Michael Curry is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States, my particular denomination. He was invited to give the sermon at the royal wedding of Prince Harry of England and Meghan Markle at Windsor Castle yesterday.
Pope Francis has suggested the Catholic Church consider a change in how it renders the Lord’s Prayer (the “Our Father”), when it comes down to that whole “temptation” thing. The line in the Catholic translation in English is “Lead us not into temptation.” A similar translation is used in Italy.
Francis says, “It is not He that pushes me into temptation and then sees how I fall. A father does not do this. A father quickly helps those who are provoked into Satan’s temptation.”
The Catholic Church in France recently tweaked its translation “ne nous soumets pas à la tentation,” (do not submit us to temptation), which has been replaced with “ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation” (do not let us enter into temptation). And apparently the official Spanish version of the prayer, which is what Francis would have grown up with, is “no nos dejes caer en la tentación” (do not let us fall into temptation). The Portuguese version is similar to the Spanish.
Of note, a new Italian version of the Bible, written and approved by the Catholic bishops there in 2008 (before Francis was made Pope), uses a different translation than the Italian Catholic liturgy: “Do not abandon us to temptation.”
Nevertheless, as with anything Francis suggests, the whole idea has been treated with a bit more alarm than it probably deserves (some of the color commentary about the Pope arrogantly “changing the words Jesus spoke” and “rewriting scripture” is particularly amusing).
The issue is all about translations of translations — Jesus’ words as ostensibly spoken in Aramaic have passed down through the original Greek the Gospels were written in, thence to Latin (at least for Catholic purposes) and then to their modern language “vernacular” renditions (notwithstanding the desire of some conservative American Christians to somehow sanctify the King James Version as perfect, as though Jesus spoke in English).
The key word in play in the Greek of the New Testament is πειρασμός (peirasmos), which has implications of trial, tempting, and testing. The Lord’s Prayer, using that word, shows up in Matthew 6:9-13 and (in a shorter form) in Luke 11:2-4. The key phrase in the Lord’s Prayer got translated into the Latin Vulgate by St Jerome as “ne nos inducas in tentationem,” which was translated into in English as “lead us not into temptation.”
It’s also been suggested, beyond Francis’ comments, that the original phrase prayer request doesn’t necessarily refer to temptation or trial around sin, but asking to be spared of the sorts of “trials and tribulations” that folk like Job went through.
Since God hasn’t offered a press release or set of corrections, the actual translation to use has been up to humans to make. And that, in turn, has meant the the interpretation of a given era tends to color the “correct” understanding.
Many Protestant English-speaking churches (including my own Episcopalian one) sometimes or always use an alternative phrase, developed by liturgists in the 1970s, “Save us from the time of trial,” which carries the same sense that Francis is going after here.
Interestingly, the debate about the change is not solely on the basis of theological truth, or even linguistic certainty, but ceremonial propriety. As one Anglican theologian quoted says, “In terms of church culture, people learn this prayer by heart as children. If you tweak the translation, you risk disrupting the pattern of communal prayer. You fiddle with it at your peril.”
Anglican and Catholic Churches are, by definition, liturgical, so varying the wording of anything there is always subject to a certain amount of angst and resistance from the traditionalists in the pews and pulpits.
In my parish, we use the traditional English most of the time, but for a couple of months each summer use an alternative translation (which includes that “time of trial” verbiage). The idea is to actually force people to think about what they are saying, not just rattle off a bunch of syllables in unison. I tend to agree with that mixing up the the approach, but I also understand that there are people who fall way on either side of it — those for whom the idea of repetitive prayer is anathema, and others who want things to always look and seem the same.
Pope Francis Suggests Changing The Words To The ‘Lord’s Prayer’
The phrase “lead us not into temptation” isn’t right, the pontiff says, because “a father does not do this.” France’s Catholic Church has changed the phrase in its version of the Lord’s Prayer.
This time it’s the National Cathedral, the informal “national church” (and Episcopal house of worship), where stained glass windows commemorating Robert E Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson are being taken down from display.
The discussion around it, what they are thinking of doing with the windows, and what such commemorations truly mean, are all an interesting read.
So, for any of those who take this seriously, here's an update on the Grave Communique issued by the Primates at the Anglican Communion Primates Meeting in England yesterday, in which they (more in sorrow than in anger, though, really, kind of peeved) said the Episcopal Church wasn't working and playing well with others and should go stand in a corner for three years.
(I.e., "Ew, they have gay cooties! If we tell them we are quite cross with them and send them to their room, then surely they will see the error of their ways and change their minds about ordaining and marrying gay people. Though we don't want to actually kick them out because they and England are the only ones funding this whole Anglican thang.")
In point of fact, the Primates, and the Primate Meeting, don't have any legal (canonical) basis for doing such a thing, the wording of their communique notwithstanding. We don't have a Pope, the Primates are not a curia, etc.
But that said, to the extent that the Anglican Communion is sort of a social thing (at least amongst the folk dressed in various shades of purple and magenta), then this particular contretemps indicates that those social relationships are strained, and the wording is such that the larger clique in the room is stamping its feet rather loudly. Whether this models what Christ intended for the Church is in the eye of the beholder.
Here, via Jim are some good (IMO) things to read on the subject (if you are interested in Anglican polity from an Episcopalian perspective, which, to be sure, is kind of an interesting but narrow fandom).
There's been some concern that conservative Anglican archbishops from Africa would boycott the primates meeting in England; instead, they all showed up and drove through a resolution (though it's not clear under what authority) suspending the Episcopal Church for three years from voting within the Communion, representing Anglicans in ecumenical councils, etc., etc.
The issue, of course, is with the American church's acceptance of LGBTs as full members of the church, both as clergy and, most recently, in allowing for same-sex marriage. For more conservative national churches in the Communion — some of whose countries have been passing laws increasing prosecution of gays — this is unacceptable.
Well, fiddle-dee-dee.
I mean, as an Episcopalian, I think it's cool being unified with fellow Anglican churches around the world, at least as a concept. If that comes at the cost of doing what I think is the right and moral thing for us to be doing, however, it's hardly worth it.
I'm proud that the Episcopal Church welcomes loving, committed couples to be wed, regardless of their plumbing. If the Archbishop of Uganda feels that means we can't sit at the table with him, I'm not going to beg for forgiveness.
The current Archbishop of Canterbury is willing to sacrifice the already fracturing Anglican Communion in the name of maintaining a less doctrinally unified confederation of Anglican churches, all connected to Canterbury if not to each other.
Which may be the best that anyone who has a fondness for the Anglican Communion may be able to ask for. The schism between (very roughly) the North American churches and the much more conservative "Global South" churches over things like women priests, women bishops, and, most recently, gays in the church seems too great to bridge, and is widening. Seeking a less rigid union where such differences don't push people away from the table because there are other grown-up things to do looks to me to be, unfortunately, the better course.
Rather than sleeping in separate bedrooms, maybe it's more like visiting family staying at a hotel in town but showing up for Christmas dinner over the holidays — what unites us is greater than what divides us, but maybe it's just as well we don't push togetherness too far right now.
In one of the confessional prayers in the Episcopal Church, the above phrase comes up. There's room for plenty of repentance today, given the (eleventh hour) release of the summary of the Senate investigation into the CIA interrogation processes after 9/11.
The results should surprise nobody, though they seem even somewhat worse than what was known (so much for the "Well, we already know everything, so why dredge over this again?" — a denial that also flies in the face of those who are still defending these actions as both necessary and trivial).
By the way, that whole "No, it's not true, there were some plots this torture — er, enhanced interrogation actually uncovered" argument? That "We did what we needed to for our survival" argument? To quote (http://wist.info/mann-abby/2659/) the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, "Survival as what?"
“I don’t believe that any other nation would go to the lengths the United States does to bare its soul, admit mistakes when they are made and learn from those mistakes. Certainly, no one can imagine such an effort by any of the adversaries we face today,” said [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper.
Well, bully for us. Twist enough arms, force it through after six years of stonewalling and pontificating and denial and threats of how releasing this information it will cause people to react violently and with the full likelihood that in another month there would have been zero chance of the report ever coming out … and, yeah, we bare our soul (well, the summary of it, since the full soul-baring is still classified), we admit mistakes (except for those who still insist no mistakes were made), and we learn from those mistakes (the number one thing being learned is that nobody has, or will, serve any prison time for giving or executing these orders).
This evening, the vestry from my parish did their annual service at St Clare's Ministries just south of downtown Denver. This is an adjunct building to the (Episcopal) Church of St Peter & St Mary, where once a week they open the doors to feed as many homeless and impoverished people as they can, and to provide them clothing as well.
It was a neat experience. I got there early and got set to work setting up the tables and pouring cups of lemonade. That led to me being on lemonade (and coffee) duty all through the meal, which got me circulating around the whole room (and out of the kitchen).
The clientele was a remarkably mixed bag, from some folks who were clearly homeless, sometimes impaired in some fashion, and almost certainly sleeping rough, to others who just appear to be temporarily down on their luck and needing an extra hot meal to keep things going.
Anyone who wanted lemonade, I poured it.
I'm not relating this tale to blow my own horn about how righteous I am. Anything but. I just want to share what a positive experience it was, and to encourage anyone who has the opportunity to volunteer in such a way to make a point to do so. It's easy to talk about "the poor" and "the hungry" in a very generic and faceless fashion; actually encountering them and being in a position to do something to help — is different, in a truly worthwhile fashion.
On the one hand, I tend to be a major First Amendment supporter. Restricting the freedom to express one's opinion in public space is per se bad for society and dire slippery slope.
On the other hand, this was going on at my local Episcopal cathedral, on Palm Sunday (which usually starts outside the church to reflect the procession into Jerusalem, and thus is subject to outside disruption).
On the first hand, as is suggested here, restricting the freedom of speech because it might upset people is, generally speaking, a stupid reason to restrict it. In theory, meaningful political speech is going to upset people.
On the second hand, the people being upset (it is claimed) are children, for whom we often make special accommodation / restriction.
On the first hand again, there's a tremendous slippery slope in public speech if we allow "think of the children" to restrict what can be said.
On the second hand, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the speaker's political opinion.
On the first hand, I'm aware enough to realize that's a piss-poor reason to restrict speech.
So … I dunno. My sense is that this behavior by the protester was rude, but not unlawful, socially counter-productive, but not something that should be legally restricted. But …
Minnesota Episcopalians Oppose Marriage Inequality Amendment
At this weekend’s annual conference of the Episcopal Church in Minnesota, members passed a resolution opposing the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Bishop Brian N. Prior ex…
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
States negotiating immunity for banks over foreclosures – Yahoo! News – “If you let us pay a little fine, we promise never to do it again, even though, really, we kind of are still.” Why are states “negotiating” with banks over their malfeasance? (Besides the obvious answers, of course.)
Vermont Lesbian Couple Sues Reception Venue For Discriminating Due To ‘Personal Feelings’ – “Personal feelings” (even if religiously based) can be used to try and justify discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, politics, weight, age, and, yes, religion. The actions of the inn in question were clearly illegal under Vermont law — a law that already allows a number of exemptions, none of which the inn qualifies for. The idea that the law is somehow discrimination against religion, as dolts like Bryan Fischer claim, is true only to the degree that it means that my personal religious views don’t grant me exemptions from whatever laws I don’t care for.
10 Fantasy Book Series That Could Replace Harry Potter at the Movies – While I’d love any of these (in theory), I don’t think any of them could do the Potter bit again, especially if you consider the role that kids had in making HP a success. Now, if you want the next “Lord of the Rings,” there are some definite contenders here, though some of the others are a bit on the weird side to appeal to the mass audience.
New York Bishop Orders Gay Clergy to Marry – Christian News – Makes perfect sense, if you realize it’s an Episcopal bishop. The Episcopal Church, by and large, has given gay, partnered clergy something of a pass in formalizing a “committed, monogamous, faithful relationship” because the opportunity to marry their partner wasn’t available. As that changes, it’s reasonable for the Church to hold gays to the same rules as they hold straights.
Reproductive freedom: Opting out on religious grounds | The Economist – “Being part of America means having some level of tolerance for people’s different preferences without constantly demanding to secede. Once you start down the road of demanding monetary exceptions for your private moral convictions, there’s nowhere to stop.”
Why the Wealthy Need the Welfare State – “The Gilded Age plutocrats who first acceded to a social welfare system and state regulations did not do so from the goodness of their hearts. They did so because the alternatives seemed so much more terrifying.” The ones of this age might consider just that.
Where Exactly Have the Mainline Churches Been for the Last Forty Years? – I’ve seen a lot of the above in the Episcopal Church as I’ve belonged to it for the last 15 years (and learned about its past before that). And, yes, I see a number of positive signs that the church is beginning to address the problems described.
Harry Potter: the anti-geek – That’s an interesting analysis — and one that rings true (though there’s more to the story than just that).
Warren Buffett: I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. – That would certainly end it — but it begs the more important issues of (a) when it should be ended and (b) how to do so. Which are the real sticking points.
Anti-abortion folks often equate abortion to infanticide. Despite the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur long before the fetus is more than an inch or two in size, there’s still a kind of squirmy discomfort even among the most staunch pro-choice advocate, about the charge. After all, when we think of fetuses, we tend to think of well-developed proto-babies (realistically or not), and it’s just difficult to not think of them as actual infants that we’re hardwired to defend.
Unless, of course, they have Evil Parents.
Greta Christina points out this article by Christian apologist (and debater-vs-atheists) William Lane Craig, wherein he defends the genocidal slaughter of Canaanites, including (of course) their children.
As Christina notes:
William Lane Craig is not some drooling wingnut. He’s not some extremist Fred Phelps type, ranting about how God’s hateful vengeance is upon us for tolerating homosexuality. He’s not some itinerant street preacher, railing on college campuses about premarital holding hands. He’s an extensively- educated, widely-published, widely-read theological scholar and debater. When believers accuse atheists of ignoring sophisticated modern theology, Craig is one of the people they’re talking about.
And reading Craig, he comes across as scholarly, faithful, even compassionate in some ways. He’s no ranter or raver. And his position in the article boils down to this:
It's good to have no moral obligations or prohibitions.
I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.
What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.
[…] Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
God can do whatever He wants. God is Good. Therefore, whatever God does — or orders — is Good. Even if it doesn’t seem Good.
Not good, as in how the Canaanites were not good.
By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.
Now, I’m a Theist. And a Christian. I believe in a good God. And I from my beliefs, my reading, my reason, and from whatever inspiration the Holy Spirit might provide my conscience, this (quoted at length, apologies) doesn’t strike me as the Good that God commands of us.
By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Sort of like how the Klan thinks that God wants Whites to be set exclusively apart from Blacks.
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
That would be more convincing if God actually, y’know, mentioned that in context. As opposed to, say, Deut. 10:10-17
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
So children in the more distant cities can be taken as slaves. The children in the cities that (the Israelites record) God is giving the Israelites are to be killed. No mention of moral justification — just kill ’em.
Naughty Canaanites
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation). No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes.
So, it’s all okay to kill the Canaanites because the parents were evil (and evil people can be killed) and the children would cause amalgamation (Holy Lester Maddox, Batman!), and besides, the children were Innocents and therefore went straight to heaven (unless you believe Jonathan Edwards). Besides, they were all brutal and savage back in the day, so nobody gave it a second thought.
At least, nobody writing the account of cleansing Canaan in the Bible.
Now, I don’t pretend that I understand all of God’s ways. I don’t. And I’m willing to accept that there are things I don’t understand in my limited knowledge and reason. I’m not God. (Thank God.)
But while there are things I’m willing to accept as confusing, I still think I’m called to try to understand, to reconcile to my beliefs, and to learn or change what I believe in based on them. I may not succeed, but not trying is not an option.
Dude! You took Me seriously?
This all reminds me of a debate I got into many years ago on the Belief-L listserv about the Sacrifice of Abraham. That’s another great ol’ Old Testament story. God tells Abraham to take his firstborn, Isaac, up onto a mountaintop and sacrifice him. As in “drive a dagger into his heart and kill him.” Abraham isn’t real thrilled, but, being a faithful type, he goes through with it — right up to the point where he’s about to do the deed, at which point God says, “Psych!” and lets Abraham and Isaac off the hook. (He provides a ram instead to be sacrificed, since knife and altar were already prepped.)
We had a long debate over whether this was a moral act on Abraham’s part. On the one hand … GOD! And it’s not just (as in the case of Canaan) God speaking through his local rep. Abraham was talked to by GOD and told to do this thing.
When God gives you an order, who is a human to say, “Um … say what?”
On the other hand … there’s doubt.
If you’re told by God to do something that seems antithetical to what you understand God to be about … does it make most sense to believe that God is saying something that doesn’t sound God-ish? Or that you’re not actually hearing God?
I came down in the latter camp. Perhaps it is lack of self-confidence, but I think of it as a certain measure of pragmatism: Occam’s Razor seems to tell me that if God is not acting like God, then He isn’t God, but a delusion.
In other words, if God appeared before me and told me to sacrifice my daughter to Him, I wouldn’t assume that God was revealing some new, great truth, but that I was suffering a mental breakdown and really needed to be locked up before I hurt someone.
So let’s get back to the slaughter of the Canaanites — man, woman, and child. Through that whole period, we have God acting in a way that seems antithetical to how, later, Jesus taught us to live. Jesus preached against violence, against hatred, against killing. He did not justify the Jews or Israelites being able to do anything they wanted in God’s name, but sought to engage everyone.
If we’re to take Christ’s teachings seriously, then it seems to me that there are two conclusions:
God’s will and commands are portrayed in the Old Testament accurately, and we just have to assume (or laboriously figure out a rationale, as does Dr. Craig, to justify it) that this represents some sort of counter-intuitive Good.
God’s will is not accurately described in these passages in the Bible; instead, the Israelites justified their bloody conquest by attributing it to God’s command. (This option includes the possibility that there is no God, but that’s not the debate we’re having here.)
To me, #2 seems much more likely.
Now, ironically, Dr Craig considers this option. But this is what drives him to find some tortured justification.
In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates.
Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does.
I’ll set aside Dr. Craig’s implication that Christians assume Biblical inerrancy (or that those who don’t go along with Biblical inerrancy are “unbelievers”). But he never seems to consider the idea that God’s will is simply being misrepresented; instead, he suggests a parallel straw man that the Israelites did not actually do any of this. Nevertheless, even this (though it avoids the moral conundrum) must be refuted. And Dr. Craig does so by simply saying, “Well, if God said it (and the Bible says He did), then it must be okay.”
It really seems like there are two ways of approaching this, if one assumes that God is Omnibenevolent (if beyond Human Understanding). Either:
Good is defined by whatever God is saying at the moment (“Love your neighbor!” “Sacrifice your son!” “Feed the poor!” “Slaughter the Babies of the Canaanites!”),
… or …
If what God seems to be saying (or is claimed to be saying) at a given moment doesn’t seem to match what God has elsewhere said is Good, then maybe the seeming (or claim) is incorrect (mistaken or deceptive).
Now, there are conveniences to #1, and dangers to #2. Human morality is terribly slippery and subject to wishful thinking. It’s far too easy to say, “Um, yeah, I think God really wants my happiness above all things, so if I have the sense that God is telling me I shouldn’t sleep around on my wife with this really sexy blonde here … well, obviously it’s not really God telling me that.”
But maybe that gets into my personal kink about the purpose of life (where, to be sure, my wife is the really sexy blonde). I don’t think we’re here to learn to obey. I think we’re here to figure out what we should do. If all that was wanted was obedience, then why free will? Why intellect? Why reason?
So we try to figure out what’s right. What’s moral. What, to frame it as Jesus did, demonstrates love of God and love of neighbor.
The Three-Legged Stool
Anglican Christianity has a tradition of a “three-legged stool” for trying to figure things things out — scripture, tradition, and reason. In other words, scripture provides some guidance, and then tradition represents the conclusions of previous generations, and then reason is the personal component — the personal responsibility to figure things out for oneself.
Simply put, blind obedience seems highly overrated to my mind. It make no sense to me to create free, reasoning creatures that are expected, as an end-state, to simply do what they are told.
Dr. Craig then segues into the (logical) question of why it’s okay for the Israelites to wage holy war against the Canaanites, but not for Muslims to wage holy war against other unbelievers.
Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world!
By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith.
It seems odd to me that Dr. Craig gives a pass to the Israelites because they weren’t trying to convert, but to annihilate. Or that, conveniently, the nastiest nations around that deserved judgment and destruction just happened to be right where the Israelites wanted to settled down …
Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior.
Everyone always thinks they are an exception, or have some particular, unusual circumstance that justifies their breaking the normal rules.
Nor is it clear why the Canaanites was a particularly unusual historical circumstance.
The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God.
Well, I’m glad we have that settled.
If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him.
On the assumption that you have God’s commands right. After all, any number of nations and psychopaths have been convinced that God was telling them to do one particular horror or another.
But, then, if you are convinced that God is talking to you, then if you are simply obedient, you will do whatever the voices tell you to do. Because, after all God defines what is Good, and therefore what you think God is saying must be a moral imperative.
But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims.
It seems to me that the all-loving God that Dr. Craig, as his brand of Christian, believes in, was willing to exercise savage temporal judgment (and capital punishment) on the “debauched and cruel” Canaanites. There’s no sign of God loving the Canaanites, no regret or sorrow or concern expressed in Scripture. Nor is there any promise of salvation for the innocent Canaanite babies. The judgment is final and brutal — kill them all (except for the ones that are occasionally allowed to be enslaved) and let God sort them out.
Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately.
That also seems to be the case for the Israelites’ Yaweh.
Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.
Except that Dr. Craig would argue that God’s supposed omnibenevolence trumps everything, so if He seems arbitrary in His dealing with mankind, it must be because we simply don’t understand how His commands are holy and loving. We know God’s commands are loving, even when they seem not to be, because God’s commands are always loving, so we need to redefine what loving is to match them.
As opposed to our simply misunderstanding (or distorting) what His actual dealings (and commands) are.
The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?
Or, if you’re willing to let go of Biblical inerrancy, where are we actually hearing what the true God wanted?
The Israelites (and Yahweh) slaughter the Amorites (Joshua 10:10-11)
So, to summarize Dr. Craig’s position:
The Canaanite adults were bad, so they deserved to be killed. (Or at least that’s what the Israelite propaganda would indicate.)
The Canaanite children (to some age point, undefined, but presumably including babies, unless one believes in the principle of Infant Damnation) were innocent, so if they were killed as collateral damage (to avoid any Canaanite Cooties on the Israelites), they were not actually harmed by being killed (whew!) because they all went to Heaven. (We don’t have any Scriptural basis for believing this, but Dr. Craig assures us it’s true.)
God said to do it (and we know that because we know that the Bible is completely true because the Bible says that God says it is), so it must be the Good thing to have done.
The Israelites were Only Following Orders.
Honestly, that doesn’t make me feel much better about a bunch of babies being killed.
Though it does make me wonder (to bring it back to the beginning of the post), if, as Dr. Craig argues:
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
Then on what basis does the Religious Right condemn abortion?
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Beck Calls Huck “Progressive,” Huck Calls Beck An Idiot – See, it’s moments like these when I say, “Hey, Huckabee is actually a pretty rational, all-right king of guy.” Then he turns around and pals up with (also-Beck-friend) David Barton.
Have a happy Zombie Weekend – Heh. Yeah, I noticed that passage whilst doing the Passion reading on Palm Sunday. That particular aspect of the Crucifixion doesn’t usually make it into the movies.
Why Are Tech Founders Such Assholes? [Startups] – “What is it about computers and money that instills villainy?” Computers have nothing to do with it. Power (and money) corrupt … and, really, the folks most likely to strive to achieve either are most likely to be corrupted by them (or by their pursuit). I mean, really, is Gates any worse than Carnegie, or Zuckerberg than Rockefeller?
Wonkette Thinks It’s Okay To Mock Trig Palin. Bulletin: It’s Not – Making an ass of yourself in the name of snark knows no political boundaries, unfortunately. This kind of humor (even its marginally weaker form that Wonkette is so infamous for) is one reason why I don’t read her.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
— Jesus, Matthew 7:1-5
*She considers herself in rebellion against “the mainstream media, the Episcopal Church (and others which make up the rules instead of obeying them), and the decaying culture her children witness every day.”
One of those "hostile" and "intolerant" atheist billboards
She goes through a series of examples of ads — billboards, bus ads, etc. — being put up by the American Humanist Association, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the American Atheists. They vary from cute to mildly confrontational, but they boil down to a declaration of: “I don’t believe in God, but I can still be a good, moral human being with a nice life; if you feel the same way, don’t be afraid to speak up.”
Ms Segelstein is exasperated and confused.
I guess I just don’t understand. Christians (along with Jews and Muslims) …
… And, I suppose, some other parenthetical religions …
… gather in groups to worship. Atheists don’t gather not to worship, so why seek out members? What’s there to be a member of?
Humans are social animals. We look for ways to herd together. Loneliness is one of the great psyche-crushing occurrences in the human experience.
Let’s say you lived in a neighborhood where everyone painted their houses taupe. In fact, the HOA rules pretty much encouraged that. And everyone was always raving about how wonderful the color was, how lovely it looked, how excellent it was to live in a neighborhood of all-taupe houses. There might even be discussion in passing, over the back fence, about how there were some folks who preferred blue houses, but, you know, those people had bad taste at best, and were perhaps mentally disordered at worst.
And let’s say you really don’t like taupe houses. But you’re trapped there, all alone.
Until one day someone says, “Well, you know, I actually kind of like blue houses. I’ve always found taupe houses a bit boring, even ugly.”
Wouldn’t you be thrilled?
Wouldn’t you wish you’d spoken out sooner?
Wouldn’t you be so happy there was someone else out there who validated your feelings, so that you weren’t alone any more?
Ms Segelstein doesn’t get it. As far as she’s concerned, there’s people who like taupe houses, and folks who criticize the people who like taupe houses, and she doesn’t understand why.
(And, yes, atheists do gather together sometimes to discuss stuff, even in regular meetings. Though I think most of them do, in fact, enjoy sleeping in on Sundays.)
And why should atheists care about stopping worshippers who are just “going through the motions”?
Because they believe in personal liberty? In people being able to make a choice? In folks feeling trapped but also feeling like they have to go along with the taupe house thing because, well, everyone else does it, and that’s the color house their parents lived in.
Or, to put it another way, as the Bible says in John 8:31-32:
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Truth. Truth is important. Some people value the truth, and they value the opportunity for people to discover the truth, and to act on that discovery.
People who are just “going through the motions” might be perfectly happy to go along as they are. Or they might be miserable and feel trapped. But they’re a lot less likely to do anything about it if they don’t realize that what they feel isn’t unnatural or evil or anti-social or a disappointment to the world. Choosing to stop being a believer “going through the motions” doesn’t mean cutting oneself off from all society. There are others who (dis)believe like you do.
That’s the message these billboards are trying to convey.
Do they think they might get their hands on money once pledged to churches?
Of course. Because (a) we all know that atheists are amoral and only interested in money, and (b) Christian churches and church leaders would never advertise their religious gatherings in order to get money.
Trying to tear down the belief system of the world’s foremost religion — Christianity — is what seems intolerant to me. Placing prominent ads declaring the birth of Christ to be a myth seems downright hostile.
Given the vocal, virulent, hateful efforts by some conservative Christians to, for example, tear down the belief system of another of the world’s foremost religions — Islam (we’ll leave aside the long history of Christianity tearing down the beliefs of Jews, or of Christian missions sent around the world to convert/”save” the non-Christians of the planet, regardless of what they currently believe) — it’s hard to take Segelstein seriously here.
Turning the clock back a bit, consider Paul, who basically went off to Greece to preach against the false gods of “the world’s foremost religion” in favor of his Christian God. Declaring Zeus a myth would have seemed downright hostile to some, don’t you think?
But Ms Segelstein still doesn’t get it.
To my mind, these campaigns feel defensive, as though atheists are weighted down with chips on their shoulders, or feel left out of some club.
Ever seen a bully get hit back? Their immediate reaction isn’t fear (that may come), or anger (that may come, too). It’s outrage, confusion, dismay at a turning around of the Established Order of Things.
Thus, too many Christians (mostly, though not exclusively, on the Right) are outraged about people who disagree with them, who question their facts, who point out where their actions to match their words, who dare suggest that Christians have at times been bullies, or who dare whisper that Christianity might be wrong. How dare they? Sure, many Christians are huge believers in the Great Commission to bring all people to Christ, but it someone dares try to bring someone away from Christ …
Well, they’re just being “defensive.” They have “chips on their shoulders.” Obviously they “feel left out of some club.”
Yes. That “club” is a society that assumes Christianity as the norm — and anyone who varies from that norm as something Different, Other, something suspicious, a bit sinister, probably a threat (hide your children) … or, at the very least, someone whose “belief system” needs to be “torn down.”
It’s projection. The folks most appalled at anyone trying to proselytize out of their community, and the most willing to ascribe to that proselytizer dark and threatening motives … are the very ones who see nothing wrong with proselytizing folks into their community. After all, if Christianity is the “norm” and that is “right,” then anything else is “abnormal” and “wrong.”
Thus, the assertions of theological reality that Christian churchgoers would consider to be innocuous mantras are, in fact, attempts to change someone’s belief system. “Jesus saves!” might sound like a hearty, welcoming, even positive statement to someone who believes in Jesus. To someone who doesn’t, it’s making assertions about one’s spiritual fate (you need to be saved), which religious faith is true (the one associated with Jesus), and the implications of failing to follow that faith (lack of salvation).
Oklahoma also has various “God” billboards which purport to pose questions and observations from the Almighty, like: “You think it’s hot here?” and “What part of `Thou shalt not …’ didn’t you understand?” and “Life is short. Eternity isn’t.”
It’s not that such things shouldn’t be said. It’s that some Christians are so blind as to think it’s fine and natural and acceptable for them to say “My belief system is true, yours is false, join me” while it’s rude and “hostile” and “intolerant” for someone else to say exactly the same thing (or even to say, “Hey, if you really don’t believe, that’s okay, you’re not alone”). Especially when it’s (shudder) atheists.
Mote? Meet beam.
I don’t approve of intolerance, whether from atheists or theists of any stripe. And when the atheist/humanist world gets the widespread, shrilly intolerant screedifying — accepted, even lauded by the Christian Religious Right — of folks like Peter LaBarbera (a co-columnist at OneNewsNow) or Bryan Fischer, let alone James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell — I will criticize it as firmly. In the meantime, insisting that atheists practice a “Don’t Ask, And Really, Truly Don’t Tell” policy on their very minority belief system because it offends Christians who see it as a Dire Threat to their majority … is pretty goofy.
Speaking of which:
Christians I know don’t go around declaring that only fellow Christians can be good. And if they do, they’re wrong.
Really, Ms Segelstein? Really? You’ve never heard that? Every visit the Internet much?
How about, again, your fellow OneNewsNow columnists, who suggest we can only have a good, moral country if we havea Christian country.
Or maybe you’ve heard Christians (some Christians, at least) saying that, no matter how “good” a non-Christian acts, they are condemned to suffer eternal torment in Hell (“You think it’s hot here?”).
Indeed, Ms Segelstein, as a “reluctant rebel” against the Episcopal Church, you would probably prefer a more strict adherence (as ultra-orthodox Anglicans do) to the Anglicanism’s 39 Articles of Religion, the 13th of which pretty much says just what you say you’ve never heard Christians assert:
XIII. Of Works before Justification: Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
In other words, doing good works without faith in Christ ticks God off. Which I think means “declaring that only Christians can be good.”
(I don’t believe that, mind you, and I’d say most Episcopalians don’t — but, then, Ms Segelstein is on record criticizing the Episcopal Church “and others which make up the rules instead of obeying them.” So wonder if she “obeys”/believes in that rule, too.)
Maybe Christians should launch a kinder, gentler campaign in response. They could quote Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, from his book The Reason for God on the subject of common grace: “[E]very act of goodness, wisdom, justice, and beauty is empowered by God….He casts them across all humanity, regardless of religious conviction, race, gender or any other attribute to enrich, brighten and preserve the world.”
Actually, if more Christians did take that tack, I think a lot fewer people would feel that some (many? most?) Christians are as arrogant as we sometimes come across (“Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”).
That wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) stop others from making their own assertions as to the metaphysics (or lack thereof) of the universe, or which “myths” are “real,” or of inviting those who might believe the same to come join them (or at least know they are not alone). But it would maybe help establish a climate where we could figure out where we can all get along and discuss some of these questions together.
After a few days, a few more stories in the news illuminating how the Don Armstrong case went from 20-odd felony theft indictments by the grand jury to “no contest” on one felony theft and one misdemeanor theft case.
As part of the agreement, Armstrong admitted guilt to a new charge, misdemeanor theft, said Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut. A sentencing hearing on this charge will happen before the end of the year.
Armstrong’s sentence could include a fine of up to $5,000 and up to 18 months in the El Paso County Jail. Misdemeanor charges are brought for thefts between $500 and $1,000.
On the felony count, Armstrong has been placed on four-year’s probation. If violated, he will be a convicted felon and could face four to 12 years in prison, Thiebaut said. A restitution hearing will be held, probably in January, to determine how much money Armstrong must pay back to Grace Church.
The bottom line seems to be that the cases looked decently strong, but the statute of limitations ran out on most of the charges.
The biggest factor, [Armstrong lawyer] Hartley said, was that 19 of the 20 counts might be dismissed due to the statute of limitations, which is three years in a Colorado criminal case.
But apparently the timing and strength of the remaining case was enough to get everyone to the table for the plea bargain.
The Denver Postoffers a few more details from the DA:
However, Thiebaut said it was “a fairly complicated plea agreement” with more to it than a single misdemeanor count. According to the plea agreement, obtained by the Post Monday, Armstrong pleaded “no contest” to one class-three felony, the theft of $15,000 or more. The other 19 charges were dismissed.
The sentence for this count will be deferred for a period of four years. The El Paso County Probation Department will supervise Armstrong during this period. If he complies with terms set by the judge, no conviction will be entered. If the judge revokes the deferred sentence, the conviction is entered and the court could imprison him.
Armstrong also entered an Alford plea, which means pleading guilty with a protestation of innocence, to a single misdemeanor charge. The agreement states there is no factual basis to the misdemeanor charge, but the defendant pleads to it to obtain the benefit of the plea agreement.
The judge will consider ordering Armstrong to pay restitution at an upcoming hearing, but no amount or date has been set. With the misdemeanor conviction, the judge also could fine Armstrong up to $5,000 or sentence him to up to 18 months in jail, Thiebaut said.
So, net-net, one could consider it a victory for Armstrong, who ran out the clock on most of the charges, and whose single felony conviction will be laid aside in four years if he keeps his nose clean.
On the other hand, truth and the law aren’t always on the same page, and it’s pretty clear that the theft charges had significant substance. That his die-hard supporters consider this a vindication of his innocence demonstrates their devotion to Armstrong and his ability to somehow turn the case into a referendum on gay rights in the Episcopal Church.
It will be interesting to see how the whole “restitution” thing goes.
