Mitt Romney’s No Apology 3: Islam

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney’s No Apology: Believe in America, Romney talks about radical Islam.  He believes that the goal of radical Islam is to create a worldwide caliphate in which everyone is under sharia law, and he refers to a statement by the 1928 founder of the Muslim Brotherhood that manifests that kind of vision.  And Romney maintains that radical Islam hates the United States because of our freedoms and our culture, which go against its Muslim beliefs.

To his credit, Romney is not a complete Islamophobe, for Romney acknowledges that there are moderate Muslims.  My impression is that Islamophobes do not believe that there are actual moderate Muslims but rather regard all Muslims as part of a sinister conspiracy.  But, as Romney points out, radical Muslims have killed moderate Muslims.

I do not agree with Islamophobes, but I wonder: If they are right, what exactly can people do?  One way that the U.S. has been fighting radical Islam has been to cultivate relationships with moderate Muslims and to promote them.  But if there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, then the West is in a losing battle.  Fortunately, there are moderate Muslims.

General, Yet Historical

I started G.K. Beale's The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text.  I'll use as my starting-point what Beale says on pages 48-49 about his own approach to the Book of Revelation:

"A more viable, modified version of the idealist perspective would acknowledge a final consummation in salvation and judgment.  Perhaps it would be best to call this fifth view 'eclecticism.'  Accordingly, no specific prophesied historical events are discerned in the book, except for the final coming of Christ to deliver and judge and to establish the final form of the kingdom in a consummated new creation----though there are a few exceptions to this rule.  [Beale's footnote: E.g., 2:10, 22 and 3:9-10, which are unconditional prophecies to be fulfilled immediately in the specific local churches of Smyrna, Thyatira, and Philadelphia.]  The Apocalypse symbolically portrays events throughout history, which is understood to be under the sovereignty of the Lamb as a result of his death and resurrection.  He will guide the events depicted until they finally issue in the last judgment and the definitive establishment of his kingdom.  This means that specific events throughout the age extending from Christ's first coming to his second may be identified with one narrative or symbol.  We may call this age inaugurated by Christ's first coming and concluded by his final appearance 'the church age,' 'the interadventural age,' or 'the latter days.'  The majority of symbols in the book are transtemporal in the sense that they are applicable to events throughout 'the church age'...Therefore, the historicists may sometimes be right in their precise historical identifications, but wrong in limiting the identification only to one historical reality.  The same verdict may be passed on the preterist school of thought, especially the Roman version.  And certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation.  The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the original historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past, present, and future."

This accords with some of what I have read of this commentary so far, as Beale treats certain passages in the Book of Revelation as general rather than specific.  Revelation 17:9-11 refers to seven (or, technically, eight) kings----five have fallen, one is, one is yet to come, and the Beast is the eighth king----and Beale says on pages 23-24 that "More likely the seven kings are not to be identified with any specific historical rulers but represent rather the oppressive power of world government throughout the ages, which arrogates to itself divine prerogatives and persecutes God's people."  Beale appears to be skeptical of the scholarly argument that 666 refers to Caesar Nero just because transliterating his name into Hebrew and using gematria results in 666, for Beale says that there were a lot of possible ways to transliterate Nero into Hebrew (so I guess he's asking why we should assume that 666 is about Nero just because one of those transliterations happens to work out), that we shouldn't assume that Greek speakers knew Hebrew and Hebrew gematria, that it's puzzling that the author of Revelation used the Hebrew rather than the Greek form of Nero, and that the "numerical value in Hebrew of the Greek word [therion] ("beast") is 666" (page 24).  Beale's argument may be (and I am open to correction as I read this book) that the Beast of Revelation 13 is not Nero, per se, but that Revelation 13 is exhorting "believers to perceive spiritually the deceptive nature of the satanic, beastly institutions to which they are being tempted to accommodate" (page 24).  And, while Beale believes that the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 were actual churches in the first century, he also thinks that they're relevant to churches throughout the church age, in which there have been some churches that have lost their fervor, and others that are committed to Christ.

At the same time, Beale does believe that the Book of Revelation originated to speak to a specific historical context.  He argues that its origin was in the time of Domitian (who reigned in 81-96 C.E.), which was a time when Christian aristocrats were being persecuted for not worshiping the emperor.  Beale also contends that there was pressure on Christians in first century Asia Minor to "attend trade guild festivities honoring patron gods" (page 32).  Some did so, according to Beale, because they felt that would enable them to know the "deep things of Satan" (Revelation 2:24)----to know what their enemy Satan was up to.  But the author of Revelation did not approve of their activity.  (Regarding authorship, Beale is open, but he does not buy the argument that it couldn't have been John the Apostle on account of the different styles and ideas in Revelation as opposed to the Johannine writings, for Beale says that Revelation is a different genre and thus would be different from John's Gospel, and also that there are parallels between Revelation and John's Gospel.)

For Beale, the author of Revelation is appealing to a transcendent reality to speak to a first century audience.  I'm curious as to how Beale will handle the passages in Revelation that present the Second Coming of Christ as imminent.  Thus far (and I could be wrong on this), he seems to think that the author of Revelation is drawing from concepts that are general and applicable to all sorts of historical settings, in his attempts to speak to the situation of certain first century Christians.

Commitment to Christ, High Standards, and Individuality

At church this morning, the sermon was about what holds some people back from making a commitment to Christ.  The pastor mentioned Augustine, but he quoted Augustine as saying that he wanted to make a commitment to Christ, but not quite yet.  Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the story is actually that Augustine prayed at some point that God might make him chaste, but not quite yet!  The pastor may have been trying to be discreet.  At the same time, the pastor did say that Augustine was reluctant to commit to Christ because Augustine wanted to continue to enjoy certain pleasures!

According to the pastor, a reason that some people are hesitant to commit to Christ is that they want to hold on to their individuality.  The thing is, the pastor continued, the way that they can truly find themselves is by committing to Christ.

I'm not entirely sure what people have in mind when they talk about being committed to Christ.  Does that entail things that Christians do----prayer, Bible reading, doing acts of service, trying not to hurt others, being a kind and gentle person, telling others about Jesus, etc.?  The pastor was talking about the importance of feeding on Christ himself----there is a banquet, the pastor told us, and Jesus is the meal!

I've talked before about my struggles with Christianity.  I find some of its standards to be unrealistically high----don't lust, forgive, love other Christians just as Jesus loves you, etc.  And, the thing is, many of the Christians who would get on their high horse and judge me over saying this have themselves not reached the high standards of Christianity.  I'll give some credit to those who fight nobly against lust, for not every Christian male is the type who visits porn on the Internet on a regular basis (although there are Christian males who struggle with this, and some who don't struggle but just visit the porn sites).  But do they forgive, or do they redefine forgiveness to mean that you put out of yourself bitterness against another person, without necessarily having to become friends with that person?  Do they truly love each and every believer as Christ loves them, or do they love those who are their friends, while merely being polite (if they're even that) to those who are outside of their clique?  I don't fault them for this.  I myself don't feel compelled to be friends with everyone, and I admit that I don't love each and every Christian the way that Christ loves me.  But I don't thump my chest about the authority of Scripture, as do those who do this while bringing down the high standards of Scripture to a more attainable level.

Regarding individuality, granted, there are plenty of times when I feel that being a Christian can compromise a person's individuality.  My impression is that people become evangelicals and in essence are made into clones that are happy-happy and believe the same thing.  Maybe there's something to my impression, and yet I doubt that's the full deal, for behind each happy-happy evangelical is a person with his or her unique story, and his or her own reasons for coming to faith.  Can I become more of an individual by being a Christian?  As I said in my reflections here, there is a sense that I could be who I truly am if I forsook such things as bitterness, pettiness, etc., etc.  I think that, somewhere within each person, there is a desire to love and to be loved, and there are things that stand in the way of that taking place.

Quote of the Day

This morning on ABC This Week, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said the following about attempts to find racism in Republican rhetoric, in response to conservative George Will's statement that "the guys over at MSNBC have said that when Republicans talk about Chicago, it's a subtext for racism" (see here for the transcript):

"George, you know, let me just tell you, as the first African-American woman to manage a presidential campaign, I will never forget the conversation I had with my dad. I thought he would be excited. I'm the first black woman.  My dad said, Donna, it's just a job, it's just a job. So, I mean, look, racism is a subtext, context of every campaign in modern history and past history. And so whether it's the use of the word 'y'all' to 'Chicago,' I don't get drawn into those conversations.  I heard about a camerawoman at a network I also work for, getting pelted with peanuts at the convention, I don't get drawn into that. Because I understand when you put this conversation on the table we cannot have a substantive conversation about welfare reform, about social policy, because we want to get drawn into that conversation.  Look, we need to have a forward-looking conversation about what it takes to grow our economy in the 21st Century for all Americans."

Mitt Romney's No Apology 2: Russia and Honduras

For my write-up today on Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, I'll focus on some things that Romney says about President Barack Obama's foreign policy.  Romney criticizes President Obama for ending President George W. Bush's plan for missile defense for Eastern Europe, as well as Obama's decision to support the reinstatement of leftist President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, even though the Supreme Court there had lawfully removed him.

There is another side to the story.  Obama ended the missile defense plans in order to reset relations with Russia, and the result was a START treaty and Russia helping us in Afghanistan (see here, here, and here).  And Obama favored the reinstatement of Zelaya as President in Honduras because the Honduran military had removed him, and Obama thought that democracy rather than military force should be the way to handle things in Honduras (see here).

One could argue that Obama's policy has not worked as well as hoped.  After all, Russia has not assisted us that much when it comes to Iran and Syria.  And Romney notes that Russia makes overtures towards Hugo Chavez.  But I wonder: Would taking a tough stand towards Russia better the situation?  We don't want Russia to think that it can walk all over us, but do we have much capital (if you will) that could actually help us were we to confront Russia?  During the Reagan Administration, the Soviet Union was in trouble because it could not support its large military and its economy at the same time, and there were economic problems that were caused by communism.  But, as Romney notes, Russia today is quite prosperous.

(UPDATE: This article says in response to Romney's convention speech, in which he made the same point about Russia and missile defense: "Here, Romney goes back to one poorly received comment he made during his star-crossed trip to Europe and the Middle East. Before he left in late-July, Romney, in a speech to the VFW, said Obama's actions in the region 'began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic. They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off.' That didn't sit well with the Slovakian foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Miroslav Lajcak, who told The Wall Street Journal, 'People have moved on. We are in a different situation now. We are discussing a different project. I see no reason to revisit discussions from three years back.' Lajcak was referring to the Obama administration's decision to tinker with the plan first put in place by President George W. Bush. Rather than plant missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama has opted to build them aboard naval vessels and with the cooperation of all the NATO countries.")

Mitt Romney's No Apology 1

I started Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America.

In my latest reading, Romney argued that free enterprise has made the United States the most prosperous nation in the world, and that countries with free enterprise are usually more prosperous than those in which the government has a heavy hand in the economy.  Romney acknowledges some nuance, though.  He says that many Western Europeans are satisfied with their system of government benefits, but he questions whether that system will always work and notes that Western European nations are moving towards the principles of American free enterprise.  And Romney says that China has free enterprise, and that its businesses are free from regulations that are actually important----regulations that pertain to health, safety, and other concerns.  But Romney also states that China's system of free enterprise is directed by an authoritarian system.  Romney still believes that China's system is effective and that China may become more powerful than the U.S., but Romney speculates that there may come a point where China will embrace democracy.

Romney also contends that the United States, whatever its mistakes, has been a positive presence in the world, which has prevented belligerent nations from getting out of hand.   And Romney quotes Israeli Shimon Peres' statement that the U.S., unlike many other nations, does not take over land when it wins a war.

I agree with Romney that many Americans have a high standard of living.  I tend to envy, though, the economic security of people in Canada and Europe, who live in systems that have universal health care.  But are these nations supported, at least in part, by the productivity of the United States?  Do we, in some sense, contribute to the prosperity that helps them to have universal health care?  I hope that we can have our cake and eat it, too----that we can have the productivity that results from American capitalism and entrepreneurship, and a universal health care system that keeps people from being bankrupted due to high health care costs.

Regarding America's presence in the world, Romney is probably right that we don't take land.  But critics from the right and the left have contended that the U.S. has exploited the resources of other nations, or has intervened in them (often secretly) for its own economic interests.

My favorite part of my latest reading was Romney's story of how his father gave his kids chores to do because the family was prosperous, and George Romney wanted his kids to learn the value of hard work.  And, when George became more prosperous, he gave his kids more chores!

Psalm 92

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 92 and its interpreters.  Psalm 92 is a Psalm for the Sabbath day.

There is scholarly debate about whether Psalm 92 was originally written as a Psalm for the Sabbath, or was later applied to the Sabbath.  In favor of the former view, the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, and the name YHWH appears in Psalm 92 seven times (Jewish Study Bible).  Moreover, the Sabbath is related to creation in Genesis 2:1-3, and Nahum Sarna believes that there are creation themes in Psalm 92, such as God's defeat of chaos.  In favor of the latter view, the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned in Psalm 92, which appears to be a standard Psalm about God's defeat of the wicked and vindication of the righteous.  Marvin Tate refers to the view that Psalm 92 was originally a Psalm of thanksgiving by the king after God had delivered him in battle, and it was later applied to the Sabbath.

I do not know whether Psalm 92 was originally composed for the Sabbath or not.  But Psalm 92 does seem fitting for the Sabbath.  The Sabbath is about rest.  And what is more restful than not having to worry about wicked oppressors?  Not surprisingly, there are Jewish interpreters (Rashi and Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hoshanah 31a) that interpret the Psalm eschatologically----as God bringing in a time of rest and peace at the end of days.

But there have been other proposed settings for Psalm 92.  There is one rabbinic view that Psalm 92 was spoken by Adam on the very first Sabbath day.  In the Midrash on the Psalms, there is a story about God relenting from destroying Adam in Gehenna because the Sabbath was approaching, even though Adam had sinned against God, and Adam spends the Sabbath in a state of happiness because God has spared his life.  (You'd think that Judaism regarded the Sabbath as an ordinance for all people----Jew and Gentile----because it maintained that Adam kept the Sabbath, but there is also a view in the Midrash on the Psalms that the Sabbath was God's special gift for Israel alone.)  Charles Spurgeon critiques the idea that Psalm 92 was by Adam because the Psalm mentions harps and wicked people, and Adam did not play harps or contend with wicked human beings.  But the Midrash on the Psalms does not apply all of the Psalm to Adam but contains applications of its contents to other situations, as well.

E.W. Bullinger, who holds that Psalm 92 is part of the Numbers book in Psalms (since it's in the fourth book, and Bullinger interprets the division of books in the Psalms in light of the books of the Pentateuch), inquires if Psalm 92 can relate to the stoning of the Sabbathbreaker in Numbers 15:32-41.  I suppose that can fit, in areas.  The Sabbathbreaker could perhaps be characterized as a brutish man (to draw from the KJV's rendering of Psalm 92:6) who did not comprehend the depth of God's works, plus Psalm 92 is about the destruction of the wicked.  But Psalm 92:11 says that the wicked rise up against the Psalmist.  Would that apply to the Sabbathbreaker?  Well, people rose up against Moses on a regular basis, and perhaps one could argue that Moses thought that the stoning of the Sabbathbreaker was part of God's larger judgment of Israel's rebellion against God and God's authority structure.

A question that came up in my reading was why the creation story in Genesis 1-2:3 says that there was evening and morning for the days of creation, but not for the Sabbath.  The Midrash on the Psalms contains two ideas.  First, evening and morning are related to work, for people sleep in the evening to prepare for work the next day.  But, on the Sabbath, the Israelites are not to be burdened with work.  Second, the evening is a time of darkness, and the Sabbath is a day of no darkness, or evil.  While that coincides with the message of Psalm 92 that God will defeat the wicked, evening and morning are still in the Psalm, for the Psalmist talks in v 2 about celebrating God every day and night.