This is a multifaceted visionnary series. The theophany combines elements of a throne, a chariot, and a sanctuary. It’s often described as a portable throne, but because God is holy, his throne-room is also a sanctuary. The holiness of God sanctifies or consecrates his throne-room.

ii) Apropos (i), cherubim figure in the temple and the tabernacle. They guard the inner sanctum.

They function as sentinels. Their function is not to protect God, but to protect sinners from trespassing on holy space. Holiness is dangerous to sinners. Holiness is deadly to sinners. Restricted access to God is a safety precaution.

iii) Scholars have always found it difficult to visualize the wheels. This may be because the imagery is multivalent. It may evoke chariot wheels (cf. Ps 18:9-14. It may also allude to the wheeled laver-stands in the Temple, with cherubic decoration (1 Kgs 7:27-37).

They may also represent the moving stars. The theophanic sanctuary is a microcosm of the world, with allusions to the creation account, with sky and water. And the dynamic Spirit. Cf. B. Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1,” From Gods to God (Mohr Seibeck 2009).

iv) The “eyes” (Ezk 1:18) could either be eyestones or stars. If the former, they evoke the firestones in Ezk 28. If the latter, they evoke Gen 1.Cf. Halpern, ad loc.

The Edenic Sanctuary


“You were the signet of perfection,
     full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
     every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond,
    beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
    and crafted in gold were your settings
    and your engravings.
On the day that you were created
    they were prepared.
14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.
    I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
    in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15 You were blameless in your ways
     from the day you were created,
    till unrighteousness was found in you.
16 In the abundance of your trade
    you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
    and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
    from the midst of the stones of fire.
17  Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
    you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
    I exposed you before kings,
    to feast their eyes on you.
18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
    in the unrighteousness of your trade
    you profaned your sanctuaries;
so I brought fire out from your midst;
    it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
     in the sight of all who saw you.
(Ezk 28:11-18)

This has intertextual connections with Gen 2-3 as well as Ezk 1 & 10.

i) There’s the guardian cherub. In this case a fallen cherub.

ii) The gems and precious metals recall Gen 2:11-12.

iii) The gemstones evoke the breastplate of the high priest.

iv) The gemstones recall the sapphire throne, eyestones, and chrysolite wheels in Ezk 1.

v) The firestones may be analogous to the burning coals in Ezk 10.

vi) The holy mount evokes Mt. Zion (e.g. 11:23).

vii) The garden is an earthly sanctuary. Holy ground.

The Visionary Temple


In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me to the city. 2 In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south.
(Ezk 40:1-2).

The inside of the nave and the vestibules of the court, 16  the thresholds and the narrow windows and the galleries all around the three of them, opposite the threshold, were paneled with wood all around, from the floor up to the windows (now the windows were covered), 17 to the space above the door, even to the inner room, and on the outside. And on all the walls all around, inside and outside, was a measured pattern. 18 It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: 19  a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. 20 From the floor to above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved; similarly the wall of the nave.

21 The doorposts of the nave were squared, and in front of the Holy Place was something resembling 22  an altar of wood, three cubits high, two cubits long, and two cubits broad. Its corners, its base, and its walls were of wood. He said to me, “This is the table that is before the Lord.” 23 The nave and the Holy Place had each a double door. 24 The double doors had two leaves apiece, two swinging leaves for each door. 25 And on the doors of the nave were carved cherubim and palm trees, such as were carved on the walls. And there was a canopy of wood in front of the vestibule outside.
(Ezk 43:15-25).

i) The mountaintop setting recalls both Mt. Zion (11:23) and Eden (28:14,16).

ii) The decorative cherubim are 2D representations of the real 3D cherubim in Ezk 1 & 10. They symbolically guard the inner sanctum.

The New Eden


Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. 2 Then he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and behold, the water was trickling out on the south side.

3 Going on eastward with a measuring line in his hand, the man measured a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water, and it was ankle-deep. 4 Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was knee-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was waist-deep. 5 Again he measured a thousand, and it was a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. 6 And he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?”

Then he led me back to the bank of the river. 7 As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. 8 And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. 9 And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. 10 Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. 11 But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. 12 And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.”
(Ezk 47:1-12)

i) The scene is Edenic. The trees, rivers, and wildlife represent a new Eden.

ii) The torrential river also recalls the “sound of many waters” in 1:24.

iv) The river recalls the canal where Ezekiel received his inaugural vision (Ezk 1:1).

Due to certain parallels between these mises en scène, they are mutually interpretive. If, for instance, the depiction of the Edenic cherub in Ezk 28 is highly stylized, then it wouldn’t be surprising if, say, the depiction of the temple in Ezk 40ff. is quite stylized.

Orcs and hobbits

There’s a debate over the papacy at Green Baggins. The debate is going badly, for the same reason debates there always go badly. That’s because outsiders like Bryan Cross are always allowed to dictate the terms of engagement.

For instance:

Bryan Cross said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm

You’re [sic] “textualist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.

Notice, for instance, how Bryan rigs the burden of proof, as if the onus lay on Protestants to prove the “impossibility” of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition. But, of course, that’s backwards. It’s up to Bryan to demonstrate the reality of God establishing the Church with a living and authoritative oral Tradition.

Also notice how easy it would be to perform a reductio ad absurdam on Bryan’s argument, viz.

Joseph Smith said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Your “countercult” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of the angel Moroni revealing the golden tablets (magic reading glasses not included) to Joseph Smith

Blarney Stone said,
July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Your “anti-fairyist” stance is a question-begging stance. It presupposes the impossibility (at least unacceptability on your part) of leprechauns on the Isle of Man hiding from investigators.

Bryan accuses Lane of begging the question. But if (arguendo) it’s question-begging for Lane to frame the issue in “solo-Scriptura” terms, then it’s equally question-begging for Bryan to frame the issue in (allegedly) Catholic terms. It’s not enough to say Protestants must justify their interpretive paradigm, and leave it at that, as if Catholics don’t share a parallel burden of proof to justify their own paradigm. If Bryan is going to appeal to the church fathers, then he needs to take the preliminary step of first explaining why his interpretive paradigm is right.

And not just a hypothetical argument for the hypothetical virtues of the Catholic paradigm, but an argument for why we should believe that’s actually the case.

Moreover, as I pointed out recently, there’s no reason to think Bryan’s “interpretive paradigm” is the Catholic paradigm. Compare it to this paradigm:

Finally, Wall says that interpretation–presumably both as exegesis and as application insofar as the two are distinguished–is subject to the rule of faith, going back to Irenaeus. However, why should any churchly summary of the gospel, an extracanonical interpretation, be the norm for subsequent interpretation?…Should not our creeds be subject to Scripture and revisable in light of our growing, or at least changing, understanding of biblical teaching?...Appeal to any creed or rule of faith needs to be conscious of its human, fallible character.

Stanley Porter & Beth Stovell, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (IVP Academic, 2012), 173.

Finally, even if, for the sake of argument, Lane was guilty of begging the question, that objection only goes so far. Bryan needs to know, for his own sake, that Catholicism is true. Deflecting Protestant objections isn’t sufficient. How does Bryan know that Catholicism is true? What’s his argument? That’s something he need to know for himself, regardless of whether Protestants are leveling fallacious objections (which I don’t concede). Why does Bryan keep running away from that question? Is it because he can’t answer that question? He can’t give a good answer? He can only swat the objection away?

His tactic is to prevent his opponent from winning. But that doesn’t make him win the argument. There’s a difference between not losing and winning. A stalemate isn’t victory.

What is Bryan’s positive case for Catholicism? What is Bryan's concrete evidence that Catholicism is true? Not hypotheticals, but actual evidence.

Bryan loves to change the subject. Instead of proving Catholicism, he tries to rebut Protestant objections to Catholicism. But that’s not the same thing.

Now Bryan might say that he can’t give direct evidence because the interpretation of evidence is paradigm-dependent. But he doesn't offer a direct argument for his interpretive paradigm, either.

To say you can’t begin with the evidence, you must begin with the interpretive paradigm, only pushes the question back a step. Okay, so suppose we begin with the paradigm. Suppose we take Bryan up on the offer. In that event he needs to make a case for his paradigm. Where’s the argument?

All Liccione ever says to justify the paradigm is that that’s necessary to close the gap between opinion and the assent of faith. But why is it necessary to close that (alleged) gap in the first place? He’s tacitly appealing to a Catholic presupposition. So it’s turtles all the way down.

A token grief

I’m appalled to see that Ben Witherington has published a book about his daughter’s death. That, of itself, doesn’t leave me appalled. Writing reaction pieces in the heat of the moment can be therapeutic for the mourner.

What’s appalling is the publication date. This was published two months after she died. And we have to make allowance for the lag time between the time he sent the MS to the publisher, and the time it came out. Admittedly, the turn around time is shorter for an ebook. Even so, I assume the book was written barely a month after his daughter died.

So this is an instant grief manual. Yet surely the impact of his daughter’s death has yet to fully sink in. A loss like that has delayed effects as well as immediate effects. You can scarcely begin to process the loss a few weeks after the event. How can he give advice to other mourners at this stage in the process? Isn’t that unbearably shallow and shortsighted? Why not wait a few years?

Surely his daughter’s death merits more sustained reflection that the movie reviews he dashes off. Should this be just another rush-job, like so much of his output? 

Why the haste? Why the nonstop output? How can he just move on to the next series of projects without missing a beat?

Why maintain the frenetic pace of teaching, speaking, writing? Why not slow down? Take a break? Go on Sabbatical? Rent a cottage by the lake. Take his wife. Go for long walks in the woods. Or take a rowboat. Have quiet time for prayer. Mediation. Read devotionally. Be receptive to what God is teaching him in this experience.

Not everyone has that luxury. Lots of folks have to work long hours five or six days a week to pay the bills. But his schedule is more flexible.  He’s a workaholic by choice, not necessity. It’s not unusual for career-driven men to be self-absorbed. That’s something we need to resist.

Even if Witherington was something of an absentee husband and father, given his ambitious itinerary, imagine what his wife is going through. If not for himself, can’t he take extra time out of his hectic schedule for her, during this time of desolation and devastation? I’m reminded of something I recently read: Application is the whole purpose of biblical interpretation. Short of this goal the interpretive task is incomplete and risks reducing Scripture–however high our view–to an object to be mastered rather than a voice to be heeded.

Christian piety is ultimately about what we are, not what we do. About spiritual formation. Fostering a godly character.