Atheism, Utopianism, and Totalitarianism

[Attention: This posts is not about all atheists, or what all atheists believe, or even (necessarily) all utopianism - please read carefully]

I will begin with a comment I made in a discussion of Bill Maher's "enabling" of the "Religious Right" (all the scare quotes there are because I do not think any of that terminology is very good).

Suffice it to say, that the view of Marx on the philosophical side was the same as Dawkins: progress will only occur in solving the world's problems if the metaphysical, non-naturalist ideologies and theologies standing in the way of that progress (and they always stand in the way of that progress) are isolated from the culture so they can no longer stand in the way of that progress.

In either case, both Marxism and Dawkins stated, or seriously implied, that religion must be removed as an influence in society in order for humanity to solve its real problems and evolve to a higher order of human social relationship. In the case of Marxism in power, that led in every case to atrocities against the religious and holders of other "bourgeois philosophies" in order to move that evolution on.

There is no doubt that the modern history of totalitarianism is primarily anchored with expressly atheist ideology (Communism) or non-Christian ideology (Hitler). The slaughter has been enormous - far, far outweighing the closest of Christian kings or rulers since the beginning of Christendom around 400 AD. Religious, but non-Christian, kings have not been as bloodthirsty either by several orders of magnitude. Why is this?

Read more!

Blog Tour: 8/30 - 9/5

This re-initiates my old practice of looking around the web - hopefully once a week - and drawing some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Christian Carnival picks:

• Shannon at The Minority Thinker examines why they are "Quitting Small Group". After having read it, I have to agree with these two statements:

  Over fifteen years, I have been part of almost a dozen small groups sponsored by three different churches; my husband has joined me in most of them. Never once have I developed a close friendship through one of these groups.

  and

  We are told to confess our sins to each other [I tore a group up doing this], to restore each other, to love each other, to encourage each other, and to serve together as the body of Christ. I have rarely – if ever – seen these things happen in a small group. And if that kind of fellowship isn’t taking place regularly, why do we keep trying the same methods and hoping for different results? It seems to me it’s time for a new approach.

• Henry at Participatory Bible Study Blog responds to:

  … The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …

  with "Indentifying Define Revelation"

President Obama's address to school children: I created a category for this expecting to see a bit of stuff on it - but there really wasn't much:

• Jim at Volokh Conspiracy took a look back at the news articles, etc. connected with President George H.W. Bush's 1991 Speech to Schools.

  On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was eported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." [Written text is here - and wasn't checked against the tapes]

• John Piper weighed in with "I Hope My Daughter Hears the President’s Speech":

  I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
  
  I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
  
  This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly . . .

Jason S at Fundamentally Changed looks at how extreme fundamentalism can be involved in "Transgressing By Traditions":

Today I call upon all of my fundamentalist brethren to honestly take the time to examine their doctrines and practices and see how they measure up to God’s Word, the five sola’s, and the historic fundamentals. If they don’t fit that, they must be discarded, no matter how old, precious, and dear they are to us.

Iraq the Model this week is focusing on the crisis raised by Syria's apparent complicity in the August 19th bombing which killed 95 people and wounded 600. One of the stories began

Iraq continues to insist on internationalizing the crisis with Syria, which began after Iraq demanded that Syria hands over senior Ba’ath Party members. Iraq now plans to persuade the international community to form an international criminal court, similar to the one investigating the assassination of the late Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed at a meeting with the Turkish FM that Iraq “will move forward to demand that the UN forms an international tribunal to prosecute those who committed ugly crimes that target Iraq’s stability and people and killed many innocent lives”.

Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed points to a book by

David Bentley Hart, a historian of ideas, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies , has been our guide into some of the philosophical and historical issues at work among the new atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. One of the implicit and sometimes explicit claims is that we are enlightened and that
the secular state is safer than a religious-shaped state. To which Hart makes this statement, and he expresses the growing body of literature that both denies the myth of secularization (that all things are becoming more secular) and reveals the profound mischief of the secular state:

"We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history, during which the secular state (on both the political right and the political left), freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved. If ever an age deserved to be thought an age of darkness, it is surely ours. One might almost be tempted to conclude that secular government is the one form of government that has shown itself too violent, capricious, and unprincipled to be trusted" (106)

Jeremy at Parableman points to "Obama's Widely-Unpublicized Backtrack on Stem Cells" - belatedly for sure because it occurred a while back:

2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)

This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Notice that now not only is there no federal funding of ESCR - President Obama removed President Bush's mandate of federal funding for IPSC research as well. Incidentally, Jeremy did what anyone should really do when confronted by such a reported contradiction between stated positions of politicians and their actual actions:

When I first read this, I immediately wanted to find something to verify it. It was incredibly difficult to find an actual news story on it, since the mainstream media either suppressed it or never got the information on it. The one news story I could find was from a partisan organization, but it does give chapter and verse for where to find the language in the bill that does indeed do exactly what the story says it does. It's in Title V, section 509 of the Omnibus spending bill (page 128 of this PDF; it appears in full here). It repeats verbatim exactly the section that since 1996 has appeared in every such spending bill under President Clinton and President Bush.

Rick at Rightwing Nuthouse as been writing a whole series of articles about conservative reform - three in the last week. All of them are, to me, important for both folks on the right and the left to read.

Orin at Volokh Conspiracy looks at "al-Kidd v. Ashcroft: Is Pretextual Use of the Material Witness Statute Unconstitutional?":

The Ninth Circuit handed down a fascinating and important case on preventive detention on Friday, and one that I suspect added a new case to the Supreme Court's docket next year: al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The basic holding of the opinion is that the post-9/11 practice of using the material witness statute to detain suspected terrorists is not only unconstitutional, but clearly unconstitutional, and that former AG Ashcroft can be personally sued for his role in it. The majority opinion was written by Judge Milan Smith and joined by Judge Thompson; Judge Bea wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

There's a lot of coverage of the case in newspapers and around the web, but nothing that really delves into the legal questions. That's understandable, as the opinions in the case fill about 100 pages. But in this post, I wanted to delve into the legal questions and see if the court's opinion holds up to scrutiny.
. . .
Fortunately, this case is perfect for Supreme Court review: If the en banc Ninth Circuit passes on it, this case will give the Supreme Court an ideal opportunity to evaluate the very important question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to preventive detention.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureII. Canonization of the New Testament

Part I ended with the five key questions a book had to face to become part of the New Testament canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?


2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?


3. Did the book tell the truth about God?


4. Did the book come with the power of God?


5. Was the book accepted by the people of God?

Also mentioned there:

The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon.

Certain works are referred to as "from the Lord" or described, and used, as scripture along with the Old Testament. ( 1 Thess 5:27, 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Peter 3:15-16 ). Indeed, the first combined Old Testament quote with something from the New is in

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," [Deut 25:4] and, "The worker deserves his pay." [cf. Luke 10:7]

Those five questions above played out over parts of four centuries as the canon developed, and was finally settled once and for all (sorta) in 367 AD. Breaking the period up into pretty arbitrary divisions:

First Century
the books are written and begin to be copied and disseminated

There are frequent exhortations in scripture for the community read the Apostolic [a key point in future canonization decisions] communications outloud when they meet.

In 95 AD Clement of Rome writes a Letter to the Corinthians where he shows familiarity with Matthew, Luke, Romans, Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and Ephesians

First half of 2nd century
as they become more widely known and cherished, they begin to be cited

The first three great church fathers - Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius - used the bulk of the material of the New Testament in a casual manner - authenticated scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In their writings, only Mark, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter are not clearly cited

The Epistles of Ignatius (c. AD 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters.

It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this,

Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.

Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4)

Papias uses citations from Matthew and Mark and uses them in exposition.

The Gospel of Truth, a gnostic work probably written by Valentinius, treats the Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and Revelations as authoritaive

Marcion in his gnostic canon included Luke, and the letters of Paul (except the pastorals)

Justin Martyr places the Apostlic writings on a par with those of the Old Testament prophets. He freely used "it is written" in talking about the apostolic writings.

Second half of 2nd Century
held a recognized place alongside "scripture", and began to be translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries

Irenaeus - a student of Polycarp who was in turn a student of the Apostles themselves - quotes from almost the entire New Testament as authoritative

Tatian - a pupil of Justin Martyr's - writes a harmony of the four gospels showing their equal standing.

The Muratorian Canon cites the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation

Translations existed in languages from the east to the west of the church - only lacking 2 Peter.

Third Century
the collecting of the books into whole "New Testaments"; and the sifting of Christian literature for that purpose

Revelations was generally accepted in the west, but had variable acceptance in the east.

Hebrews was the reverse.

Indeed, those books with less than full support still occupy the end position in the Bible today: Hebrews - Revelations

Fourth Century
the church fathers stating that conclusions have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church

Eusebius, in his church history covers the status going into Nicea:

• universally agreed: four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews - with questions about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelations;


• admitted by majority: James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude.

Nicea was essentially a rubber-stamp on the Canon; and indeed it really wasn't entirely settled until later in the century - assuming you want to ignore Luther and Calvin's issues.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureI. "Literalist"? Er, No - and Introduction

I got into a "tiff" with a guy I like a lot over at Street Prophets over the use of the word "literalist" or "literalism" when it comes to folks like me who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and that it has authority both as a spiritual guide and in all it asserts (even historically). I am in no way confused that Solomon was talking about real baby deer attached to the chest of his wife. I am also not confused that the bulk of the Gospel accounts is reportage:

Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable nv vuz (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.

So, I get what is "literal" and what is "figurative" - and I understand scripture has both types of writings. However, the "literalist" label - as generally used - isn't about the understanding of literary types. The general conversation (not the one with Russell) goes like this:

Other person: "I am a Christian, but I do not believe [for example] that hell exists [or the resurrection or the Virgin birth or miracles in general] or "I am a Christian, and I think the foundation of Christ's teachings are the Beatitudes [but not the whole Sermon on the Mount] " or "I like the teachings of Jesus - but Paul screwed the whole thing up"

The "literalist": "Great, but didn't Christ mention hell more than anyone else in the Bible" or "Great, but Christ said it was the Great Commandment" or "What about the more difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount about judgement and hell, divorce, etc" or "Paul was accepted by the Body of Christ as both an apostle and a great teacher about Christ"

The Other person: "The Bible was written by men, living in a particular culture, and I just do not accept that God would [send someone to hell, do miracles, etc.]. You "literalists" just do not see the overall beauty and poetry of scripture because you are too concerned with facts - and we know the New Testiment is not historically accurate." or [the point of this post] "There are many other parts to Christian tradition than the Bible as canonized by Constantine in the 4th century"

For those that are personally attracted to the spiritual aspects of the Bible (and not whether it is "real" or not) -- I am in no way diminishing their love of scripture, or the road that led them to Christ. NOT IN THE LEAST. I am talking about folks who toss out - in doing that or otherwise - all the criticisms of the historicity, authorship, etc. of scripture coming from the anti-supernaturalist scholars of the 18th century and beyond (as if that stuff is "just proven"); and imply that anyone who believes that scripture was written by who the 1st and 2nd century church thought it was written by (and believe in the reported miracles by a real Christ and/or God) are hopeless rubes unable to grasp simple modern scholarship and science - hence the inaccurate (and pejorative) "literalist" label. Those criticisms, unproven (and indeed many proven false) undermine - intentionally or not - the authority of scripture; and can place folks who listen in a position to misunderstand the direct teachings of Christ.

I care about that for two reasons:

1. For those seeking to follow Christ: they end up trying to follow not THE Christ but their Christ - the Christ their affections and beliefs are most comfortable following and not the Savior - rich, deep and real - of scripture. It is not the "literalists" who limit God and Christ by demanding that others take the full breadth of revelation into account - "inconsistancies" and all - but those who wish to narrow the scope of God's power and Christ's message.
   
   Modern "scholarship" - taken to it's worst extreme - is the Jesus Seminar voting on what Jesus really said and what he didn't. We do not really get to pick and chose like that in my view; nor do we get to limit Christ to what our modern sensibilities find "reasonable".
   
   There is plenty of scriptural reason to believe that just any belief about Christ is not adequate - that right belief about Christ is important.



2. For those teaching such a Christ and such a view of scripture: they are placing themselves in the direct line of Christ's warning

   Matthew 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.

That should do it for now on that ugly word "literalist"

* * * * *

I have talked a fair amount about the historicity of scripture as well as Biblical authorship, particularly of the pivotal work in this whole argument - the Gospel of John. I have not really outlined what I see as the process of canonization of the New Testament. I see two general views:

• that the canon of scripture was enforced on the Body of Christ from above by the hierarchy in order to drive competing (and possibly legitimate) theological views out of the church; and



• that the canon of scripture developed organically within the Body of Christ - including through those great early theological battles - and that the leadership of the church finally rubber-stamped that view and sealed the canon.

I believe there are some elements of both - but by far and away the second view is how the Canon developed. The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon. My ilk see canonized books - from reading the historical record - having had five questions to survive in order to become part of the canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? In the case of the New Testament, this meant Apostolic authorship
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? The primary Biblical purpose of miracles was to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God.
3. Did the book tell the truth about God?
4. Did the book come with the power of God? This refers to the ability to transform the lives touched by it. The presence of God's transforming power was an indication that God was behind it.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? Despite later discussions about canonization, when a book was recieved, collected, read and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was considered canonical.

In part II, I will examine how this played out in the New Testament canonization process.

Read more!

Weekly Faith Roundtable

[This has been crossposted from Street Prophets - where it was a joint contribution that was part of a weekly discussion of different faiths represented by folks who regularly post there]

This is the combined work of JCHFleetguy (Evangelical Christian), quarkstomper (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), and vesticular (Evangelical Christian). The final editing was done by JCHFleetguy.

Introduction

JCHFleetguy:

I think Evangelicals are one of the most diverse religious segments within Christianity - in certain ways. Within any given church that would consider itself part of this movement, what they believe and do is probably crystal clear - however there is huge diversity of doctrinal beliefs as a whole.

If you want to understand what I believe - ask me. If you want to understand Evangelicalism as a movement - study. I am hopefully going to give you the beginnings of that research project.

quarkstomper:

I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and I identify myself as a member of that church. In researching my answers to the questions, I found some points where I'm not exactly comfortable with my church's positions; but I believe in the doctrinal principles that led my church to arrive at those positions. Maybe that means I really belong in ELCA instead.

Nah. Lutherans are also stubborn.

vesticular:

It’s probably safe to say that most of the community, especially the long-time members, are familiar with Fleetguy’s beliefs, based on the sheer volume of conversation everyone has engaged in. To that I will add that I seldom find myself disagreeing with him on doctrinal positions.

It’s possible that I may lean more slightly toward affirming the five points of Calvinism, but I do so cautiously and with little certainty. Even that is based not on any extensive knowledge of the Scripture that the Arminians [JCHFleetguy: I would fall into the Arminian camp] and Calvinists have wrestled over—rather it is just based on my own subjective experiences. C.S. Lewis is my intellectual standard-bearer, so to speak, and he was not a Calvinist.

I know the previous paragraph probably bored everyone to tears, but I thought I’d piggyback on Uncle John to get the “What Doctrine I Hold” question out of the way if/until someone expresses more interest.

I. Where and when did we start?:

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicalism" [with a little structural revision]:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century.

1. to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
   • conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
   • activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
   • Biblicism [a word I wouldn't use], a particular regard for the Bible;
   • crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross


2. to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella-demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.



3. as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.

For most non-Evangelicals reading this, it is the last group you consider to be "what Evangelicals are" - and more importantly, if you have a political orientation, it is probably more related to the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family (and their political arm - Family Research Council), or Sojourners, etc.

I would give some blended definition of #1 and #3. Number one is the closest to a theological definition of both Evangelicalism - and "theologically conservative" - and in my opinion is anchored right in the 1st century and pre-Nicene church. By that sense, we began at the Cross (or more accurately at Pentecost - which is when the followers of Christ was bathed in the spirit and became the Body of Christ).

Definition #3 really gives the only organizational anchor for Evangelicalism - and the only way to talk about its origins in any modern sense. From that: the split between the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists started in the mid-1900's - and exploded post-World War I. Evangelicalism really got going when the Scopes trial made Fundamentalists look foolish and they withdrew into the woodwork.

quarkstomper:

A 16th Century monk named Martin Luther was plagued by doubts about his own salvation and feelings of unworthiness before God. He found his answer in the writings of Paul, emphasizing salvation by Faith. But this doctrine was at odds with certain practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably the selling of Indulgences. He criticized the Church, the Church pushed back and before you can say “excommunication” he was at the head of a theological revolt.

There had been other reform movements in the Middle Ages, most notably that of John Hus, but several factors helped Luther’s. For one thing, the invention of the printing press helped spread Luther’s ideas far beyond his native Saxony. For another, by Luther’s time German nationalism was beginning to take hold and the princes of the region had both the desire to gain some independence from Rome and the power to make it stick.

Other reformers arrived in Luther’s wake, some of whom Luther quarreled with as much as he quarreled with the Pope; and Christendom wasn’t reformed as much as it was shattered into dozens of different sects. In response, the Lutherans eventually compiled the Book of Concord, which set out the essential Lutheran teachings of doctrine.

Decades of bloody religious wars followed, resulting in a theological patchwork in which the official church of any given state, duchy or principality was determined by the religion of its ruler. It also resulted in the Enlightenment, which in many ways was a reaction against all religion.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod began, like many other groups, because some people were dissatisfied with the church in their home country and came to America to worship they way they wanted to. In this case, it was a group of German Lutherans in Saxony in the early 1800s that were unhappy with their state church. They felt that the church was becoming too influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and was bending towards non-Lutheran practices and teachings. So in 1847, a group of them came to America and settled in Perry County, Missouri. Under the leadership of C.F.W. Walther, they joined with other like-minded Lutherans to form “The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States” (later abbreviated to “Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod)

Many other American churches of the Nineteenth Century experienced a similar reaction against the Enlightenment and the series of documents known as The Fundamentals were written to express the core Christian beliefs they wanted to return to. The Lutherans already had their version of The Fundamentals : The Book of Concord .

The LCMS remained predominantly German until the First World War, when anti-German sentiment in America encouraged the church to switch to performing services in English. In the South Wisconsin District of the Synod, official business was still transacted in German as late as 1940.

In the mid-1970s the Synod underwent a crisis when Jacob Preus, the newly-elected Synod president, instituted a crackdown at its St. Louis seminary against teaching of “false doctrine”, specifically the historical-critical method of biblical scholarship and liberal theology. This resulted in a good chunk of the faculty and students walking out and establishing their own seminary: the “Concordia Seminary in Exile” or “Seminex”. Although Seminex lasted little more than a decade, the schism hardened the conservatism of an already conservative church and the more liberal theologians and pastors we lost eventually became a part of ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which was formed in 1988 from the mergers of the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. ELCA is now the largest Lutheran denomination in America. Not that we’re jealous. No, we’re not.

The commonality: the rejection of Enlightenment-inspired, antisupernaturalist biblical scholarship and the liberal theology that arose from it.


II. What are our basic tenets/dogma/creeds/etc?:

We all agree these things are central to both our beliefs and the beliefs of our churches:

• an orthodox Christology and emphasis on Christ's atoning work and bodily Resurrection;


• the belief that salvation is the result of God's grace through Christ rather than any human works;


• the authority and inspiration of Scripture, usually holding to the inerrancy of the original autographs [see "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"];


• an emphasis on biblical preaching and teaching; and


• an emphasis on evangelism and the importance of mission work.

quarkstomper:

• Lutherans confess the Triune God: the Father, Creator of all things; Jesus Christ the Son, who became human to walk among us, whose sufferings and death paid the ransom of sin for all people and whose resurrection opens the gate of life everlasting for all; and the Holy Spirit, who quickens faith in the hearts of people through God’s Word and the Sacraments.


• There are three core principles at the heart of Lutheran doctrine:
  
  
  • Sola Gratia - Grace Alone: The salvation and the blessings we receive from God are not due to any merit on our part but solely because of God’s undeserved love.
  
  
  • Sola Fide - Faith Alone: Christ did everything that was necessary to win our salvation. We don’t have to perform any additional actions to earn it. Faith in him is sufficient.
  
  
  • Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone: The Bible is God’s Word in which he reveals his Law and the Gospel of Salvation. It is the sole source of Christian teaching.
  
  
  • Oh yeah, we talk about that Luther guy a lot, but we emphasize those teachings of his that have grounding in the Scriptures.


• The central teachings of the Lutheran Church can be found in the Book of Concord, a compilation of creeds and doctrinal statements compiled shortly after Luther’s death to try to unify the various branches of Lutheranism. These are:
  
  
  • The Three Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed
  
  
  • The Augsburg Confession and the Apology to (Defense of) the Augsburg Confession: intended to clarify the points of agreement between the Lutherans and the Catholic Church and to justify the points of disagreement
  
  
  • Luther’s Large and Small Catechism: Luther’s explanations of the core elements of Christian teaching: The Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed and the Sacraments. The Small Catechism is used to instruct the young in Lutheran teachings; the Large Catechism is an expanded version.
  
  
  • The Smalcald Articles: a document Luther wrote delineating Lutheran teachings for an ecumenical council of other Protestant groups
  
  
  • Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope: Because it just wouldn’t be Lutheran if we didn’t diss the Pope somewhere.
  
  
  • The Formulas of Concord: Restates and ties it all together.

JCHFleetguy:

• First, from quarkstomper's list
  
  
  • Trinity: check
  
  
  • The Solas: check . . . with a caveat. There is a division, reflected in this belief of my church

    We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and miraculous healings were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31; Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).

    on the ministry of the Holy Spirit that relates directly to "Scripture Alone". As my previous pastor pointed out, this standing away from the charismatic gifts of the spirit has led some to step away from the Spirit's ministry to the Body of Christ when it comes to scripture and revelation. I would re-word this:

    Scripture, as led by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, as checked against scripture.

    I am not sure even most Evangelicals would trust that phrasing.
  
  
  
  • Everything else, even the Creeds: not really. Not to say we do not believe in the content of the creeds - we just do not profess them.


• The other two Solas of the Reformation:
  
  
  • Sola Christus - Christ alone: Our sole mediator and intercessor before God.
  
  
  • Soli Deo gloria - to God alone the glory.


• an emphasis on the conversion experience, typically referred to as being "born again" or experiencing a "new birth". Both vesticular and myself know the dates of our "spiritual birthdays": his is May 11th , 2004 (he hadn't thought of it in those terms until I asked) and mine is today - April 9th, 1995



• So, what does a creedal statement look like for Evangelicalism of the third sort. So, my church's "short version":
  
  
  • Trinity: yep
  
  
  • Bible: inerrant
  
  
  • Man: By man, we mean male and female. Man is created in the image of God, which means that ALL persons have value. We were created innocent, but we have all sinned in Adam when he sinned at the Fall in the Garden of Eden. As such, we are naturally separated from God and need to be redeemed.
  
  
  • Salvation: Salvation is a free gift of God, offered by grace through the death of his only Son, Jesus Christ. Because man is fallen, we are unable to obtain salvation by our own merit. We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him. Our faith is in the risen Christ, who now lives in heaven with the Father.
  
  and the full expression. Note that the doctrinal statements reference no creeds - ancient or otherwise - and are intentionally rooted in scripture for their support.

III. Our view on other religions and on alternative viewpoints internal to Christianity:

The commonality is, that within Christianity itself, the Catholic Church still is the doctrinal opposite of conservative Protestant theology. That is interesting, since the Catholic church is equally conservative doctrinally - if not even more conservative. The short list of those differences:

• Hierarchal leadership - we have mostly congregational polities


• Position of the Pope


• Position of saints and Mary


• The usefulness of intercessors other than Christ


• Indeed, any of the five Solas are aimed at the Catholic Church

Outside of Christianity, Sola Christus - Christ alone - is a tough nut to crack. We all think he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. C.S. Lewis softened this

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

as have the Catholics - a doctrine I can also follow - but we are thinking that, whoever Christ chooses to let into Heaven, He will indeed act as gatekeeper for everyone. However, we cannot in good conscience affirm to someone that their "alternate road to God" is going to bring them to a position of being "saved through Christ". We know what has been revealed to us as a sure way - everybody else is taking their chances. Oh, and we all believe both Heaven and Hell exist.

Quarkstomper:

They’re wrong and we’re right. That isn’t very helpful, is it.

We recognize other denominations that confess the Trinitarian Creeds as fellow Christians, although we may differ in other points of doctrine. Some of these points are:

• Baptism: Like other Lutheran churches, the LCMS follows the traditional practice of infant baptism. We cite a few proof passages from Scripture to justify this, but I think the real reason ties into our view of Justification. Faith is kindled by the Holy Spirit and is not dependent upon anything that we ourselves do; therefore it is not necessary for a person to make a conscious Decision for Jesus before he can experience the benefits of the Holy Spirit.
  
  Or maybe we kept the practice because the Catholic Church accused Luther of being a heretical Anabaptist and Luther said “No, I’m not!”



• The Lord’s Supper: We practice what is called Close Communion; (sometimes referred to as “Closed Communion”); meaning that we limit the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to those who share the same beliefs about it that we do. Which excludes practically everybody. But Lutheran understanding of Holy Communion differs from both Roman Catholic Doctrine and most mainline Protestant denominations. Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Sacrament are actually transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and the view that the Sacrament actually re-enacts Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; he also rejected the view of Zwingli and the Swiss reformers that the bread and the wine of Communion only symbolize the Body and Blood. Luther taught that “Bread is bread”, but that the communicant also receives the True Body and Blood “in, with, and under” the physical bread and wine of the Sacrament.
  
  LCMS goes further and excludes from Communion even other Lutheran churches if they do not follow our strict view of Close Communion. That’s the official policy, but I’ve never been in a church where visitors were required to state their views of the Sacrament before they were permitted to come to the altar. In every church I’ve been in, if a person comes to the Lord’s Table desiring the Sacrament, he gets it.



• Justification by Faith: Justification by Faith is a biggie. Not too long ago, the Catholic Church and several Lutheran Churches signed a joint statement of agreement on the subject of Justification that was hailed as some as a breakthrough between the two churches. The LCMS refused to sign the statement, on the grounds that the document never actually defined what the Catholics mean by Justification, therefore the agreement is meaningless. (And if you ask, no, I can’t give a good definition of Justification either).
  
  What it comes down to is that Salvation is not something we earn by saying enough Hail Mary’s or by Deciding to Let Christ into Our Life; rather it is a gift, freely given by God without any merit or worthiness on our part. This was important to Luther because he was acutely aware of his own unworthiness and struggled long and hard with feelings of guilt and despair.
  
  Our emphasis on Grace, that is, Undeserved Love, makes us suspicious of anything that smells like “Works Righteousness”, the doctrine that we have to do something before we can achieve Salvation. (Once in college I went ‘round and ‘round with an earnest Born Again on this issue; he kept talking about Letting Jesus into One’s Heart and my Lutheran instincts kept saying “Works Righteousness!”)



• Doctrinal conformity: The LCMS has a high regard for conformity. The word “synod” means “walking together” and the whole purpose of the Formula of Concord was to be a formal statement of what we all agree on; so it’s generally assumed that within our church body everybody’s going to be on the same page, doctrinally speaking. The church holds the power to excommunicate members who stray from orthodoxy, but stresses that this should be a rare action used as a last resort. And if a person differs with the church teaching that much, he generally quits on his own.
  
  The Synod insists that its pastors, and the teaching staff of its seminaries, subscribe to the church’s doctrines. (This insistence, as I mentioned, is what led to the Seminex split). Things are a little more relaxed at the parish level. We have a congregational rather than an episcopal structure, meaning that local churches are run by the congregations themselves rather than by a hierarchy of bishops. This isn’t a doctrinal thing; it’s just The Way We’ve Always Done It. The pastor is not the ruler of the congregation, but an employee hired to preach and perform other pastoral duties. To a certain extent this dilutes the Synod’s power to enforce Doctrinal Purity on its members, relying instead on deference to the pastor on matters spiritual and the inertia of tradition.
  
  I was once a member of a church whose pastor supported the idea of women in the clergy, contrary to official LCMS position. He retired about the same time as we joined, so I don’t know how outspoken he was on this subject or if he ever got into trouble because of it. That congregation was a fairly liberal one, for an LCMS church, so that might have had something to do with it.

JCHFleetguy:

Outside the general things above, there is not much more for me to say. There are some disagreements in this section between myself and Quarkstomper. I understand the idea that the Holy Spirit can inhabit who He wills to inhabit regardless of our decision, but infant baptism just doesn't cut it for my herd of ilk. Even then, that is a parental decision/action or a church decision/action - especially since there is no sign of a changed life in an infant. That idea of that the moment of rebirth will be an inward change that brings outward change is too central to us. Indeed, the conversion story, or testimony, where one shows the way they have changed in Christ are foundational. We have commitment ceremonies where the parents commit to raising their children in a Godly way. We do not see the "decision for Christ" as our action:

We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him.

Indeed, no sacrament imbues life - none is a "means of grace":

no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation,

Communion as well is simply, as Christ said, something we do in remembrance of Him until He comes again

IV. A few general social or political issues considered important by us and why?:

To deal with the social conservative hot buttons, all of our churches are pro-life. None of our churches would marry a gay couple; and we believe homosexuality is a sin. From our general practice at Street Prophets, it is clear that we all agree with this statement:

We should always approach judgment and/or condemnation of people based on scripture with "fear and trembling" - or better yet just leave this job to God. We think the wisest thing for Christians to do about homosexuality is to love the sinner; and hate the sin - but keep their mouth shut about the second part in most cases.

and this from C.S. Lewis:

The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

None of us are opposed to at least some form of state recognition of some kind of gay marriage and/or civil union, and we do not think the way to end abortion is by making it illegal. Our churchs of attendance do not take positions on what secular society should do on those issues; and, most likely, if they did would not agree with us as individuals.

quarkstomper:

When the LCMS was first formed, it declined to support the Abolitionists on the issue of Slavery because the Bible did not give a clear command, pro or con, on the matter. (Those of us who compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision might want to keep that in mind). Generally speaking, the LCMS does not make official doctrinal statements about political issues.

Most Lutheran Churches, especially in the LCMS, are Pro-Life. The LCMS’s official position condemns abortion, but recognizes that there are cases where it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Official policy permits forms of birth control that do not prevent the implantation of fertilized ova, (IUDs are recognized as a grey area), but prefers they be used by married couples who are already “fruitful” and admonishes against using birth control as an excuse for indiscriminate sex.

On the subject of war, the LCMS subscribes to the Just War Doctrine established by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Although a lot of us are politically conservative and have backed the Bush war, the LCMS has no official position as to whether the Iraq Invasion and Occupation meets the criteria for a Just War.

The LCMS officially endorses Creationism, which is not surprising given our emphasis on the infallibility of Scripture; but does not require acceptance of Creationism as a requirement for membership.

Like many other churches, the LCMS puts a lot of emphasis on social ministry like schools, counseling programs, and poverty and disaster relief, often working with other Lutheran churches. This isn’t preached from the pulpit, though, as much as it is performed through auxiliary organizations such as the LWML, the Lutheran Layman’s League and Lutheran World Relief.

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicals":

During most of the 20th-century, American evangelicalism as a movement was generally reticent about politics because its sights were focused on what seemed more important tasks: evangelism, missions, and nurturing the faithful. All that seemed to change, however, in the 1970s when evangelicals "re-entered" the national spotlight with the rise of Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, a devout Southern Baptist layman who unabashedly claimed to be "born again." But the most visible aspect of this new political sensibility was the appearance of right-wing organizations like the Moral Majority and Concerned Women for America. This new "Religious Right" was credited with playing a major role in the "Reagan Revolution" of 1980 (and the ironic ouster of the evangelical President Carter, for the much-less obviously pious Reagan). In retrospect, it now seems clear that the part these organizations played in this outcome was not as great as either the news media or conservative evangelicals once believed. Unarguably, however, there was a new evangelical interest in political participation, which subsequently gave birth to a new generation of "Religious Right" organizations, such as the Christian Coalition.

The reasons for this resurgence are many, including: a natural desire to have a positive impact on culture and society (a subtle indication, perhaps, of the decline of some types of evangelical prophetic interpretations that emphasized an imminent Second Coming); concern over abortion and changing sexual mores in society; and dissatisfaction with the content, direction and power of the mass media and popular culture. However, what seems to have been the single overarching factor has been the post-WWII expansion of the Federal Government into areas and responsibilities that were previously the domain of the state and local government, the individual, the family, and the church. Yet, it must be made clear that there is no monolithic consensus among evangelicals on politics, any more than there is on theological matters. While the movement is conservative in many regards, there are many evangelicals who would identify their political orientation as liberal and some, like the Sojourners community in Washington D.C., which are leftist in nature. In terms of party affiliation, the movement has been traditionally perceived as Republican. This impression, however, reflects a bias that centers on the Northern, midwestern evangelicals of the NAE "card-carrying" variety. When the huge numbers of Southern white and black evangelicals are factored in, it is probably more accurate to say that in the years before 1970 the "average" evangelical was more likely to be a Democrat. With the defection of large numbers of white Southerners to the Republicans in recent decades, the political make-up of evangelicalism has changed. Today the overall political tenor of the movement could be described as moderately conservative and predominantly Republican

Lately, of course, committees organized by the National Association of Evangelicals have been involved in environmental work and come out strongly against the use of torture by the US government. Also, it seems to be theologically conservative Christians in the forefront of the efforts to end the genocide in Darfur; and the international trafficking in slaves - the vast majority of which are children and women pressed into sexual bondage. Willow Creek Association and folks affiliated with Rick Warren have been very active recently in working on the AIDS epidemic and poverty in Africa.

My own churches have had strong social ministries: missions, the poor, community service, etc. My last church continues sending work crews, and providing money, to the Katrina area. They have not been political from the pulpit; and there has been the availability of politically-conservative voters' guides in the lobby. The churches have not been involved in anti-abortion demonstrations (although I know members probably are); and the church has supported positive organizations like Pregnancy Resource Centers.

V. What do you most like and most want to change?

Quarkstomper:

Most of all, I like the music. Unlike some of the Swiss reformers who felt that music in the church distracted from the Word of God, Luther loved music and considered it, along with flinging inkpots and the occasional fart, to be the best way to drive out the Devil. Luther left us a singing church and we are richer for it. (Oh, and J.S. Bach had a bit to do with it too).

As for what I’d change, I think I’d most like to moderate our knee-jerk antipathy towards ecumenicalism. I don’t think we should ignore the doctrinal differences we have with other denominations, but at the same time neither should we forget what we have in common, nor should we avoid opportunities to join with our fellow Christians from other parts of the Body of Christ.

I also wish we could be more flexible on gender issues. This is largely why my wife doesn’t go to church anymore. On the whole, I think our emphasis on the Bible as the true and faithful Word of God is one of our strengths, but our strict interpretation of certain verses about the role of women and about homosexuality clash with the greater message of the Gospel. I don’t know how this contradiction can be reconciled, but I want to believe it must be possible.

JCHFleetguy:

The big one is epitomized by this quote from A.W. Tozer from The Pursuit of God:

Current evangelicalism has (to change the figure) laid the altar and divided the sacrifice into parts, but now seems satisfied to count the stones and rearrange the pieces with never a care that there is not a sign of fire upon the top of lofty Carmel. [See 1 Kings 18 for the allusions.-ccp] But God be thanked that there are a few who care. They are those who, while they love the altar and delight in the sacrifice, are yet unable to reconcile themselves to the continued absence of fire. They desire God above all. They are athirst to taste for themselves the `piercing sweetness' of the love of Christ about Whom all the holy prophets did write and the psalmists did sing.
There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem satisfied to teach the fundamentals of the faith year after year, strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives.

All the little ones flow from there.

Read more!

The Listening Heart: The Decline of Vocation II

[Number six in a series]

The last post looked at organic society as represented by one which embraces vocation; and the organized society created by modern western culture:

• Organic societies were not based on the independence of individuals; but the interdependence of members; and


• Organic societies were not based on the equality of their members, but their differences

This wasn't just an outgrowth of the rise of modernity - it was a requirement. Therefore, the theme of this post:

that modern western culture requires the severing of folks from vocation - and its attachment to family, tradition, religion, etc. - in order to build a culture rooted in production and conquest.

Indeed, as A. J. Conyers points out in The Listening Heart, the "reason" taught by the enlightenment wasn't reason in general [other than items in brackets by me - this completely follows Conyers]:

It is often noted that Enlightenment thinkers emphasized reason. Yet the real effect of their emphasis is almost always lost. This certainly could not mean that they emphasized reason while earlier ages neglected it, or preferred superstition and unreason: who indeed were more devoted to the arts of reason than the disciples of Aristotle in antiquity, or those who, in medieval times, submitted everything to reason in the most rigorous fashion, the schoolmen from Anselm to Aquinas and beyond? The specific way in which the Enlightenment used reason was as a replacement for the idea of vocation. One could then make reasoned choices. The true locus of personal decisions was to be found in the individual who "thinks for himself:' as Kant would put it, and who declines to depend upon the "guidance of another."

and

It is not without significance that Kant, like others following the same pattern, appeals to a virtue of the will, courage. For in many ways the movement of modernity has been a shift from the intellect and the affections as guiding faculties for human beings, to the will. Kant does not say, develop the skill to think for yourself. Nor does he say learn what best to love so that you may guide yourself toward what is good. Nor does he suggest that you have the courage to follow what you know is good and true. The will is placed ahead of the intellect and the love of good. He says instead, ''All that is required for enlightenment is freedom. . . ." and "Men raise themselves by and by out of backwardness if one does not purposely invent artifices to keep them down."

[An interesting contrast in this will vs. good discussion might be Matthew Yglesias' "Thinking about Prostitution"; and Joe Carter's "Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology" or PastorDan's "Eliot Spitzer Self-Immolates". None of the three mention the "elephant in the room" in regards to prostitution (and pornography) - the international trafficking in sexual slaves. I am getting to slavery in this series.]

So, what does Conyers see as the process in the modern decline of vocation:

The stages of this recession are not surprising, though the extremity in which it has manifested itself (and the real name of that extremity) is something modern people would generally reject, although they, more than any other peoples of any other age are most acquainted with it. . . .

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought impressive advances in technology, or-to use plainer language-in the use of implements or tools to accomplish practical tasks. This advance was so impressive and made such a remarkable impact upon society that a number of direct or indirect consequences made themselves felt.

1. Progress in technology suggested that progress was a general rule in human experience and that it was a force that operated throughout social, moral, and artistic life; that what was the rule for technology was also the rule for civilization and culture, bringing all things under the power of an unseen evolutionary hand.

2. The increased use of technology drew larger numbers of people to centers of production and commerce, giving rise to the phenomenal growth of urban living and the ready availability of manpower for industry and army, for production and conquest.

3. The labor force, the government, and the army developed along lines analogous to the machine.

4. Governments were organized for the efficient administration of large territories and the gradual yet effective opposition to barriers (including and sometimes especially the moral and religious ones) that hampered profitable enterprises. One can see this especially in the effort (beginning with Locke) to distinguish between a public and private realm, in which matters of moral and religious concern were relegated to the private, where the influence of church and family could not discourage free rein in the public realm of commercial enterprise.

[This can be seen in the battle over homeschooling. In Germany, a law passed in 1939 during the Third Reich and still in effect today makes it illegal to homeschool your children: parents are arrested and children moved under control of the state. The need of the modern state to control education in order to make us more equal and interchangeable parts for conquest and production is clear. Homeschooling in the United States, particularly in California right now, is also a "battleground issue" between those who wish to maintain the connection of their children to family, community, church, and tradition - and those that believe that the state has an interest in creating more "equal" and homogenous students.]

5. Social organization increasingly imitated the rational use of implements - of machines.

6. The social consciousness of large territories began to be formed . . . toward those urban centers of manufacture, trade, and government (growth industries all!) where the power of technology and bureaucratic organization could be felt in its full force.

This led to people no longer seeing themselves as belonging to the land

that something more or less permanent no longer undergirded, nourished, and protected them: the land to which they belonged, and that was the common environment of all-rich and poor, old and young, from birth to death-was in smaller and smaller measure the environment that determined the shape of their lives.

but to the company, the standing army, or the state:

to belong to a "company:' let us say, means that one is subject to the will of another and in some ways is sustained only by the arbitrary good will of others. It implies that one belongs in a way that is not true of a family or a church, for this "belonging" is made possible by the activity and initiative of those who are in positions of power.

In the next post, we will see what Conyers calls these folks alienated from family, place, community, church, and tradition; and now organized, like parts of a machine, for production and conquest.

Read more!

"The Problem Isn't God"

In the last post, I quoted Vox Day from The Irrational Atheist [a downloadable E-book] about Messrs. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

While both men are too cautious to ever come right out and state that they believe religion is the direct and primary cause of war, most likely due to the fact that it is so easy to disprove such a belief, they nevertheless attempt to insinuate that this is the case by repeatedly associating religious faith with group violence and military conflict . . . This is done by claiming that while religion is not the explicit cause of most wars, it is still responsible for the fact that those wars are taking place because religious faith is the reason there are two different sides in the first place . . . by constructing a pair of shaky parallel arguments based on the idea that religion causes division.

Certainly, that last post largely destroyed any argument from observation and/or evidence that religion is a major direct cause of war. What about an argument that rests on reason or intuition? This is called an ontological argument:

Its most famous application is an argument for the existence of God, first used by St. Anselm of Canterbury, and it states that because we can conceive of God, something of which nothing greater can be imagined, God must exist. René Descartes also made use of a variant of this argument, but it has never been an important part of Christian theology due to its rejection by Thomas Aquinas. Its fame is more due to its later resurrection and rejections by David Hume and Bertrand Russell.

Richard Dawkins describes the ontological argument for the existence of God to be an infantile one. He pronounces himself offended at the very idea that “such logomachist trickery” could be used to produce such grand conclusions. And he’s correct to reject it, in my opinion, as ontological arguments boil down to the idea that if something can be conceived, it therefore must exist. No supporting evidence is necessary, mere reason and intuition suffice to prove the matter. Daniel Dennett scorns it as well, describing it as the logical equivalent of a carnival fun-house illusion. -- Vox Day

Day characterizes the argument described in the first quote above as exactly an ontological argument, and cites both Dawkins and Harris as employing such arguments despite their disdain for there use in proving God exists. What are the "shaky parallel arguments" they both employ to cover this? Vox Day:

1. Religion causes division between people. [Day points out this is an ontological argument in itself]

   “Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force.” -- Dawkins
   
   “The religious divisions in our world are self-evident" -- Harris

2. Religion provides the dominant label by which people are divided into groups.

   “Without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge.” -- Dawkins
   
   “The only difference between these groups is what they believe about God.” -- Harris

3. Wars are fought between divided groups of people with different labels.

   “Look carefully at any region of the world where you find intractable enmity and violence between rival groups. I cannot guarantee that you’ll find religions as the dominant labels for in-groups and out-groups. But it’s a very good bet.” -- Dawkins
   
   “Religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past.” -- Harris

4. Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war.

   “The problem’s name is God.” -- Dawkins
   
   “Faith . . . the most prolific source of violence in our history.” -- Harris

Superficial thinkers who know very little history find this argument compelling because the statements flow nicely from one into the other, and because there is a certain amount of truth in each of the assertions that lead up to the final conclusion. It cannot be denied that religion HAS been known to divide friends and families as well as entire nations. Religion HAS provided a marker by which opposing groups identify each other. War IS fought between divided groups of people bearing different labels; it takes two to tangle. The problem is that merely stringing together three statements that are factually true in some circumstances does not always lead to a logical conclusion.

Consider the same argument, only this time substituting three similarly valid assertions.

1. Pelicans eat sardines.
2. Pelicans improve the sardine species through aiding natural selection.
3. Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs.
4. Therefore, pelicans are the implicit cause of evolution.

Day goes on to examine the division of Europe into kingdoms - replete with subsequent wars - branching from Charlemagne's son's attempt to divide the Frankish empire into 4 pieces for his sons; and then one of those sons dividing his section into 3 more parts for his sons. From the death of Charlemagne in 814 through 860 - 5 different wars had been fought; and

More wars were fought over the centuries, the Eastern and Western Franks grew more and more apart, until finally it reached the point where they spoke separate languages, possessed separate identities, and, in the end, adopted different forms of Christianity. But the division of the Franks into Germans and Frenchmen predates the division of Christendom into Catholics and Protestants by more than 675 years.

As Day points out using this example, the vast majority of divisions between groups of people are not religious; and religion is not the dominant label by which most distinct groups are indentified.
Day: "The Problem isn't God"

Read more!

War and Religion

One of those little arguments popular nowadays - and not challenged much in my sight - is expressed in these two remarks that were part of a post I was involved in this week.

Organized religions do not unite us, they divide us. They segregate one group from another. You can argue the truthfulness of your religion all you want to, but you'll only alienate others who honestly believe in the truthfulness of theirs. Organized religions, regardless of their good intentions, have caused hate, mistrust and in extreme cases death and destruction.

and its comments thread:

More people have slaughtered in religious wars than all other wars combined.

Certainly, the author of these remarks is in good company - and I am guessing, even though s/he is some sort of deist/theist, that this is a parroting of remarks of a similar nature by some of the new atheist writers of our day. These kind of comments have been common since the rash of books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and company in the recent past - and back into the 19th century with the likes of Robert Green Ingersoll:

Religion makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, “religion,” covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of persecution, of tyranny, and death. . . . Although they have been preaching universal love, the Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world -- “The Damage Religion Causes” [HT: The Irrational Atheist]

The first comment I am only going to briefly deal with: it is counter-intuitive to me that religious expression and organization has been responsible for more division between folks than race, class, nationality, and tribe. Indeed, I am not going to try to speak to all religions, but I will speak to Christianity. Other than the obvious examples of the Crusades (actually, according to modern historians, not so obvious), the wars arising out of the Reformation, and the rise (and delay in the fall) of modern slavery - Christianity has united folks across racial, class, and national lines. Human beings are fallen, and find lots of reasons to kill each other, but religion is no more divisive an issue than class, race nation, and tribe. Indeed, much less potent and, in fact, it has largely served as a restraint in the bloodthirstiness of humans. Now, that is an opinion - for which I hold no proof other that the previously mentioned intuition. However, there is a bit of statistical support

That brings us to the second comment - which is simply factually wrong. I found an interesting resource for folks who wish to see a very good destruction of the "religion = war" arguments of folks like Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion):

The Irrational Atheist [downloadable E-book] by Vox Day [HT: Evangelical Outpost]

His arguments against the "religion = war" arguments of what he calls the "new atheists" reside primarily in these chapters: "Sam Tzu and the Art of War" and "The War Delusion" - but not exclusively. Vox cites The Encyclopedia of Wars:

I had barely begun separating the teetering stacks of books dedicated to ancient and medieval warfare when Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod fortuitously happened to publish their three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, a massive 1,502-page compendium compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of Military History and the former head of the Centre for Defence Studies, of what amounts to a significant percentage of all the wars that have taken place throughout recorded human history. -- Vox Day

where he found

These 1,763 wars cannot be considered entirely comprehensive . . . in any event, the very large size of the sample set definitely provides enough detail for the purpose of determining what percentage of Man’s wars are caused by his diverse religious faiths with some degree of accuracy.

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, of those 1,763 wars, the following were categorized as religious wars for one reason or another:

Albigensian Crusade, Almohad Conquest of Muslim Spain, Anglo-Scottish War (1559–1560), Arab Conquest of Carthage, Aragonese-Castilian War, Aragonese-French War (1209–1213), First Bearnese Revolt, Second Bearnese Revolt, Third Bearnese Revolt, First Bishop’s War, Second Bishop’s War, Raids of the Black Hundreds, Bohemian Civil War (1465–1471), Bohemian Palatine War, War in Bosnia, Brabant Revolution, Byzantine-Muslim War (633–642), Byzantine-Muslim War (645–656),Byzantine-Muslim War (688-679), Byzantine-Muslim War (698–718), Byzantine-Muslim War (739), Byzantine-Muslim War (741–752), Byzantine-Muslim War (778–783), Byzantine-Muslim War (797–798),Byzantine-Muslim War (803–809), Byzantine-Muslim War (830–841),Byzantine-Muslim War (851–863), Byzantine-Muslim War (871–885), Byzantine-Muslim War (960–976), Byzantine-Muslim War (995–999), Camisards’ Rebellion, Castilian Conquest of Toledo, Charlemagne’s Invasion of Northern Spain, Charlemagne’s War against the Saxons, Count’s War, Covenanters’ Rebellion (1666), Covenanters’ Rebellion (1679), Covenanters’ Rebellion (1685), Crimean War, First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, Fourth Crusade,7 Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Seventh Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Ninth Crusade, Crusader-Turkish Wars (1100–1146), Crusader-Turkish Wars (1272–1291), Danish-Estonian War, German Civil War (1077–1106), Ghost Dance Uprising, Siege of Granada, First Iconoclastic War, Second Iconoclastic War, India-Pakistan Partition War, Irish Tithe War, Javanese invasion of Malacca, Great Java War, Kappel Wars, Khurramite’s Revolt, Lebanese Civil War, Wars of the Lombard League, Luccan-Florentine War, Holy Wars of the Mad Mullah, Maryland’s Religious War, Mecca-Medina War, Mexican Insurrections, War of the Monks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Revolt of Muqanna, Crusade of Nicopolis, Padri War, Paulician War, Persian Civil War (1500–1503), Portuguese-Moroccan War (1458–1471), Portuguese-Moroccan War (1578), Portuguese-Omani Wars in East Africa, Rajput Rebellion against Aurangzeb, Revolt in Ravenna, First War of Religion, Second War of Religion, Third War of Religion, Fourth War of Religion, Fifth War of Religion, Sixth War of Religion, Eighth War of Religion, Ninth War of Religion, Roman-Persian War (421–422), Roman-Persian War (441), Russo Turkish War (1877–1878), First Sacred War, Second Sacred War, Third Sacred War, Saladin’s Holy War, Schmalkaldic War, Scottish Uprising against Mary of Guise, Serbo-Turkish War, Shimabara Revolt, War of the Sonderbund, Spanish Christian-Muslim War (912–928), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (977–997), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1001–1031), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1172–1212), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1230–1248), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1481–1492), Spanish Conquests in North Africa, Swedish War, Thirty Years’ War, Transylvania-Hapsburg War, Tukulor-French War, Turko-Persian Wars, United States War on Terror, Vellore Mutiny, Vjayanagar Wars, First Villmergen War, Second Villmergen War, Visigothic-Frankish War.

For someone not wanting to count those, that is 123 wars in all - or just a very fine hair under 7% of the wars in the book. I included the whole list just so those who would argue the numbers could see exactly what they are based on.

Before finding this list, my primary source was going to be this online resource - "Wars, Massacres and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century". It doesn't take much examination of the conflicts and deaths there (there are links to centuries earlier than the 20th) to realize that religion may account for even less than the 7% above if you are actually talking about those killed by wars.

The human race is great at finding reasons to slaughter each other - but religion has neither been the chief cause or the principle feature of that slaughter: not even close. However, those who have repeated the arguments of Dawkins and Harris have missed a point:

While both men are too cautious to ever come right out and state that they believe religion is the direct and primary cause of war, most likely due to the fact that it is so easy to disprove such a belief, they nevertheless attempt to insinuate that this is the case by repeatedly associating religious faith with group violence and military conflict . . . This is done by claiming that while religion is not the explicit cause of most wars, it is still responsible for the fact that those wars are taking place because religious faith is the reason there are two different sides in the first place . . . by constructing a pair of shaky parallel arguments based on the idea that religion causes division. -- Vox Day

That will be the next post .

Read more!