Posts
Michael Kazin. War Against War: The American Fight for Peace, 1914-1918. Simon and Schuster, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
Michael Kazin teaches history at Georgetown University and co-edits the publication Dissent. War Against War: The American Fight for Peace, 1914-1918
is about the American anti-war movement during World War I. The book
talks about who was involved in the anti-war movement and why,
chronicles the events that led up to American intervention into the war,
and discusses the attempts by the U.S. government to suppress anti-war
dissent through such measures as the Espionage Act.
A book that was continually on my mind as I read Kazin’s book was William P. Hoar’s Architects of Conspiracy,
which I read back when I was in the sixth grade. Hoar’s book was
published by Western Islands, which was the publishing arm of the
ultra-conservative John Birch Society, and my understanding is that some
of the chapters of Hoar’s book also appeared in the Bircher periodical American Opinion.
Why was Hoar’s book on my mind as I was reading Kazin’s book? In a
sense, much of what I knew about World War I and the players involved
came from Hoar’s book, and I have not read much about World War I since
then. The school that I attended as a child covered the high points of
World War I, such as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the
sinking of the Lusitania, and the Zimmermann telegram. But it did not
talk much about the prominent personalities who had an opinion about the
war: Woodrow Wilson, Charles Lindbergh, William Jennings Bryan, Andrew
Carnegie, Henry Ford, Jane Addams, Eugene Debs, Henry Cabot Lodge, and
the list goes on. Hoar’s book covered a lot of those personalities.
But, in significant areas, the narrative in Hoar’s book was different
from the narrative in Kazin’s book. Both clearly overlapped in that
both were highly critical of American entry into World War I. But Hoar
talks about World War I within the context of his sweeping narrative
about how the rich Insiders were trying to create a one world
government. In the course of Hoar’s narrative, there are heroes and
villains. Woodrow Wilson was a villain because he broke his promise not
to get America into war, and because he promoted the League of Nations
after World War I. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was a hero
because he valiantly opposed American entry into the war. Charles
Lindbergh, Sr. (father of the famous pilot) was likewise a hero because
he opposed American entry into the war (and also the Federal Reserve,
which is another story). Henry Cabot Lodge was a hero because he stood
against American entry into the League of Nations. Henry Ford was a
heroic anti-Internationalist. Andrew Carnegie was a villain because he
supported a one-world government. Jane Addams was a villain because of
her left-leaning stances. The progressives were bad because they wanted
socialism.
Kazin’s book presents a picture that is more complicated. Woodrow
Wilson emerges as a figure who was trying to keep America out of war as
long as he felt he could, and he had reservations even after the U.S.
got into the war. William Jennings Bryan was largely critical of
American intervention, yet, at the same time, like many in the anti-war
movement, he supported a globalist system to keep the peace, the sort of
system that many Birchers would find abhorrent! Charles Lindbergh was
critical of American entry into the war, but he was one of the few
Republicans to oppose it: in Kazin’s telling, many Republicans wanted a
stronger military and supported the war because that would benefit their
wealthy corporate backers. Henry Cabot Lodge supported American entry
into the war. Henry Ford was against the war and sided with leftists
who wanted a one-world government, or something like that. Andrew
Carnegie and Jane Addams opposed American entry into the war, as did the
progressive Robert La Follette. Hoar’s heroes were not entirely
heroic, by Bircher standards, and his villains were not entirely
villainous. At the same time, while Kazin talks a lot about the leftist
opposition to American involvement in World War I, Kazin also tells the
story of Southern conservative Democrats who were against the war.
(This is not to suggest that I had a Bircher view about World War I
until I read Kazin’s book, but rather that Hoar’s book was on my mind
when I was reading Kazin.)
Kazin is a compelling narrator and storyteller. He gives the
background of many of the people who opposed World War I, and their
reasons for opposing American entry. Among the criticisms of American
entry was a sense that it would benefit wealthy capitalists rather than
workers, a belief that negotiation could alleviate the international
tension, a utopian desire for a globalist sort of system to maintain the
peace, a recognition of the horrors of war, and a sense that America
need not worry about foreign conflict because America was invulnerable
to outside attack, since two oceans protected it. Moreover, for a
while, President Woodrow Wilson was reluctant to create a standing army
or to boost U.S. military spending because he preferred the Jeffersonian
Democratic aversion to a strong military.
Kazin also talks about the rationale of Americans who supported the
war. There was a sense that war brought out the best in people, giving
them the opportunity to think beyond themselves and to exercise such
virtues as courage. There was some fear that Germans could attack
America’s cities, and the Zimmermann telegram confirmed in some minds
that the Germans had hostile intentions towards the United States and
could attack from Mexico. Germans were interfering with U.S. and
British trade by sinking ships. Some American labor representatives
thought the the war could boost the economy and help workers. There was
a desire for the U.S. to be strong: Theodore Roosevelt especially
articulated this, as he portrayed Wilson as a weakling. Among certain
leftists, there was concern that Germany could threaten the newly
emerging Soviet Union, which they saw as the beginnings of a model and
just society.
In reading Kazin’s narrative, I had difficulty identifying a clear
event that got America into the war. Even after the Germans sank the
Lusitania, Wilson was still dragging his feet. There were anti-war
people who considered the Zimmermann telegram a fake. But, as Germans
continued being aggressive and rejected peace overtures, more and more
Americans got tired and thought that the U.S. should enter the war.
Wilson later targeted the anti-war activists whom he once embraced
because he thought that they were undermining morale.
Kazin explores interesting historical topics: how women conducted the
anti-war movement in a different manner from men; the different
attitudes toward the war within the African-American community, as some
championed the war as an opportunity for African-Americans to support
freedom and demonstrate their valor, whereas others contended that it
was hypocritical for America to fight for freedom abroad while
neglecting it at home; and how anti-war legislators sought to modify
American entry into the war, by attempting to impose a heavy tax on
wealthy industrialists to pay for it! Kazin also discusses the role of
Helen Keller in opposing the war, and Henry Ford’s unsuccessful and
derided attempt to negotiate a peace settlement.
In addition, Kazin provides a helpful timeline and list of books at the end.
In terms of critiques, Kazin perhaps could have been clearer about
what specifically precipitated American intervention. Moreover,
although Kazin effectively described the motivations of so many people,
he also should have gone into more detail about German motivations: why
were the Germans doing what they were doing?
Overall, though, this is an informative, interesting, and engaging book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley, in exchange for an honest review.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Book Write-Up: He Will Be the Preacher, by Erwin W. Lutzer
Erwin W. Lutzer. He Will Be the Preacher: The Story of God’s Providence in My Life. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2015. See here to buy the book.
Erwin W. Lutzer pastors the Moody Church in Chicago, and he has written a number of books. The title of this particular book, He Will Be the Preacher, comes from something that the wife of the pastor who married Erwin Lutzer’s parents said about Erwin when Erwin was a baby: “Er wird der Prediger sein.”
This book is somewhat of an autobiography. Lutzer talks about his parents’ backgrounds, aspects of his childhood, his time in college and seminary, how he met his wife, his role as pastor at the Moody Church and his challenges there, his children, how he became an author, the times that he interacted with his hero Billy Graham, and the time that he visited Wittenberg in German, where Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses. The last chapter of the book contains reflections on preaching: the call of preaching, and how to be effective at it.
I was hesitant to read this book, at first, probably because I wondered if Lutzer was famous enough to write an autobiography. There are plenty of people who have written books, preached in churches, and been on the radio, but they have not written a book about themselves! But I was in the mood for a spiritual autobiography, and I had read some of Lutzer’s other books. He struck me as a lucid, inviting, and thoughtful writer, so I decided to read He Will Be the Preacher.
The book was good, overall. Lutzer told personal stories, while interspersing them with spiritual reflections and discussions. He saw spiritual significance in many of the stories that he told, and that does give the book substance. Lutzer also shared about how his personal time with God has evolved over the years and his witnessing to others. Occasionally, Lutzer interacted with thorny, difficult questions regarding divine providence or the Christian faith. He talks about how he feels that God did not want him to marry a particular woman and put roadblocks in his path to prevent that, but then he wonders why God allows other people to enter into bad marriages. His personal story about how he asked Christ into his heart and did not feel any differently soon after that is also noteworthy.
The book seemed rather sugary at times, since there were so many things in Lutzer’s life that fell into place, or good things that just fell into his lap. The book perhaps could have been better had Lutzer talked more about attempts to overcome personal flaws: he said that he was shy as a youth, for example, and, as a shy person myself, I wonder how he became less shy. The book also had some name-dropping, and it could be tedious, in places.
Still, to say that Lutzer presents himself as perfect would be a mistake, for Lutzer is candid about the differences he had with his wife and the errors he made as a parent. He does come across as humble in this book. Lutzer in this book also does not shy away from the trials or tribulations of life.
In addition, the book offers sensible advice about evangelism, parenting, and preaching.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Erwin W. Lutzer pastors the Moody Church in Chicago, and he has written a number of books. The title of this particular book, He Will Be the Preacher, comes from something that the wife of the pastor who married Erwin Lutzer’s parents said about Erwin when Erwin was a baby: “Er wird der Prediger sein.”
This book is somewhat of an autobiography. Lutzer talks about his parents’ backgrounds, aspects of his childhood, his time in college and seminary, how he met his wife, his role as pastor at the Moody Church and his challenges there, his children, how he became an author, the times that he interacted with his hero Billy Graham, and the time that he visited Wittenberg in German, where Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses. The last chapter of the book contains reflections on preaching: the call of preaching, and how to be effective at it.
I was hesitant to read this book, at first, probably because I wondered if Lutzer was famous enough to write an autobiography. There are plenty of people who have written books, preached in churches, and been on the radio, but they have not written a book about themselves! But I was in the mood for a spiritual autobiography, and I had read some of Lutzer’s other books. He struck me as a lucid, inviting, and thoughtful writer, so I decided to read He Will Be the Preacher.
The book was good, overall. Lutzer told personal stories, while interspersing them with spiritual reflections and discussions. He saw spiritual significance in many of the stories that he told, and that does give the book substance. Lutzer also shared about how his personal time with God has evolved over the years and his witnessing to others. Occasionally, Lutzer interacted with thorny, difficult questions regarding divine providence or the Christian faith. He talks about how he feels that God did not want him to marry a particular woman and put roadblocks in his path to prevent that, but then he wonders why God allows other people to enter into bad marriages. His personal story about how he asked Christ into his heart and did not feel any differently soon after that is also noteworthy.
The book seemed rather sugary at times, since there were so many things in Lutzer’s life that fell into place, or good things that just fell into his lap. The book perhaps could have been better had Lutzer talked more about attempts to overcome personal flaws: he said that he was shy as a youth, for example, and, as a shy person myself, I wonder how he became less shy. The book also had some name-dropping, and it could be tedious, in places.
Still, to say that Lutzer presents himself as perfect would be a mistake, for Lutzer is candid about the differences he had with his wife and the errors he made as a parent. He does come across as humble in this book. Lutzer in this book also does not shy away from the trials or tribulations of life.
In addition, the book offers sensible advice about evangelism, parenting, and preaching.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Pentecostal/Name-It-Claim-It Remnants?
The church that I attend is Baptist, and the pastor, of course, is
Baptist. Yet, he has a name-it-claim-it Pentecostal sort of
background. At times, he argues against that background. In his sermon
last Sunday, for example, he was saying that people can glorify God
even when they’re sick. In making that point, he may have been
disputing a name-it-claim-it idea that God always wants to heal us when
we are sick, but we need to muster up enough faith for God to do so.
There are times when the pastor is more explicit in his criticism of
name-it-claim-it.
At times, though, the pastor seems to reflect his Pentecostal upbringing: it’s still a part of him, even though he is now a Baptist. In his prayer before his sermon, he prays that God might use his sermon to minister to the person who is in danger of losing his soul. Does that imply that a Christian can lose his or her salvation? But the pastor does not believe that a Christian can lose his or her salvation. He believes in once-saved-always-saved! I listened to a sermon of his online in which he tried to reconcile once-saved-always-saved with Jesus’ statement in John 15 that unfruitful branches will be taken away, and that branches that remain not in Jesus are burned in the fire. The pastor’s conclusions in that sermon were pretty disturbing (i.e., I understood him to be saying that God may prematurely kill unfruitful Christians in this life because they are not making a difference for God on earth, even though they are still saved and will go to heaven after death). But the effort that the pastor took to reconcile John 15 with once-saved-always-saved shows that he takes once-saved-always-saved seriously! My understanding is that many Pentecostals, by contrast, believe that Christians can lose their salvation (their soul), through persistent backsliding, for instance.
Is the pastor talking about non-believers losing their soul, not believers losing their salvation? But non-believers are already lost when it comes to their souls, aren’t they, according to his religion? They cannot lose something that is already lost! Or maybe I am being too literal. Jesus in Mark 8:36 and Matthew 16:26 says that it does not profit a person to gain the whole world, yet to lose his own soul. Jesus was not only talking to believers there, I don’t think, but he was saying that those who do not follow him are forfeiting their souls. They have a choice: to follow Jesus and to find their souls, or to reject Jesus and to lose their souls. They have the potential to find their souls, so being lost is not inevitable; if they choose poorly, however, they will lose their souls.
Before the sermon, we recite “This is my Bible. I am what it says that I am. I can claim what it says I can claim.” And the recitation goes on. Those who watch Joel Osteen or have seen sermons by his father, John Osteen, will recognize that recitation. The Osteens are often associated with the Word of Faith movement, which is similar to name-it-claim it.
The pastor is often critical of the prosperity Gospel. In the sermon last week, he was saying that being promoted for a job is not God’s will for us, if that job will take us away from God: from church, from small group, from reading the Bible, etc. And yet, the pastor seems to believe that God can and does bless people in their businesses. But, come to think of it, that is not necessarily a distinguishing mark of Pentecostalism, for much of North American Christianity, maybe even world Christianity, believes along those lines.
At times, though, the pastor seems to reflect his Pentecostal upbringing: it’s still a part of him, even though he is now a Baptist. In his prayer before his sermon, he prays that God might use his sermon to minister to the person who is in danger of losing his soul. Does that imply that a Christian can lose his or her salvation? But the pastor does not believe that a Christian can lose his or her salvation. He believes in once-saved-always-saved! I listened to a sermon of his online in which he tried to reconcile once-saved-always-saved with Jesus’ statement in John 15 that unfruitful branches will be taken away, and that branches that remain not in Jesus are burned in the fire. The pastor’s conclusions in that sermon were pretty disturbing (i.e., I understood him to be saying that God may prematurely kill unfruitful Christians in this life because they are not making a difference for God on earth, even though they are still saved and will go to heaven after death). But the effort that the pastor took to reconcile John 15 with once-saved-always-saved shows that he takes once-saved-always-saved seriously! My understanding is that many Pentecostals, by contrast, believe that Christians can lose their salvation (their soul), through persistent backsliding, for instance.
Is the pastor talking about non-believers losing their soul, not believers losing their salvation? But non-believers are already lost when it comes to their souls, aren’t they, according to his religion? They cannot lose something that is already lost! Or maybe I am being too literal. Jesus in Mark 8:36 and Matthew 16:26 says that it does not profit a person to gain the whole world, yet to lose his own soul. Jesus was not only talking to believers there, I don’t think, but he was saying that those who do not follow him are forfeiting their souls. They have a choice: to follow Jesus and to find their souls, or to reject Jesus and to lose their souls. They have the potential to find their souls, so being lost is not inevitable; if they choose poorly, however, they will lose their souls.
Before the sermon, we recite “This is my Bible. I am what it says that I am. I can claim what it says I can claim.” And the recitation goes on. Those who watch Joel Osteen or have seen sermons by his father, John Osteen, will recognize that recitation. The Osteens are often associated with the Word of Faith movement, which is similar to name-it-claim it.
The pastor is often critical of the prosperity Gospel. In the sermon last week, he was saying that being promoted for a job is not God’s will for us, if that job will take us away from God: from church, from small group, from reading the Bible, etc. And yet, the pastor seems to believe that God can and does bless people in their businesses. But, come to think of it, that is not necessarily a distinguishing mark of Pentecostalism, for much of North American Christianity, maybe even world Christianity, believes along those lines.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Book Write-Up: Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, Theology Proper
Geerhardus Vos. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Theology Proper.
Translated and edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, with Kim Batteau,
Annemie Godbehere, and Roelof von Ijken. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press,
2012-2014. See here to purchase the book.
Geerhardus Vos lived from 1862-1849. According to the back flap of this book’s cover, Vos was a “Dutch American theologian.” He “is considered by many to be the father of modern Reformed biblical theology,” and he “held Princeton’s new Chair of Biblical Theology from 1893 until his retirement in 1932.” Plus, his “thinking and scholarship deeply influenced the biblical and theological work of Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Herman Ridderbos, and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.”
Volume 1 of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics concerns “Theology Proper.” The book’s format is one in which Vos responds to questions. Some of the answers are brief, and some contain lengthy paragraphs.
Chapter 1 is the briefest chapter in the book, and it concerns God’s knowability. Vos disputes a pantheistic view that God is unknowable, maintaining instead that we can know God from God’s revelation to us, even if that knowledge is not comprehensive. Chapter 2 is entitled “Names, Being, and Attributes of God.” In this chapter, Vos discusses God’s incommunicable and communicable attributes. Among the attributes that Vos discusses are God’s infinity, immutability, simplicity, eternity, love, righteousness, freedom, holiness, and wrath. Vos also addresses the reasons for God’s punishment: are they punitive, or educative? Chapter 3 is about the Trinity. Vos depicts the Son as dependent on the Father for his existence, and the Holy Spirit as dependent on the Father and the Son. Yet, Vos still maintains that the Son and the Spirit are eternal and possess the same divine substance as the Father. Vos holds that there is still subordinationism within the Trinity, however, as the Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of work and function, and the Spirit is functionally subordinate to the Father and the Son.
Chapter 4 is about “God’s Decrees in General.” In this chapter, Vos elaborates on sentiments that he has expressed elsewhere in the book. Vos rejects the notion that anything can occur outside of God’s decree, as if such a notion compromises God’s sovereignty and posits a “second deity” (page 83). Vos then has to wrestle with the question of whether God decreed evil, and is thus the author of evil, a question that he continually revisits throughout the book. Vos believes that God decreed evil for God’s wise purposes but is not its author, and he calls God’s decree of evil a “permissive decree.” Vos also maintains that God is free: God did not have to decree things as God did and could have decreed them differently. At the same time, Vos denies that God is arbitrary in God’s decree, for God is righteous, ethical, wise, and rational. Chapter 5 concerns “The Doctrine of Predestination.” Vos in this chapter addresses whether divine foreknowledge in Scripture means that God merely foresees who will be saved rather than predestining the saved individuals. Vos also goes through Romans 9 and pieces of Romans 11, addresses whether Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 present the salvation of angels, and discusses the differences between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.
Chapter 6 is about “Creation.” Vos in this chapter addresses details about Genesis 1, disputes the idea that the creation is an eternal emanation from God, and discusses the role of each person of the Trinity in creation. Chapter 7 is entitled “Providence.” Here, Vos appears to argue from Scripture that God is intricately involved in the sustenance and functioning of every detail of creation, and yet that God respects secondary causes and the natural powers that God has given to the aspects of creation. Vos realizes that he is walking a fine line between deism and pantheism: Vos does not believe that God wound up the natural clock and walked away to let the clock work on its own, but neither does Vos want to make God’s involvement in nature so overbearing that natural laws are irrelevant, non-existent, or unnecessary.
This book has many positives. First of all, while many might expect a Reformed Dogmatics to be predictable, this book was not. The prose was not too difficult, and yet I had to follow Vos’ reasoning very closely, as I took notes in the margin. I could not simply take for granted that Vos would argue according to my stereotype of what Reformed people believe. To cite some examples, Vos wrestles at length with the part of Romans 9 about God forming some lumps of clay for honor and other parts for dishonor, and Vos even goes so far as to say that the analogy itself has limits. While Vos does say at one point that God owes nobody salvation, a point that Reformed people often make, Vos still wants to see God as ethical rather than cruel and arbitrary; Vos, in fact, critiques certain views (i.e., pantheism, suffering being educative) on the ground that they make God look cruel, promote pessimism rather than optimism (in the case of pantheism), or disregard the value of human beings by treating them as means to an end (as treating people’s punishments as educative for other people arguably does). (NOTE: This is not to imply that I think Reformed people view God as cruel or arbitrary.) Moreover, Vos defined supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism in ways that overlapped somewhat with my understanding of them, but also differed dramatically.
Second, Vos’ Scriptural interpretations were good, at least overall. Vos argues that God’s foreknowledge of the elect is consistent with predestination and means that God looked on those whom God predestined to salvation with love, not that God merely foresaw that they would believe and be saved. As Vos notes, I Peter 1:20 states that Christ was foreknown, and certainly God did more than merely foresee that Christ would come and die for people’s sins! God actually planned it! Vos’ Scriptural support for God being intricately involved in nature seemed to be sound. Vos interacted with the question of whether the days of Genesis 1 were literal days, as Vos judiciously presented both sides of the issue and offered his own opinion. Vos also addresses the question of whether God changed God’s mind when God told King Hezekiah that he would die soon, and Hezekiah then went on to live a while longer. According to Vos, God did not change God’s mind but rather was highlighting that Hezekiah’s disease was deadly. That is not entirely convincing, but it is a nice try! One interpretation that was unconvincing was Vos’ discussion about whether the warning to Gentile Christians in Romans 11 that they could be broken off if they become too proud means that Christians can lose their salvation, which Reformed Christians deny is even possible. Vos argues that Paul is talking about the Gentiles as a race or nation, not as saved individuals. What does that mean, exactly? That God will stop reaching out to non-Jews and including them in God’s church, if they become too proud? That Christianity would revert back to being a Jewish movement? Vos should have elaborated on his interpretation.
Third, Vos engages difficult questions. How could Adam be good and yet sin, when it will be impossible for the perfected saints in the eschaton to sin? If God is infinite, does that imply that all is God (pantheism), and that there is nothing distinct from God? How can God be outside of time and yet create a world that exists within time? In many cases, Vos says that the answer is a mystery! That may sound like a cop-out, but Vos often extensively wrestles with the questions before he takes that route.
Fourth, Vos referred to other Christian thinkers. He disagrees with Augustine’s view that God foreknew but did not decree evil. He disagrees with Calvin’s apparent rejection of the eternal generation of the Son. He rejects Jerome’s view that God would not degrade God’s majesty by being concerned about mosquitoes. Vos also expresses agreement with historic Christian thinkers. This aspect of the book was informative and educational, and it added more nuance to the book.
In terms of criticisms, there were places in which Vos could be rather elliptical. Vos’ chapter on God’s attributes could have been clearer, and he should have defined the meaning of communicable and incommunicable. Moreover, even after looking up those terms on the Internet, I still am unclear about how some of those attributes that Vos lists as incommunicable are incommunicable. Vos asserts that God’s eternity is incommunicable—-which means (I think) that God alone possesses it and does not impart it to others. But does not God impart eternal life to believers, which would make eternity communicable? Or is God’s eternity incommunicable in the sense that it is inherent to God alone? Here, my knowledge is incomplete.
There were times when Vos seemed rather contradictory. He seemed open to saying that the “us” who create in Genesis 1 is a plural of majesty, then he disputed that shortly thereafter. He contended that one can only know of creation ex nihilo from revelation, rather than from nature or reason, but later he appeared to be saying that one could deduce from nature that the Trinitarian God created the cosmos.
Vos supported many of his views with Scripture, but there were occasions when he did not. While his model of the roles that each person of the Trinity played in creation appeared sensible and may be helpful, he did not offer Scriptural support for that.
In some cases, Vos was more sensitive to the diversity of Scripture than in other cases. Vos astutely noted that God as Father means a lot of different things in the Bible, not just God’s Fatherhood in the Trinity. Yet, Vos seemed to think that Jesus being the Son of God means the same thing throughout the New Testament: that it relates to Jesus being eternally begotten. This, even though there are a variety of meanings of “son of God” in the Bible (i.e., the Davidic king as God’s son, etc.). How can Vos be so sensitive to nuance in one area, and apparently oblivious to it in another?
Vos could have demonstrated more knowledge about evolution and the reasons scientists were accepting that view, as opposed to casually dismissing it.
Finally, Vos struck me as rather absolutist, in areas. Does God have to decree every little thing to be sovereign? Is there no middle ground here?
Overall, though, this is a thought-provoking book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Geerhardus Vos lived from 1862-1849. According to the back flap of this book’s cover, Vos was a “Dutch American theologian.” He “is considered by many to be the father of modern Reformed biblical theology,” and he “held Princeton’s new Chair of Biblical Theology from 1893 until his retirement in 1932.” Plus, his “thinking and scholarship deeply influenced the biblical and theological work of Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Herman Ridderbos, and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.”
Volume 1 of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics concerns “Theology Proper.” The book’s format is one in which Vos responds to questions. Some of the answers are brief, and some contain lengthy paragraphs.
Chapter 1 is the briefest chapter in the book, and it concerns God’s knowability. Vos disputes a pantheistic view that God is unknowable, maintaining instead that we can know God from God’s revelation to us, even if that knowledge is not comprehensive. Chapter 2 is entitled “Names, Being, and Attributes of God.” In this chapter, Vos discusses God’s incommunicable and communicable attributes. Among the attributes that Vos discusses are God’s infinity, immutability, simplicity, eternity, love, righteousness, freedom, holiness, and wrath. Vos also addresses the reasons for God’s punishment: are they punitive, or educative? Chapter 3 is about the Trinity. Vos depicts the Son as dependent on the Father for his existence, and the Holy Spirit as dependent on the Father and the Son. Yet, Vos still maintains that the Son and the Spirit are eternal and possess the same divine substance as the Father. Vos holds that there is still subordinationism within the Trinity, however, as the Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of work and function, and the Spirit is functionally subordinate to the Father and the Son.
Chapter 4 is about “God’s Decrees in General.” In this chapter, Vos elaborates on sentiments that he has expressed elsewhere in the book. Vos rejects the notion that anything can occur outside of God’s decree, as if such a notion compromises God’s sovereignty and posits a “second deity” (page 83). Vos then has to wrestle with the question of whether God decreed evil, and is thus the author of evil, a question that he continually revisits throughout the book. Vos believes that God decreed evil for God’s wise purposes but is not its author, and he calls God’s decree of evil a “permissive decree.” Vos also maintains that God is free: God did not have to decree things as God did and could have decreed them differently. At the same time, Vos denies that God is arbitrary in God’s decree, for God is righteous, ethical, wise, and rational. Chapter 5 concerns “The Doctrine of Predestination.” Vos in this chapter addresses whether divine foreknowledge in Scripture means that God merely foresees who will be saved rather than predestining the saved individuals. Vos also goes through Romans 9 and pieces of Romans 11, addresses whether Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 present the salvation of angels, and discusses the differences between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.
Chapter 6 is about “Creation.” Vos in this chapter addresses details about Genesis 1, disputes the idea that the creation is an eternal emanation from God, and discusses the role of each person of the Trinity in creation. Chapter 7 is entitled “Providence.” Here, Vos appears to argue from Scripture that God is intricately involved in the sustenance and functioning of every detail of creation, and yet that God respects secondary causes and the natural powers that God has given to the aspects of creation. Vos realizes that he is walking a fine line between deism and pantheism: Vos does not believe that God wound up the natural clock and walked away to let the clock work on its own, but neither does Vos want to make God’s involvement in nature so overbearing that natural laws are irrelevant, non-existent, or unnecessary.
This book has many positives. First of all, while many might expect a Reformed Dogmatics to be predictable, this book was not. The prose was not too difficult, and yet I had to follow Vos’ reasoning very closely, as I took notes in the margin. I could not simply take for granted that Vos would argue according to my stereotype of what Reformed people believe. To cite some examples, Vos wrestles at length with the part of Romans 9 about God forming some lumps of clay for honor and other parts for dishonor, and Vos even goes so far as to say that the analogy itself has limits. While Vos does say at one point that God owes nobody salvation, a point that Reformed people often make, Vos still wants to see God as ethical rather than cruel and arbitrary; Vos, in fact, critiques certain views (i.e., pantheism, suffering being educative) on the ground that they make God look cruel, promote pessimism rather than optimism (in the case of pantheism), or disregard the value of human beings by treating them as means to an end (as treating people’s punishments as educative for other people arguably does). (NOTE: This is not to imply that I think Reformed people view God as cruel or arbitrary.) Moreover, Vos defined supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism in ways that overlapped somewhat with my understanding of them, but also differed dramatically.
Second, Vos’ Scriptural interpretations were good, at least overall. Vos argues that God’s foreknowledge of the elect is consistent with predestination and means that God looked on those whom God predestined to salvation with love, not that God merely foresaw that they would believe and be saved. As Vos notes, I Peter 1:20 states that Christ was foreknown, and certainly God did more than merely foresee that Christ would come and die for people’s sins! God actually planned it! Vos’ Scriptural support for God being intricately involved in nature seemed to be sound. Vos interacted with the question of whether the days of Genesis 1 were literal days, as Vos judiciously presented both sides of the issue and offered his own opinion. Vos also addresses the question of whether God changed God’s mind when God told King Hezekiah that he would die soon, and Hezekiah then went on to live a while longer. According to Vos, God did not change God’s mind but rather was highlighting that Hezekiah’s disease was deadly. That is not entirely convincing, but it is a nice try! One interpretation that was unconvincing was Vos’ discussion about whether the warning to Gentile Christians in Romans 11 that they could be broken off if they become too proud means that Christians can lose their salvation, which Reformed Christians deny is even possible. Vos argues that Paul is talking about the Gentiles as a race or nation, not as saved individuals. What does that mean, exactly? That God will stop reaching out to non-Jews and including them in God’s church, if they become too proud? That Christianity would revert back to being a Jewish movement? Vos should have elaborated on his interpretation.
Third, Vos engages difficult questions. How could Adam be good and yet sin, when it will be impossible for the perfected saints in the eschaton to sin? If God is infinite, does that imply that all is God (pantheism), and that there is nothing distinct from God? How can God be outside of time and yet create a world that exists within time? In many cases, Vos says that the answer is a mystery! That may sound like a cop-out, but Vos often extensively wrestles with the questions before he takes that route.
Fourth, Vos referred to other Christian thinkers. He disagrees with Augustine’s view that God foreknew but did not decree evil. He disagrees with Calvin’s apparent rejection of the eternal generation of the Son. He rejects Jerome’s view that God would not degrade God’s majesty by being concerned about mosquitoes. Vos also expresses agreement with historic Christian thinkers. This aspect of the book was informative and educational, and it added more nuance to the book.
In terms of criticisms, there were places in which Vos could be rather elliptical. Vos’ chapter on God’s attributes could have been clearer, and he should have defined the meaning of communicable and incommunicable. Moreover, even after looking up those terms on the Internet, I still am unclear about how some of those attributes that Vos lists as incommunicable are incommunicable. Vos asserts that God’s eternity is incommunicable—-which means (I think) that God alone possesses it and does not impart it to others. But does not God impart eternal life to believers, which would make eternity communicable? Or is God’s eternity incommunicable in the sense that it is inherent to God alone? Here, my knowledge is incomplete.
There were times when Vos seemed rather contradictory. He seemed open to saying that the “us” who create in Genesis 1 is a plural of majesty, then he disputed that shortly thereafter. He contended that one can only know of creation ex nihilo from revelation, rather than from nature or reason, but later he appeared to be saying that one could deduce from nature that the Trinitarian God created the cosmos.
Vos supported many of his views with Scripture, but there were occasions when he did not. While his model of the roles that each person of the Trinity played in creation appeared sensible and may be helpful, he did not offer Scriptural support for that.
In some cases, Vos was more sensitive to the diversity of Scripture than in other cases. Vos astutely noted that God as Father means a lot of different things in the Bible, not just God’s Fatherhood in the Trinity. Yet, Vos seemed to think that Jesus being the Son of God means the same thing throughout the New Testament: that it relates to Jesus being eternally begotten. This, even though there are a variety of meanings of “son of God” in the Bible (i.e., the Davidic king as God’s son, etc.). How can Vos be so sensitive to nuance in one area, and apparently oblivious to it in another?
Vos could have demonstrated more knowledge about evolution and the reasons scientists were accepting that view, as opposed to casually dismissing it.
Finally, Vos struck me as rather absolutist, in areas. Does God have to decree every little thing to be sovereign? Is there no middle ground here?
Overall, though, this is a thought-provoking book.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Book Write-Up: What Does the Bible Say About Suffering?
Brian Han Gregg. What Does the Bible Say About Suffering? Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. See here to buy the book.
Brian Han Gregg has a Ph.D. from Notre Dame and teaches biblical studies at the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota.
In What Does the Bible Say About Suffering?, Gregg discusses the Bible as it addresses the issue of human suffering. Often in the book, Gregg prefers to interact in an in-depth manner with specific biblical passages rather than covering the topic of suffering in the Bible in a comprehensive sense. Among the topics with which Gregg interacts are: God’s reward of the righteous and punishment of the wicked in the Hebrew Bible; Cain’s choice to do evil in the Book of Genesis; God using evil for good, as in the biblical story of Joseph; suffering as an attack by Satan, which occurs in the Book of Job and is mentioned in the New Testament; suffering as a test or as a means to assist people in their spiritual growth; suffering as a way for Christ to make himself known to others through us, amidst our weakness and vulnerability; God’s comfort of believers amidst their suffering, and their comfort of others; and Christ’s suffering acts of sacrificial service, which believers are to follow. Gregg believes that all of these biblical interactions with suffering should be considered, and that to focus on one alone to the exclusion of the others disrupts the symphony that the Bible conveys.
Here are some thoughts about the book:
A. Chapter 2 was excellent. This chapter was about God rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. Gregg astutely notes that this is a significant theme in the Hebrew Bible, but that the New Testament shifts reward and punishment more to the afterlife, or to the eschaton. Gregg also effectively addresses a question: How can we tell if our suffering is God punishing us for our sins? Gregg responds that God does not send us on a wild goose chase to identify some sin for which God is punishing us, but that God often tells people explicitly when God is punishing them for a sin. This chapter was sensitive to problems and potential objections, and it was biblical.
B. Chapter 2 was the strongest chapter in the book, and the chapter after that was all right. In Chapter 3, Gregg shows how God reached out to Cain in love even after rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, and he briefly addresses thorny topics surrounding human free will (i.e., mental health issues).
C. It was at the end of Chapter 5 that I began to be disappointed with the book. Chapter 5 had good points: for example, Gregg argues that Satan in the Book of Job appears rather sinister, perhaps to argue against biblical scholars who regard Satan in the Book of Job merely as God’s prosecuting attorney. Near the end of the book, Gregg was astutely discussing the weaknesses that can accompany blaming Satan for our suffering. Then, Gregg was about to address a question: How can we tell if our suffering is from Satan? I was expecting for Gregg to knock this question out of the park, as he did with the question in Chapter 2. But he did not; my impression is that he felt that he could not, and that we really cannot make that determination, apart from God’s guidance.
D. In the final chapter of the book, Gregg attempts to address the larger question of whether believers can identify the reason for their suffering. Is it a test? Is it punishment? On page 164, he says, “There is no formula for discernment, but God has promised to lead his children through the valley.” Gregg says that Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and insight from others can assist one in discernment. There may be some wisdom to this, but it is not iron-clad. The appeal to Scripture leaves us exactly where we started: Scripture has all these rationales for suffering, and believers want to know which rationale fits their situation. Regarding the Holy Spirit, there are Christians who claim some pretty wacky things that they attribute to the Holy Spirit! And insight from others can be helpful, but not necessarily: Gregg is aware of how unhelpfully Job’s friends advised Job! My hope was that more of the book would be like Chapter 2, but it was not exactly. Granted, no formula or criterion for religiously accounting for suffering is perfect, but the book would have been better had Gregg offered more guidelines.
E. People who have already read a lot about theodicy or religious explanations of suffering may not find much that is new in Gregg’s book. Gregg did well, though, to share stories about suffering, including his own. And there were areas in which the book was edifying: when he talked about how his wife as a hospital chaplain “bore witness” to people’s pain (page 157), and how quadraplegic Joni Earickson Tada felt a deep need for Christ after her accident, a need that she did not feel before.
F. Not long ago, I read the book Between Pain and Grace, by Gerald Peterman and Andrew Schmutzer, and something that I liked about that book was that it taught me things I did not know about the thought of Augustine and John Calvin. Gregg’s book would have been better had it done something like that: peppered his insights with references to theologians.
G. Gregg often felt a need to stress that God does not cause certain forms of suffering, but that God can use suffering for our benefit, or can bring good out of suffering. Occasionally, Gregg’s insight was supportable by Scripture: for instance, God in the wilderness did not directly cause the Israelites’ harsh surroundings, but he used those surroundings for their spiritual benefit. Often, though, Gregg did not really support this insight with Scripture. The insight is understandable, for God would look horrible if he were to be deemed the cause of certain forms of suffering. And yet, Gregg should have wrestled with Scriptures such as Exodus 4:11, which seems to say that God makes people deaf, mute, and blind. Randy Alcorn, in his lengthy tome If God Is Good, actually interacts with this verse.
H. Chapter 12 was all right: it talks about service, and how Jesus tried to “redirect” his disciples’ “ambition” for greatness rather than suppressing it (page 148). That may qualify the biblical passages that exhort people to deny themselves, and it presents Jesus as one who realistically recognizes and acknowledges human egoism. At the same time, on page 146, Gregg states that those who “looked not to [their] own interests but to the interests of others” “will partake of the glory of the resurrected Christ.” Does that imply salvation by works? Gregg most likely believes in salvation by grace, which means that people cannot earn their salvation. Still, he should have addressed the question of how what he says on page 146 would relate to salvation by grace.
I. In Chapter 13, Gregg wrestles with the enigmatic statement in Colossians 1:24 that Paul is completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Gregg could have been more direct in saying what exactly was lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Gregg does say that Paul can “bear [suffering] in the flesh in a way that the risen Jesus no longer can” (page 156), and Gregg does say beautiful things in his interpretation of that verse. But, overall, I am still unclear about what Gregg thinks that Colossians 1:24 means.
J. Gregg uses the word “symphony” more than once in this book. After reading this book, how the Bible addresses suffering does not strike me as a harmonious symphony. Rather, the Bible says different things about suffering, and people can take those different things in helpful and unhelpful directions, as Gregg shows. I would not necessarily go to the other extreme and embrace Bart Ehrman’s view that the Bible is contradictory and discordant. Still, after reading Gregg, I do wonder how many of these biblical ideas on suffering can fit together. Something else to add: Gregg himself may not have been using the word “symphony” to imply harmony, as much as to argue that we should take everything in the Bible under consideration, as opposed to focusing on only one thing in the Bible.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Brian Han Gregg has a Ph.D. from Notre Dame and teaches biblical studies at the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota.
In What Does the Bible Say About Suffering?, Gregg discusses the Bible as it addresses the issue of human suffering. Often in the book, Gregg prefers to interact in an in-depth manner with specific biblical passages rather than covering the topic of suffering in the Bible in a comprehensive sense. Among the topics with which Gregg interacts are: God’s reward of the righteous and punishment of the wicked in the Hebrew Bible; Cain’s choice to do evil in the Book of Genesis; God using evil for good, as in the biblical story of Joseph; suffering as an attack by Satan, which occurs in the Book of Job and is mentioned in the New Testament; suffering as a test or as a means to assist people in their spiritual growth; suffering as a way for Christ to make himself known to others through us, amidst our weakness and vulnerability; God’s comfort of believers amidst their suffering, and their comfort of others; and Christ’s suffering acts of sacrificial service, which believers are to follow. Gregg believes that all of these biblical interactions with suffering should be considered, and that to focus on one alone to the exclusion of the others disrupts the symphony that the Bible conveys.
Here are some thoughts about the book:
A. Chapter 2 was excellent. This chapter was about God rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. Gregg astutely notes that this is a significant theme in the Hebrew Bible, but that the New Testament shifts reward and punishment more to the afterlife, or to the eschaton. Gregg also effectively addresses a question: How can we tell if our suffering is God punishing us for our sins? Gregg responds that God does not send us on a wild goose chase to identify some sin for which God is punishing us, but that God often tells people explicitly when God is punishing them for a sin. This chapter was sensitive to problems and potential objections, and it was biblical.
B. Chapter 2 was the strongest chapter in the book, and the chapter after that was all right. In Chapter 3, Gregg shows how God reached out to Cain in love even after rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, and he briefly addresses thorny topics surrounding human free will (i.e., mental health issues).
C. It was at the end of Chapter 5 that I began to be disappointed with the book. Chapter 5 had good points: for example, Gregg argues that Satan in the Book of Job appears rather sinister, perhaps to argue against biblical scholars who regard Satan in the Book of Job merely as God’s prosecuting attorney. Near the end of the book, Gregg was astutely discussing the weaknesses that can accompany blaming Satan for our suffering. Then, Gregg was about to address a question: How can we tell if our suffering is from Satan? I was expecting for Gregg to knock this question out of the park, as he did with the question in Chapter 2. But he did not; my impression is that he felt that he could not, and that we really cannot make that determination, apart from God’s guidance.
D. In the final chapter of the book, Gregg attempts to address the larger question of whether believers can identify the reason for their suffering. Is it a test? Is it punishment? On page 164, he says, “There is no formula for discernment, but God has promised to lead his children through the valley.” Gregg says that Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and insight from others can assist one in discernment. There may be some wisdom to this, but it is not iron-clad. The appeal to Scripture leaves us exactly where we started: Scripture has all these rationales for suffering, and believers want to know which rationale fits their situation. Regarding the Holy Spirit, there are Christians who claim some pretty wacky things that they attribute to the Holy Spirit! And insight from others can be helpful, but not necessarily: Gregg is aware of how unhelpfully Job’s friends advised Job! My hope was that more of the book would be like Chapter 2, but it was not exactly. Granted, no formula or criterion for religiously accounting for suffering is perfect, but the book would have been better had Gregg offered more guidelines.
E. People who have already read a lot about theodicy or religious explanations of suffering may not find much that is new in Gregg’s book. Gregg did well, though, to share stories about suffering, including his own. And there were areas in which the book was edifying: when he talked about how his wife as a hospital chaplain “bore witness” to people’s pain (page 157), and how quadraplegic Joni Earickson Tada felt a deep need for Christ after her accident, a need that she did not feel before.
F. Not long ago, I read the book Between Pain and Grace, by Gerald Peterman and Andrew Schmutzer, and something that I liked about that book was that it taught me things I did not know about the thought of Augustine and John Calvin. Gregg’s book would have been better had it done something like that: peppered his insights with references to theologians.
G. Gregg often felt a need to stress that God does not cause certain forms of suffering, but that God can use suffering for our benefit, or can bring good out of suffering. Occasionally, Gregg’s insight was supportable by Scripture: for instance, God in the wilderness did not directly cause the Israelites’ harsh surroundings, but he used those surroundings for their spiritual benefit. Often, though, Gregg did not really support this insight with Scripture. The insight is understandable, for God would look horrible if he were to be deemed the cause of certain forms of suffering. And yet, Gregg should have wrestled with Scriptures such as Exodus 4:11, which seems to say that God makes people deaf, mute, and blind. Randy Alcorn, in his lengthy tome If God Is Good, actually interacts with this verse.
H. Chapter 12 was all right: it talks about service, and how Jesus tried to “redirect” his disciples’ “ambition” for greatness rather than suppressing it (page 148). That may qualify the biblical passages that exhort people to deny themselves, and it presents Jesus as one who realistically recognizes and acknowledges human egoism. At the same time, on page 146, Gregg states that those who “looked not to [their] own interests but to the interests of others” “will partake of the glory of the resurrected Christ.” Does that imply salvation by works? Gregg most likely believes in salvation by grace, which means that people cannot earn their salvation. Still, he should have addressed the question of how what he says on page 146 would relate to salvation by grace.
I. In Chapter 13, Gregg wrestles with the enigmatic statement in Colossians 1:24 that Paul is completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Gregg could have been more direct in saying what exactly was lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Gregg does say that Paul can “bear [suffering] in the flesh in a way that the risen Jesus no longer can” (page 156), and Gregg does say beautiful things in his interpretation of that verse. But, overall, I am still unclear about what Gregg thinks that Colossians 1:24 means.
J. Gregg uses the word “symphony” more than once in this book. After reading this book, how the Bible addresses suffering does not strike me as a harmonious symphony. Rather, the Bible says different things about suffering, and people can take those different things in helpful and unhelpful directions, as Gregg shows. I would not necessarily go to the other extreme and embrace Bart Ehrman’s view that the Bible is contradictory and discordant. Still, after reading Gregg, I do wonder how many of these biblical ideas on suffering can fit together. Something else to add: Gregg himself may not have been using the word “symphony” to imply harmony, as much as to argue that we should take everything in the Bible under consideration, as opposed to focusing on only one thing in the Bible.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
Another Phyllis Schlafly Recollection
After I wrote and published my blog post
about the late Phyllis Schlafly a few days ago, I recalled two other
interactions that I had about her. These interactions converged around a
particular issue: the U.S. Patriot Act.
It was my third year at Harvard Divinity School. The school year started with the horrible events of September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. And I learned that Phyllis Schlafly and the American Civil Liberties Union—-two organizations that rarely agreed on anything—-were united in their opposition to the Patriot Act, fearing that it would threaten the civil liberties of American citizens.
That made sense to me, as a conservative, since such a position was consistent with conservatism’s suspicion of government. Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a number of conservatives were concerned about the anti-terrorism legislation that was being proposed, fearing that it would be a pretext for the government to threaten people’s civil liberties. Would not such a position coincide with opposition to the Patriot Act? And yet, there were many conservatives who supported the Patriot Act, since they believed that 9/11 changed everything, and they thought that the Patriot Act was necessary for national security.
I was eating dinner at a restaurant in Cambridge, and I was talking with an elderly lady. Somehow, we got on the topic of politics. I told her that I was a conservative Republican. When I told her that I had problems with the Patriot Act, she said, “You’re not really a conservative.” Then I told her that Phyllis Schlafly was against the Patriot Act, too. The elderly lady had a look of disgust on her face, which was not surprising, considering that Cambridge was a liberal Democratic area, and most of the people there who knew who Phyllis Schlafly was probably had a negative opinion of her. Still, the lady seemed pleasantly surprised that Phyllis Schlafly was against the Patriot Act: it’s as if the lady was thinking that even a broken clock can be right twice a day!
As the years went by, I came to embrace the Patriot Act. I figured that it would protect the United States, and I considered it to be a success on the part of President George W. Bush, in terms of keeping the country safe. President George W. Bush was a polarizing figure at the time, and I wanted to side with him rather than his liberal critics. I tended to swallow his agenda whole, as a result.
What was ironic was that, one night during Bush’s second term, I was watching Phyllis Schlafly on C-Span, when the telephone rang. It was someone from the left-wing Move-On.org! He was asking me to oppose George W. Bush’s wiretapping program, and I was telling him off. I was saying that we need to keep the country safe. He was responding that the best way to oppose terrorism was to stand by the U.S. Constitution. The conversation became friendlier near the end. I told him that I was a lost cause, that I was right-wing, and that I was watching Phyllis Schlafly when he called. He obviously did not approve of her, but we ended the conversation cordially. After I hung up the phone, it dawned on me: on the particular issue that we were debating, Phyllis Schlafly would probably agree with the Move-On.org person rather than me!
I decided to Google “Phyllis Schlafly Patriot Act” tonight, just to see if there was evidence that she opposed the Patriot Act.
In this September 18, 2002 column, she stated: “The Administration demanded and Congress passed without reading, the USA PATRIOT Act. Its principal operative section expands the power of the federal government for surveillance of Americans without proper search warrants, as required by the Fourth Amendment.” Progressives will undoubtedly be appalled by other things that she says in that column, but they can find common ground with her on that statement.
In this June 14, 2005 Washington Times article, we read that Phyllis Schlafly opposed renewal of the Patriot Act. This was 2005, which was well into George W. Bush’s Presidency. Even after a polarizing 2004 election that pitted left against right, Phyllis Schlafly criticized a salient aspect of President George W. Bush’s agenda.
Whether the Patriot Act was a good idea or not, I do not know. There is a part of me that believes that wiretapping may be necessary for national security, and that those who are innocent need not fear their phone calls being overheard. (Michael Moore would disagree!) Still, I have to respect conservatives who go against other conservatives by questioning the national security state. They follow their heart and stand for what they think is right, rather than being caught up in fear and hysteria. On the Patriot Act, at least, Phyllis Schlafly was such a conservative.
UPDATE: In this April 8, 2003 interview, Phyllis Schlafly said the following about the Patriot Act: "I think there are problems with it, but nobody really knows how it’s playing out. I do think the government should go after these potential terrorists. There are 70,000 people--aliens who have been ordered deported who the government can’t find--I think they ought to go out and find them. But again, the real problem is at the border. Unless the government takes steps to keep out people who hate us, we’re in real trouble. Under the Ted Kennedy visa lottery, 50,000 people from nonwestern countries are let into this country every year. This includes all the countries that sponsor terrorism."
It was my third year at Harvard Divinity School. The school year started with the horrible events of September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. And I learned that Phyllis Schlafly and the American Civil Liberties Union—-two organizations that rarely agreed on anything—-were united in their opposition to the Patriot Act, fearing that it would threaten the civil liberties of American citizens.
That made sense to me, as a conservative, since such a position was consistent with conservatism’s suspicion of government. Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a number of conservatives were concerned about the anti-terrorism legislation that was being proposed, fearing that it would be a pretext for the government to threaten people’s civil liberties. Would not such a position coincide with opposition to the Patriot Act? And yet, there were many conservatives who supported the Patriot Act, since they believed that 9/11 changed everything, and they thought that the Patriot Act was necessary for national security.
I was eating dinner at a restaurant in Cambridge, and I was talking with an elderly lady. Somehow, we got on the topic of politics. I told her that I was a conservative Republican. When I told her that I had problems with the Patriot Act, she said, “You’re not really a conservative.” Then I told her that Phyllis Schlafly was against the Patriot Act, too. The elderly lady had a look of disgust on her face, which was not surprising, considering that Cambridge was a liberal Democratic area, and most of the people there who knew who Phyllis Schlafly was probably had a negative opinion of her. Still, the lady seemed pleasantly surprised that Phyllis Schlafly was against the Patriot Act: it’s as if the lady was thinking that even a broken clock can be right twice a day!
As the years went by, I came to embrace the Patriot Act. I figured that it would protect the United States, and I considered it to be a success on the part of President George W. Bush, in terms of keeping the country safe. President George W. Bush was a polarizing figure at the time, and I wanted to side with him rather than his liberal critics. I tended to swallow his agenda whole, as a result.
What was ironic was that, one night during Bush’s second term, I was watching Phyllis Schlafly on C-Span, when the telephone rang. It was someone from the left-wing Move-On.org! He was asking me to oppose George W. Bush’s wiretapping program, and I was telling him off. I was saying that we need to keep the country safe. He was responding that the best way to oppose terrorism was to stand by the U.S. Constitution. The conversation became friendlier near the end. I told him that I was a lost cause, that I was right-wing, and that I was watching Phyllis Schlafly when he called. He obviously did not approve of her, but we ended the conversation cordially. After I hung up the phone, it dawned on me: on the particular issue that we were debating, Phyllis Schlafly would probably agree with the Move-On.org person rather than me!
I decided to Google “Phyllis Schlafly Patriot Act” tonight, just to see if there was evidence that she opposed the Patriot Act.
In this September 18, 2002 column, she stated: “The Administration demanded and Congress passed without reading, the USA PATRIOT Act. Its principal operative section expands the power of the federal government for surveillance of Americans without proper search warrants, as required by the Fourth Amendment.” Progressives will undoubtedly be appalled by other things that she says in that column, but they can find common ground with her on that statement.
In this June 14, 2005 Washington Times article, we read that Phyllis Schlafly opposed renewal of the Patriot Act. This was 2005, which was well into George W. Bush’s Presidency. Even after a polarizing 2004 election that pitted left against right, Phyllis Schlafly criticized a salient aspect of President George W. Bush’s agenda.
Whether the Patriot Act was a good idea or not, I do not know. There is a part of me that believes that wiretapping may be necessary for national security, and that those who are innocent need not fear their phone calls being overheard. (Michael Moore would disagree!) Still, I have to respect conservatives who go against other conservatives by questioning the national security state. They follow their heart and stand for what they think is right, rather than being caught up in fear and hysteria. On the Patriot Act, at least, Phyllis Schlafly was such a conservative.
UPDATE: In this April 8, 2003 interview, Phyllis Schlafly said the following about the Patriot Act: "I think there are problems with it, but nobody really knows how it’s playing out. I do think the government should go after these potential terrorists. There are 70,000 people--aliens who have been ordered deported who the government can’t find--I think they ought to go out and find them. But again, the real problem is at the border. Unless the government takes steps to keep out people who hate us, we’re in real trouble. Under the Ted Kennedy visa lottery, 50,000 people from nonwestern countries are let into this country every year. This includes all the countries that sponsor terrorism."
Friday, September 9, 2016
Lots of Time Before the Wiping Away of Tears
At church last Sunday, the pastor offered an interesting interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
The pastor’s text actually was not from the Book of Revelation, but it was from the Epistle to James. James 5:9 warns the recipients of the letter not to grumble against each other or they will be judged. The text then says that the Judge stands at the door.
That led the pastor to talk about the judgment of believers. Will God judge believers? Does not John 5:24 say that whoever believes Jesus’ word will not be judged but has eternal life, having passed from death into life?
The pastor acknowledged that, yes, faith alone is required for salvation. Believers will not experience the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, when God will judge the dead of the second resurrection according to their works and will throw them into the Lake of Fire if their names are not found in the Book of Life. For the pastor, whether believers will go to heaven or hell is not in question: they believe, so they have eternal life, period. And they can be certain right now that they have eternal life: they fulfill the requirement of belief, and they have eternal life. There is no “might” or “maybe” about it.
Still, the pastor said that believers will experience some form of judgment. This judgment will not be to determine whether they go to heaven or to hell, for that has already been settled: they have eternal life, since they believe. Rather, the judgment of believers will be to determine what kind of reward they will receive. The pastor referred to II Corinthians 5:10, which states: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (KJV).
This sort of message is not new to me. It was not exactly the Christianity with which I grew up, but I have encountered this idea quite a bit. This church that I have been attending for some time is Baptist, and many Baptist churches convey this kind of message.
What was new to me was when the pastor got into Revelation 21:4. Revelation 21:4 states: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (KJV).
The pastor said that a lot of time passes in the Book of Revelation before we get to Revelation 21:4. And his point here is understandable. Revelation 21:4 talks about what will happen in the new heavens and the new earth. The new heavens and the new earth take place over a thousand years after Christ returns to earth (assuming one takes the millennium in Revelation 20 in a futuristic, literal sense, which not all Christians do). So we have a thousand years after Christ returns when God will finally wipe all tears from people’s eyes.
The pastor was saying that his impression is that a lot of believers will be crying, for a long time, before God finally wipes tears from their eyes. Why would they be crying? For the pastor, it will be because so many of them failed to use their spiritual gifts and to serve God in this life, and God will be expressing disapproval of them for that and will deprive them of certain rewards at the judgment of believers. God will let them into heaven, since they believe, but God’s attitude towards them at the judgment of believers will be a frustrated “Oh all right, come on it.”
My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is that the pastor believes in the pretribulational rapture, which would mean that believers would go to heaven and be judged prior to the Great Tribulation, the second coming of Christ, and Christ’s millennial reign on earth. That will be a lot of time for them to weep!
The pastor goes into this spiel about using spiritual gifts quite a bit. The reason that his interpretation of Revelation stood out to me is that I have struggled, somewhat, with Revelation 21:4. Some people interpret that to mean that God will erase people’s memory in the new heavens and the new earth. I have wondered how that could be. It makes sense to me that there would be some connection between the next life and this life, otherwise why are we here, building character for the next life? What would be the point of that if we would forget this life, anyway? But suppose that a lot of time passed between believers’ resurrection and the time that God will wipe tears from their eyes? What would make a little more sense.
The pastor’s text actually was not from the Book of Revelation, but it was from the Epistle to James. James 5:9 warns the recipients of the letter not to grumble against each other or they will be judged. The text then says that the Judge stands at the door.
That led the pastor to talk about the judgment of believers. Will God judge believers? Does not John 5:24 say that whoever believes Jesus’ word will not be judged but has eternal life, having passed from death into life?
The pastor acknowledged that, yes, faith alone is required for salvation. Believers will not experience the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, when God will judge the dead of the second resurrection according to their works and will throw them into the Lake of Fire if their names are not found in the Book of Life. For the pastor, whether believers will go to heaven or hell is not in question: they believe, so they have eternal life, period. And they can be certain right now that they have eternal life: they fulfill the requirement of belief, and they have eternal life. There is no “might” or “maybe” about it.
Still, the pastor said that believers will experience some form of judgment. This judgment will not be to determine whether they go to heaven or to hell, for that has already been settled: they have eternal life, since they believe. Rather, the judgment of believers will be to determine what kind of reward they will receive. The pastor referred to II Corinthians 5:10, which states: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (KJV).
This sort of message is not new to me. It was not exactly the Christianity with which I grew up, but I have encountered this idea quite a bit. This church that I have been attending for some time is Baptist, and many Baptist churches convey this kind of message.
What was new to me was when the pastor got into Revelation 21:4. Revelation 21:4 states: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (KJV).
The pastor said that a lot of time passes in the Book of Revelation before we get to Revelation 21:4. And his point here is understandable. Revelation 21:4 talks about what will happen in the new heavens and the new earth. The new heavens and the new earth take place over a thousand years after Christ returns to earth (assuming one takes the millennium in Revelation 20 in a futuristic, literal sense, which not all Christians do). So we have a thousand years after Christ returns when God will finally wipe all tears from people’s eyes.
The pastor was saying that his impression is that a lot of believers will be crying, for a long time, before God finally wipes tears from their eyes. Why would they be crying? For the pastor, it will be because so many of them failed to use their spiritual gifts and to serve God in this life, and God will be expressing disapproval of them for that and will deprive them of certain rewards at the judgment of believers. God will let them into heaven, since they believe, but God’s attitude towards them at the judgment of believers will be a frustrated “Oh all right, come on it.”
My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is that the pastor believes in the pretribulational rapture, which would mean that believers would go to heaven and be judged prior to the Great Tribulation, the second coming of Christ, and Christ’s millennial reign on earth. That will be a lot of time for them to weep!
The pastor goes into this spiel about using spiritual gifts quite a bit. The reason that his interpretation of Revelation stood out to me is that I have struggled, somewhat, with Revelation 21:4. Some people interpret that to mean that God will erase people’s memory in the new heavens and the new earth. I have wondered how that could be. It makes sense to me that there would be some connection between the next life and this life, otherwise why are we here, building character for the next life? What would be the point of that if we would forget this life, anyway? But suppose that a lot of time passed between believers’ resurrection and the time that God will wipe tears from their eyes? What would make a little more sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)