Racism has no color: an affront against political correctness.

Rebecca Trotter, a Facebook friend of mine, wrote an incredibly insightful comment on one of my last posts I want to reproduce here.

(You can visit her own blog here).

It was about my pointing out that anti-white racism is real and should be combated as much as any other kind of racism.

While I don’t necessarily agree with everything she wrote, I find her thoughts really profound.

***

I have come to think that part of the reason we have failed in the Western world to handle the problem of race productively is because we don’t really understand the problem we are dealing with. We tend to think of racism as interpersonal animus motivated by an irrational dislike for certain races. So the answer must be to fight this interpersonal animus where ever it shows up. However, as we have seen, this isn’t all that effective.

We want white tenants in our white community.
Racism and discrimination in America.

The thing is that back when racism was motivated by this sort of irrational hostility towards a group of people based on race, people didn’t just walk around being nasty to certain groups. They actually set policy which had as its goal putting certain groups at a disadvantage and not allowing them to escape that disadvantage. Often this was done openly for the benefit of the dominant group. For example, it was quite common for discussions of employment to revolve around the need to protect jobs for white men, thus justifying discriminating against women and people of color. We tend to think that these discussions from the past aren’t particularly relevant to the present since we no longer engage in that sort of thinking. However, that doesn’t mean that the problems created by the past go away all by themselves. A good example of this is housing discrimination. After WWII, while white Americans were able to buy houses using the GI Bill, neighborhoods where African Americans were allowed to buy homes were excluded from eligibility for GI loans and other conventional forms of financing. When African Americans figured out ways to buy homes anyways, realtors and bankers engaged in shady practices which resulted in many African Americans losing their homes and those who didn’t were left with homes that were worth less than people had paid for them. Those who lost their homes or never could manage to get a house, were forced into unsafe, poorly serviced neighborhoods. And this is how we ended up with our crime ridden inner cities. We forced people to live there and then blamed them for not being able to overcome all the obstacles placed in their way. So that’s a problem which we created and which is still with us today. But because we think that racism is only about whether one particular person is nice to another particular person, we don’t really understand how unsafe minority communities are the result of racism, much less what to do about it. A lot of people don’t even understand why we might have an obligation to do something, in fact. So we don’t.

Then there’s the fact that people rarely dislike other groups of people for purely irrational reasons anymore. Generally, they have reasons they dislike other people. They don’t like the way they act, talk, dress, their attitudes, their morals, etc, etc, etc. So a lot of people feel like they are being forced to pretend that what they find unacceptable is not problematic for the sake of PC. However, what I have learned is that the things that people are most likely to point to as legitimate reasons for disapproving of another group of people was the direct result of a wrong done to them or their people and a set of insurmountable obstacles they were facing. For example, I have known some of these infamous black men who have children with multiple women, wind up in jail, etc, etc. Every single one of them suffered horrendous abuse growing up. (I am completely convinced that it should be possible to look at any pathologies present in any given African American family and trace them directly back to their people’s experiences during slavery. Women who were raped by their owners did not go on to have healthy relationships with other men. Men beaten by their owners and overseers did not go on to raise their children with patience and time-outs.) All of these men were raised without dads. (The US government went through a period where it would not provide assistance to families with a man in the home. So we’re not innocent in creating that situation.) All of them had witnessed terrible violence both inside and outside the home while growing up. They usually desperately want the love and approval of a woman, but have poor relationship skills and they are attracted to women with similar trauma histories who also have poor relationship skills. These men didn’t just wake up from comfortable lives one day and decide to act an ass. They needed help long before they got to the point of impregnating people and causing trouble. But we have nothing but contempt for these men.

Two black boys in a poor suburb.
Black ghetto produced by a wicked housing policy.

At the end of the day, I think that we simply have not faced the depth of the damage done by our racist past. What we see as increasing levels of pathology, immorality and the like are actually the fruit of seeds planted in our societies long ago reaching harvest time. I think that once we understand the problems that way, we can start finding practical solutions that will make a real difference. But Americans are obscenely immature. Any solution that starts with having compassion on someone who they don’t think deserves compassion is a no-go. Poor Americans vote Republican because they believe in a world where good people get rewarded and bad people get punished. It’s a fantasy, but one that they put their trust in because, after all, they are good people. So if those who share their belief that good people should be rewarded are in charge, they will be rewarded. Or at least they will be able to take some satisfaction in knowing that the bad people (who just so happen to be disproportionately African American) get punished.

Anyhow, sorry this is super long, but it’s a complex topic and one that I’m convinced is generally poorly understood.

**********

There is absolutely no doubt that the white dominant class in America committed atrocious crimes whose consequences can still be felt.

I certainly want justice to be achieved and the wounds of the past to be healed.

Interestingly enough, France has a similar history concerning the housing policy.

After World War II, French capitalists fostered a massive immigration of workers from their Arabic and black African colonies. They did that because this manpower could be paid much less than the salary they would have had to give to Europeans. They decided to put all of them into public housing apartments plagued by poverty and bad life standards.

The ethnic tensions experienced by modern France are a direct result of this shameful policy.

It was sheer madness to have massively imported workers with a very different cultural background, concentrated them within poor suburbs with awful life conditions, discriminated them and then expected that everything would be just fine.

That said, I must also emphasize that I reject the idea of a collective culpability of the white race (if there really is such a thing in the first place).

I once discussed with a former colleague from Morocco and I told her:

Racism hasn’t any color. The seeds of hatred, intolerance, bigotry and xenophobia can take root everywhere” and I then went on evoking the case of French children being bullied in schoolyards owing to their being white.

She became really angry.

“But haven’t you seen what France did to us? Aren’t you aware of all the horrors they inflicted to us during the colonial time?”

I wasn’t willing to engage an unproductive verbal fight and so I just left.

"Colored" rowdies are kicking a white victim who has fallen on the ground.
Anti-white racism during a demonstration.
The victims are left-wing French people who were, ironically enough, protesting against inequalities. The racist character of the aggressions is recognized by even mainstream left-wing medias.

While she isn’t an evil person by any means, her words (reflecting what countless people think) are extremely offensive from a moral standpoint.

To see how, let us first consider what a Jewish prophet loudly proclaimed 1600 years ago.

The one who sins is the one who will die.  The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Ezechiel 18:20 preaching against the notion of an inherited guilt.

This ancient text is extremely strong in that it went against the widespread concept that children of wicked people should be retributed for the misdeeds of their parents or that their current suffering was a divine punishment (a notion which can, incidentally, be found in other Biblical passages).

More than twenty centuries later, this very notion hasn’t been erased everywhere, alas.

The conversation I had with my former colleague is a sad example of this state of affairs.

If punishing children for the crimes of their parents is morally abhorrent, how much more horrendous is it to bully and hurt someone just because he or she has the same skin color as a group of oppressors.

It is depressing that if anyone dares to speak out about the reality of anti-whit racism, the Slaves of Political Correctness (SPC) shoot from the hip and become morally indignant.

I’m convinced that far from promoting peace, their fanatical denial of this phenomenon fosters a vicious circle of hatred.

Indeed, white folks who have been victim of such hateful acts are likely to join far-right groups after having been ignored or even ridiculed by all mainline politically correct parties.

The racist is the other man.  Really? Are you sure?
The racist is the other man.
Really? Are you sure?

I’m persuaded that a society where skin color no longer plays any role can only be created through a battle against every kind of hate regardless of its source and object.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

On the war on abortion and incitment to terrorism

RD (a Conservative Christian blogger and apologist) recently released a comment on my blog which made me truly shudder.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: I made mistakes concerning the person of RD. and sincerely apologize for this. See my note at the end of the post.

 

http://rightsadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/screen-shot-2012-10-21-at-5-01-39-pm.png

“Dear Michael East

You said:

The anti-abortionists who support the killing of abortionists can hardly be called pro-life!

Actually, the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as you try to make it out to be. If an individual truly believes that an unborn child is a human being, then if that individual takes action, up to and potentially including the use of deadly force in order to protect the life of the unborn child, and in so doing, the individual uses deadly force to stop the abortionist in question, then there is nothing inconsistent with maintaining such a position and with being pro-life. In fact, it is no different, in principle, from a pro-life person who has to use deadly force to stop someone from killing a newborn or from a pro-life person who uses deadly force to stop a serial killer from murdering a family. In all these cases, the pro-life person—as a last resort—must use deadly force in order to protect human life. And so that person would be entirely consistent in claiming to be pro-life while at the same time having had to use deadly force to protect a third-party from serious bodily harm or death. Now, of course, the person would also be under the obligation to use only as much force as is necessary to stop the threat, and thus lethal force would rarely be justified, but that does not mean that the use of lethal force would be illegitimate in such a case. It just means that its use would be rare. And while this latter fact makes the use of the third-party protection principle difficult to practically justify in the case of abortionists—both due to the fact that the State already knows about abortionists and does nothing, and due to the fact that using less than lethal force is difficult in such cases—the practical reality does nothing to negate that this idea is completely sound in principle.

In addition, note that given that my reasoning concerning the legitimacy of using lethal force in protecting a third-party is obviously sound in principle, and thus it would apply to unborn children if they were considered human beings under the law, then this means that if unborn children were considered human beings under the law, then you, I, and everyone else would literally be under a legal obligation to do our utmost, up to and including the use of lethal force, to stop any abortionist from plying his “trade” if unborn children were legally considered human beings. So far from there being an inconsistency in the pro-life position and a position which endorses the stopping of abortionists, if unborn children were considered human beings, then that sort of position would actually be required by law.

Finally, let me just note that when you really think about this issue the real inconsistency and incoherence is on the side of the pro-abortionists. After all, the pro-abortionist is someone who must support the following absurd position: if, one minute before birth, someone stops an abortionist from killing the nearly born child, then pro-abortionists consider that person to be a monster and a pro-life “terrorist”; but if that same person stopped some random murderer from killing that child one minute after it was born, then that person would be hailed as a hero and a “child-savior.” In my view, the patent absurdity of holding such a view is evident to anyone with eyes to see it. And yet, for the pro-abortionist, this is, necessarily, the view that he must, in principle, hold.”

 

I’ve long laughed at people telling me that there are Christian Talibans in America who want to bring about a violent theocracy. Now I realize I no longer can. In what follows, I want to offer my thoughts on his argument.

 

Killing an abortionist for saving an innocent life

 

I’m really not a huge fan of the abortion lobby and agree with RD that there is no rational criterion for distinguishing the killing of a “nearly born child” from one who just saw the light of day. I’m in very good company here, since the prominent bio-ethicist Peter Singer tells us that we should be allowed to annihilate disabled children until their 30th day.

But I completely reject the use of violence for preventing any abortion from happening and am utterly horrified by this very idea.

 

Basically, RD’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

1) It is always permissible to kill someone who is about to consciously put an end to an innocent human life.

2) Abortionists are consciously putting an end to many innocent human lives.

3) Thus it is allowed to kill abortionists.

 

There are many things wrong with this line of reasoning.

2) does not hold in many cases, because the large majority of abortionists I know are sincerely convinced that unborn children are not yet persons and that killing them is as morally problematic as throwing away a bunch of outworn chemicals into a wastebasket.

It goes without saying I strongly disagree with that but I don’t view them as moral monsters at all. Most abortion physicians act in good conscience and Jesus reminds us that If you were blind, you would have no sin.

 

1) is outrageously false in many respects.

A consequentialist justification of terrorism

If 1) were to be consistently applied elsewhere, all societies would be plagued by an endless cycle of violence. As a Conservative Evangelical (Correction: RD is a conservative Catholic), RD tends to focus most of his moral indignation on sexual sins such as abortion (and alleged sins such as homosexuality).

But there are lots of other things people do which indirectly cause many innocent persons to pass away.

During the Bush administration, Dick Cheney (and many of his colleagues) consciously started a gruesome war in Iraq which has caused countless innocent children and civilians to perish under an atrocious pain.

https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dick-cheney-iraq-1111111111111111.gif

If 1) were true, it would certainly have been moral for any member of the American Left to try to liquidate him.

Or what about economically Conservative politicians whose decisions cause countless children in the third world to starve and perish?

What about American Republican politicians who cause poor children to die because they don’t receive a sufficient healthcare?

Or what about immoral CEOs whose decisions can predictably  lead many of their employees to commit suicide (as it occurred in the enterprise of my father)?

 

You see, all terrorist groups around the world (both secular and religious) use such a logic for justifying the use of “lethal” violence. I’ve absolutely no doubt that our society would very soon become a hopeless hell if 1) were to be adopted by a sufficiently large number of individuals.

Violence and the early Christians.

 

There were many people causing countless innocent lives to pass away in Judah and Israel at the time of Christ. The Zealots were preaching armed resistance against the misdeeds of the Roman occupants.

Yet, Jesus wasn’t one of them and consistently rejected the use of  violence against anyone. Following His example, the early Christians were horrified at the Roman custom to kill disabled children but they never murdered the perpetrators. They tried to change the societal mentalities underlying those cruel customs in a non-violent fashion.

Since RD is a fiery defender of Biblical inerrancy (Correction: RD is a Catholic basing himself on the Catechism of the Church of Rom for such matters), I want to quote verses which should put an end to any discussion:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

 

The culture war and the roots of the problem

 

I would go farther than that and affirm that wanting to bring about laws forbidding abortion isn’t a solution at all. It is like a doctor prescribing pain killers to a patient while completely ignoring the cancer devouring his cells.

It is the numerous societal, social, psychological and economical factors that push women to choose to abort which need to be changed.

If we lived in a really compassionate and egalitarian society where sex, love and commitment always form an unbreakable trinity, abortion would be almost entirely limited to cases where the health of the female is seriously threatened.

 

The danger of sanctioning the use of terror

 

I have nothing at all against RD and neither hate nor despise him. But what he wrote here is undoubtedly egregious and I just couldn’t not react to that even though I feel no personal enmity towards him.

Being a Continental European (Germanic Frenchman), I ignore what the consequences in America might be. But if he were a French or German citizen having written that, he would now be (at the very least) closely watched by the French or German intelligence agencies and most likely condemned to prison for “incitement to violent acts.”

EVEN IF he did not call anyone to directly do that, it is undeniable he has unwittingly provided a justification for violent actions against physicians and nurses carrying out abortions. And mentally unstable people could very well take him extremely seriously.

I’d advise him (and any other “Christian Righter” reading this) to become much more cautious in their writings and other assertions in the public sphere.

Of course, my hope is that it is their whole mentality which will change, following what I’ve outlined here.

 

Note: RD posted a strongly spirited answer here. He correctly pointed up mistakes I did concerning him being American, Evangelical and Conservative.

 

 

Predestined to eternally suffer? An interview with philosopher Jerry Walls

Note: text like this  means a hyper-link.

 

Calvinism (also known as reformed theology) is on the rise in the Conservative Protestant world and I am not the only one who finds that deeply preoccupying. In what follows, I had the immense privilege to interview Dr. Jerry Walls, who is an outstanding philosopher of religion defending a view called Arminianism.

Bild
Lotharson: Thank you Jerry for having accepting my interview. Could you please sum up your personal background for my readers?
Jerry Walls: I was born and raised in Knockemstiff, a small village in southern Ohio. I attended a small revivalist church where I accepted Jesus as my savior in a revival when I was 11 years old. I preached my first sermon at age 13. After high school, I attended a Wesleyan Bible college for a couple years, where I seriously engaged Wesleyan theology. I graduated from Houghton College, also a Wesleyan school before attending Princeton theological seminary. I also took a degree from Yale divinity school and then pastored a church for three years. Then I went to Notre Dame where I did a PhD in philosophy, writing a dissertation defending the doctrine of hell. So I have a pretty diverse educational background.Bild
Lotharson: Yep! What version of hell did you defense back then?
Jerry Walls: I defended the view that hell is eternal because some people freely choose to remain there forever. I also pointed out that universalism and Calvinism share the assumption that God can save anyone he will. The difference is that for Calvinism, God does not choose to save everyone, whereas for the universalists he does. I argue that God truly desires to save all, but some are lost because we are free and some choose to reject God forever.

Bild
Lotharson: Thanks, this is truly fascinating 🙂 Would you say that annihilationism (the destruction of the lost) is perpendicular to the debates between Calvinists and free-will Arminians such as yourself?

A calvinist and an Arminian can (possibly) be either an annhilationist or believe in eternal torment. Do you think this is the case?
Jerry Walls: Yes, those are views that can be combined. But either way, whether God determines people to eternal misery or (mere!) annihilation, either way the Calvinist God does not truly love all persons.

Lotharson: I agree with this! Why do you believe that your view of hell is the right one as opposed to other options? Could you please put it in a nutshell?
Jerry Walls: Well, God’s very nature is love and he created us in his image for relationships of love, both with himself and other persons. For us to truly love God, we have to be free. If God determined our “love” for himself, he would be loving himself rather than receiving genuine love from us. So for genuine love and worship to be possible, it must be possible that we can refuse to love God, to worship and obey him and so on. If that happens, we are necessarily unhappy for we are missing out on the very thing for which we were created–loving relationship with God and other persons. Hell is the natural misery that results when we choose not to love and obey God.

Lotharson: I largely agree with this though I think it begs some questions concerning eternal torment. But right now, I’d like to talk about reformed theology. What is, to your mind, the most concise way for summing up Calvinism?

Jerry Walls: Well, the famous TULIP, particular what I call “ULI in the middle.” God unconditionally chooses to save some, but not all, Christ died only for the elect that God unconditionally chooses to save, and God gives irresistible grace to the fortunate elect.
Jerry Walls: Particularly…

Bild
Lotharson: And what about four-point Calvinists rejecting limited atonement?
Jerry Walls: That is only because it is rather embarrassing to admit you don’t really believe “God so loved the (whole) world” and gave his Son for all. But that is only a feeble attempt to mask the hard reality that the Calvinist God does not truly love all persons. So long as you have unconditional election and irresistible grace only for the elect, it does not help to play down limited atonement. You still have limited salvation. It is limited strictly to the elect God unconditionally chooses to save, but no one else.

Lotharson: Yeah, I also think that this distinction between single and double predestination is an illusion. What are now your main arguments against reformed theology?

Jerry Walls: Well, the heart of the issue is the character of God. Is he truly a God of love who is perfectly good? You cannot claim this with any plausibility if you believe God determines people to damnation, people he could just as easily determine to salvation. He could determine all persons FREELY to accept the Gospel (as Calvinists define freedom) but choose not to. God is more glorified by unconditionally choosing to save some and damning others than he would be by determining all to accept salvation. Such claims make shambles of the claim that God is love.
Jerry Walls: Calvinists are skillful at employing the rhetoric of love and most people do not really understand what Calvinists are saying. So Calvinism maintains credibility by way of misleading rhetoric about the love of God that their theology does not really support.

Bild
Lotharson: Many Calvinists I told that answered me that God is a JUST judge. We are not free to chose good, but when we sin we are freely sinning, so that we deserve a punishment. What’s your take on this?
Jerry Walls: Freely only means doing “willingly” what God has determined you to do. He determines your will in such a way that you “willingly” choose sin. However, you cannot do otherwise. That flies in the face of how we understand justice. A person is considered culpable only for things over which he has control. And what would we think of a judge who determined a criminal to “willingly” murder someone and then sentenced him to death for murder? We would hardly think such a judge was just. Yet, that is just how Calvinists see God.

Bild
Lotharson: Precisely. But then Calvinists say that we have NO RIGHT to judge God’s morality. He is the potter, we are the clay and we have to abide by HIS rules, however repugnant they might seem us to be. Do you often have heard such a reply in your own debates with Calvinists?
Jerry Walls: Well, that is a very compliacated question. Can God make anything right, just by willing it? Can he make lying right? Blasphemy? I believe whatever God wills is right, but I DO NOT think it follows that God can will just anything and make it right. He is necessarily good and loving in his nature, and can only will things that are compatible with his perfect goodness. So it is not a matter of us judging God by OUR standards, but rather that our moral intuitions are part of the image of God in us. To judge the Calvinist account of God to be morally abhorrent is not to judge God, but only the Calvinist account of him. For a fuller discussion of the relationship between God and morality, see the book David Baggett and I co-authored, “Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality” that was published in 2011.

Bild
Lotharson: Thanks for the link! What I don’t understand is how Calvinists manage to live. They profess that God predetermined Hitler, the Shoah and predetermined most victims to eternally suffer. How is it possible to keep living without sinking into a dark depression?

Bild

Jerry Walls: Great question! I think the answer again goes back to the inconsistency of Calvinism. They affirm the love of God for all persons, that he is perfectly good, and so on, but fail to see how these claims are utterly incompatible with their theology. They do not consistently work out the implications of determinism and compatibilism, and often think and say things that only make sense on a libertarian view of freedom. And of course, they often resort to “mystery” under the guise that it is true piety to believe things they do not understand or that do not make rational sense. But again, if people really understood compatibilism and the true implications of Calvinism, many could not believe it.
Many however, do sink into depression if they really understand Calvinism and its implications. I recently got an email from a guy who had been watching my videos and said he was moving to embrace Arminianism after being a Calvinist his whole life. He admitted the Calvinist view of God was at odds with the biblical picture of Jesus, and that he had little joy in his Christian life. The strain between what Calvinism teaches and what he truly believed was too great, and he finally realized he needed to give up Calvinism.

Lotharson: I am glad to hear about this happy ending 🙂

Bild
Jeremiah 32:35 is extremely embarrassing for all divine determinists holding fast to Biblical inerrancy.
“35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”
How do Calvinists interpret this passage?

Jerry Walls: I’m not sure, but this may be good candidate for the infamous distinction between the revealed and the decretive will of God. He reveals one thing to be his will, and commands it, but decrees something altogther different! Talk about internal conflict!

Lotharson: If a human being spoke and acted in this way, would we not universally call him or her an infamous deceiver?
Jerry Walls: Or worse. For the Calvinist, God’s ways that are “higher” than ours are actually lower than the standards we expect for a decent human being.

Lotharson: Yeah, and this is truly frightening. Is Neo-Calvinism on the rise in modern Evangelicalism?
Jerry Walls: Well, if you mean by Neo-Calvinism, just classic Calvinism, then yes, very much so.
Lotharson: Are there countless Arminian Churches who are being taken over?

Jerry Walls: I’m not sure of the number, but yes, some Arminian churches are being taken over by Calvinists.
Lotharson: Does it have regrettable consequences, especially in the way non-Christians view the Church?
Jerry Walls: I doubt that non-Christians know the difference. But it does cause conflict and division in some churches.
Jerry Walls: And again, Calvinists are not usually forthright in their views to unbelievers. Calvinists often say God loves everyone.

Lotharson: Is it morally praiseworthy to worship a deity having condemned one’s own son to an eternity of suffering BEFORE he was ever born? (I’m thinking on John Piper)

Bild
Jerry Walls: The idea of unconditional election to salvation and damnation is morally abhorrent, and applying it to your own children only makes it more graphic. But that is Calvinist piety at its best. You sacrifice not only your child but also your moral intuitions in the name of worshiping a God whose “goodness” is utterly at odds with the normal meaning of that term.

Lotharson: I wholeheartedly agree with you! But it seems to me that Conservative Arminians have also many troubles.
For (the overwhelming majority of) Conservative Evangelical Arminians, if a non-Christian goes onto the other side of the grave, he can AUTOMATICALLY count on an eternity of terrifying distress. Do you agree with this?

Jerry Walls: I believe God’s mercy endures forever and his nature of perfect love does not change the minute we die. I agree with CS Lewis that the doors of hell are locked on the inside and that God is always willing to welcome the prodigal home.

Lotharson: So, do you expect post-mortem conversions?
Jerry Walls: Yes. I believe God truly desires to save all persons, and that many persons have not had a full opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel in this life. You do not go to hell for lack of opportunity to be saved, but for steadfastly resisting the opportunity to do so. If this is true, it makes sense that persons who have not had opportunity to receive the gospel in this life will do so after death.

Could you put your views on purgatory in a nutshell and mention useful resources?

Jerry Walls: Well, in a nutshell, purgatory is about completing the sanctification process begun in this life. For a full defense of this claim, see my book “Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation.” For a shorter account see my article “Purgatory for Everyone” that appeared in “First Things” several years ago. I also have a couple of videos on You Tube. One is CS Lewis on Why our Souls Demand Purgatory and the other is CS Lewis and Mere Purgatory. Thanks for the interview.

Lotharson: I was delighted to have had you!

 

Fostering communion and unity with committed Calvinists?

 

Zack Hunt (The American Jesus) just wrote a thought-provoking article about the implications of Calvinism (also called Reformed Theology). It is a fictional letter to John Calvin.

Bild

 

Dear John,

Ok, first off I know, “Dear John” letters are usually written between former lovers and we were never even friends. But, John, I tried. I really, really did.

I’ve heard for so long that my frustrations with Calvinism were really due to your Neo-Calvinist followers giving you a bad name. That made sense to me. After all, I couldn’t believe some of the rephrensible and callous things being said and taught today would be derived directly from someone of your theological prowess. So, I wanted to give you a chance at redemption in my eyes.

Since you’ve been, um, not present in the body for the past 450 years, I thought the best way to get acquainted with the real Calvin would be to read the work you are most famous for. I’m talking, of course, about your Institutes of the Christian Religion.

In my effort to get to know you better I spent my last semester at Yale in a class devoted entirely to the reading and discussion of your epic work. I admit we didn’t make it through every single chapter (forgive us John, but the book is nearly 1,000 pages long and we needed time to discuss what we read each week), but we did make it through almost all of it (we mostly skipped a few chapter at the end about church polity). And even with those handful of overlooked chapters, I’m still willing to bet we made it through more of the Institutes than many of your followers today have read. (I say this as a Wesleyan, who has read far far too little of what Wesley actually wrote.)

I have to admit, John, you’re a brilliant guy and a great writer. Your passion and honesty were obvious from page one and at times refreshing given the way we so often dance around what we really think in the church today. I really admire your conviction and willingness to say what you believe to be true even if it wasn’t the popular thing to say. Without a doubt, you had some great things to say and, at times, I even found myself close to shouting “Amen!” Like the time you called out those who want to believe in the absurd notion that God can predestine some to heaven while not necessarily also predestined everyone else to hell, ”This they do so ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation.” (3.23.1)

hell2

Ok, maybe, that amen wasn’t exactly for the reason you would like, but still, it counts for something, right?

Anyway, class is now over, our reading of your monumental achievement complete, and I’ve had some time to process everything you said.

So, can I be totally honest with you, John?

You crushed my hope for reconciliation.

I found your theology to be every bit as appalling – and maybe even more so – than your followers.

To be blunt, as a Christian, I don’t recognize your God and I have no clue what the good news is in the Institutes. That some people are saved no matter what? I guess that’s good for them. But you’re clear that God also creates people for eternal damnation,

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, other to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death. (3.21.5)

And you also say that God tricks some of those same people he dooms to hell into thinking He loves them by “instilling into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption” simply so he “better convince them.” (3.2.11) John, what kind of perverse and manipulative God would do that?

But it gets worse.

Much worse.

For, according to you, God ordains every single horrific act of evil that has or ever will occur.

As you explain over,

Scripture, moreover, the better to show that every thing done in the world is according to his decree, declares that the things which seem most fortuitous are subject to him. For what seems more attributable to chance than the branch which falls from a tree, and kills the passing traveler? But the Lord sees very differently, and declares that he delivered him into the hand of the slayer. (1.16.6)

And over,

As all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will. (1.17.1)

And over,

Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree. (1.16.9)

And over again, God is behind every act of evil that ever takes places,

I concede more – that thieves and murderers, and other evil-doers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute the judgments which he has resolved to inflict. (1.17.5)

In other words, if a child is raped, a family murdered in their sleep, or an entire population of people sent off to the gas chambers, that wasn’t just the act of evil men. It was the will of God.

And, of course, God doesn’t just have it out for us in this life; God has it out for some people for eternity too because as you say, “Those whom the Lord favors not with the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgment, consigns to the agency of Satan.” (2.4.1)

You say all of this wrath is due to our depravity. Ignoring Paul’s words affirming the complete opposite, you say ”wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God” (3.11.2) And as if to drive your point home at just how much God hates us, you claim that it’s not just adults that God despises, but infants too because they ”cannot but be odious and abominable to God.” (2.1.8) John, you go to great lengths to establish the total depravity of man, and I agree that we are indeed sinful people. But in the end, based on your own argument, the one looking the most depraved is God. For it is God, not humanity, who ordains evil and institutes eternal torture regardless of act or decision.

Yes, John, you’re right. All of these quotes and points are lacking in their immediate context, but they’re not random thoughts. They are, as you demonstrate so well, the logical conclusions of your theology of divine sovereignty and, therefore, at the very heart of what you believe about God. Worse, this isn’t a case of you overstating without thinking through the conclusions. You’re clear that this sort of God who ordains genocide, murder, rape, children abuse, and every other conceivable horrendous act is the God you worship.

Not surprisingly, you say that we should fear this God, not just honor and revere Him, but actually be terrified of Him. (3.2.26) I suppose on that point we are in at least partial agreement. If this is a God who arbitrarily ordains the death of children and the torment of people before they’re even born, then of course we should fear this God.

Which is why, John, I’ve got to be brutally honest with you.

I think your God is a monster.

I don’t say that casually or based on a handful of random one liners. I say it based on the foundation of your theological project and your insitence on a God who both ordains evil and creates people simply to torment them for eternity. John, this is not the God I find in the Bible, nor is it a God I think is worthy of worship. It’s a God who can only be feared for His arbitrary, callous, and evil ways, and pitied for his enslavement to wrath.

To me, John, your God looks nothing like Jesus of Nazareth. And, for me, that’s a big problem.

Now, John, it wouldn’t be a good breakup letter if I wasn’t clear about why I don’t like you like that anymore (or I guess ever did). I’m know a lot of those reasons are obvious already, but in the spirit of your Institutes, I don’t want to leave any room for doubt as to why we need to go our separate ways.

First, John, as awed as I am by your intellect, you’re way way way overcommitted to your theological system. I know your methodology and meticulousness are derivative of your training as a lawyer, and while those can be great qualities in a person, in your Institutes your utter devotion to your theological system creates an unbelievable callousness that is totally foreign to the Jesus I meet in the gospels. Experience, reason, compassion, and even huge chunks of scripture are sacrificed on the altar of your theological system. Relationships require compassion, humility, and at a times a bit of flexibility. John, we’ve all got some work to do in those areas, but that’s especially true for you.

You also have a tendency to talk about of both sides of your mouth. This isn’t good for a relationship because it means I can never really trust what you’re saying. F0r instance, in order to acknowledge the obvious reality of freewill while defending your hardcore understanding of divine sovereignty, you try to create a make believe difference between compulsion and necessity, as if just because we necessarily have to act in a certain way because God has ordained it so, we’re not actually compelled to do that. (2.3.5) John, that makes no sense. Likewise, you argue that even though everything is determined by God long before we even exist, we’re still responsible for out actions. (1.17.5)

Look, I get it, you’ve got a system to maintain and you need to make sense of sin and guilt. But, John, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either we freely choose to sin and are therefore responsible, or God causes us by divine decree to sin and, therefore God is ultimately responsible. Which leads us to the worst doublespeak of all in your book. You make is clear that God ordains evil, but isn’t the author of it. John, buddy, as you heard throughout your lifetime, if God is the source of and the one who ordains evil acts, then God is the author of evil. Which means your God isn’t really as loving and good as you would have us believe. In fact, your God is pretty stinking evil.

Which is why, John, it’s hard not to conclude that Calvinism is a sustained exercise in the defense against the obvious. By which I mean you’re constantly on the defense against the obvious conclusions of your claims. To your credit you offer up an exhaustive defense, it just runs counter to basic logic. There’s just no way around the fact that you’ve simultaneously created a God who is the author of evil while rendering the Christian life irrelevant because if our eternal fate is already sealed, there is absolutely no point in bothering to live in any particular way.

Also, John, and I’m not trying to be mean here, but your use of Scripture is just awful. I know, I know, I know. Who am I to criticize the great John Calvin’s exegesis? But buddy you cherry pick scripture like it’s your spiritual gift. You completely ignore the context of the verses you pick. And, with only a few exceptions, either ignore or dismiss out of hand any and all passages that contradict your position. But, John, I’m not sure that’s the even the worst part of it for me.

As a fellow Christian I know this might be a little hard to hear, but you deal surprisingly little with what Jesus himself actually had to say. Sure, you talk about his role in salvation plenty, but when it comes to supporting your various claims, you seem to quote everybody but Jesus. In fact, I’m pretty sure you quoted the entire book of Romans. And yet the words of Jesus himself were few and far between. Knowing your bravado, I’m sure this wasn’t the case but it was almost as if you intentionally ignored him because some of the things he threw a huge wrench your system that could bring the whole thing crashing down on itself, like that pesky John 3:16-17 loving the whole world and not just the elect nonsense or that stuff in Matthew 25 or James 2 where salvation by faith alone seems to be an unwelcome guest.

But, John, I think the ultimate problem between you and me is the starting point in your grand theological endeavor. For you, everything begins and ends with the glory of God. I wholeheartedly agree that giving glory to God is an important thing. But John, I don’t know what Bible you’re reading if you think that receiving glory is God’s primary interest in and purpose for mankind. If anything, the Bible is a sustained account of God’s disinterest in glory. It’s the story of a God who desires above all to be in a loving relationship with His people and God’s willingness to do anything to make that happen, including abandoning all sense of glory even to that point of death on a cross.

But perhaps the most ironic point in your emphasis on glory is that in your attempt to glorify God you destroy that very glory through your understanding of divine sovereignty and election. For if God ordains murder, rape, and abuse, while creating some people – maybe most people – for eternal torment, then that God is not worthy of glory. Period.

Now, I know your followers today will tell me I’m “misreading” you and don’t understand what you’re “really” trying to say. I heard a lot of that this semester as we tried to reconcile the words on the page with their practical implications. But this letter isn’t about the 450 years of interpretation and reinterpretation that have followed in your wake. I’m responding to the words you yourself wrote. And, for me, what you wrote was far too often abhorrent.

And can I tell you something else, John? I don’t think your followers today are nearly as comfortable with your theology as you are. At least, not a lot of them. Don’t get me wrong. You’re on an incredibly high pedestal for them, but time and time again I see them jumping through hoops and doing mental gymnastics to avoid or at least soften the very clear claims you’re making. And I see others rejecting out of hand some of the things you said, while trying to hold on to the rest.

But I get that. We all want to defend our heroes. The bigger issue I have, John, is that you have a tendency (cause I’ll be the first to admit they’re not all like this) to create incredibly arrogant and sometimes hateful followers who are just a cold, calculating, and callous in their theology and selective in their use of scripture as you are. Just like you, too many of your prominent followers today denounce their critics as heretics while praising God for a whole host of evil things that happen in the world from earthquakes and tornadoes to the marginalization, oppression, and destruction of people made in the image of God.

John, I don’t know how to say it any other way – you’ve got a bad habit of making disciples that aren’t very christlike in their love, mercy, compassion, and grace towards others.

Now, I know if you were still around to respond, you would probably tell me like you did so many of your opponents, that I’m “virulent dog” (3.23.2) or maybe a satellite of Satan (3.17.1) because in my “rebellious spirit” (3.21.4) I have the audacity to question your understanding of God, God’s sovereignty, and election which I should never do (3.21.1-2) because by doing so I ”assail the justice of God.” (3.21.7)

Maybe you’re right.

Maybe I am an agent of Satan lost in my own heresy and sin and I just don’t realize it.

But John, I don’t think I am. Like the millions of Christians that came before you and billions that have come after, I believe in a God who confronts sin with grace, defeats evil with love, and offers redemption to all.

Which is why, John, it’s not going to work out between the two of us.

Maybe when I see you in heaven and we both see things a bit clearer, we can try this relationship thing again.

But for now, I think you would agree, we need to go our separate ways.

It’s what’s best for the both of us.

 

Grace and Peace,

Zack Hunt

 

Here follows my answer.
This is truly a wonderful post which expresses what many people think silently.

My first experiences with Calvinists (link) were kind of traumatic. There is one thing I didn’t mention in the above link: I also read a German reformed pastor stating that Hitler was God’s tool for punishing the Jewish people for having rejecting His son (forgetting to mention they rejected Him because God Himself predetermined it) and that this should be a strong reason for us to warn this sinful world, because God is going to do something far worse at the end of times.

holocaust

I (try to) love my Calvinists as fellow human beings, but I cannot view consistent ones as my fellow believers because they worship an evil demon they call God.

They uphold their belief system by resorting to countless fallacies and absurdities, and if you expose their errors, they will inevitably quote:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55.8)

But there is a big irony here. Reading the verse in its immediate context shows it is all about reconciliation, that God invites all evildoers to give up their wicked ways and come back to Him. This verse seems rather to indicate that God is much more loving, much more forgiving than any man can be and even than any man could ever imagine to be.
For reformed theologians, this verse means than God is probably more vicious than the worst criminal who has ever lived.

They say that people deserve to be eternally tortured because they constantly commit misdeeds. But they almost never mention (at least in public) that:

1) God predetermined the fall of Adam and Eve and cursed us with a sinful nature (link)

2) God predetermined every one of our evil actions (link)

calvinistfreewill

The most crazy aspect is that God does all these things for SHOWING OFF His glory by pouring off his unquenchable wrath on those who were not elected before their birth .

Consistent Calvinism is a horrendous blasphemy and a very sophisticated form of devil’s worship . I’m sorry but I cannot be honest to God without putting it this way. I don’t find it pleasant at all to have to say this, and it is my hope that these people will moderate their views in such a way I’ll no longer have to see them in that manner. I don’t like conflicts for the own sake of feeling right and would largely prefer to peacefully coexist with them, were their mistakes not so egregious.

calvinistgod

I don’t seek communion with (consistent) Calvinists, only confrontation but always in a spirit of love (at least that’s what I’m aiming at), reminding myself that they are valuable, wonderful creatures, their horrible ideas notwithstanding.

Finally, you say that Calvinists misinterpret many Biblical verses. I agree that it’s the case, but for honesty’s sake we should recognize that the Bible itself also contains odious stuff (link), such as praying God to dash the children of one’s foes to the ground.
The Bible (along books of C.S. Lewis, Ellen White, John Wesley…) contains the human experiences of people with God, perhaps even the reports of genuine miracles but a careful and intellectually honest study of its content and context forbids us to view it as the voice of the Almighty directly talking down to us.

Unlike the opinion of militant atheists (link), you can find lots of wonderful things within its pages (when properly interpreted in their historical and cultural context) but unlike the convictions of Conservative Evangelicals, it also encompasses heinous things (link).
The basis of our theology cannot be a composite document speaking with conflicting voices but God’s perfect love and justice (as exemplified in Christ), which is necessarily far greater than that of the best (purely) human being having ever lived.

 

Edit: I’ve been harshly criticized for having said that consistent Calvinists worship an evil demon. Should I perhaps not become more moderate and consider them as Christians who are really wrong in some respects? The fact is: I don’t know and my views will perhaps evolve in the future. I don’t hate these folks and would be glad to view them as siblings in Christ. But (at least in the cases mentioned in this post and in the links) it seems really hard.

 

 

Petition against an egregious evil in Florida

Fred Christian is waging a campaign against a crying injustice which leads many of us (Continental Europeans) to view the so-called American dream as an unbearable hopeless nightmare.

 

“Petition Background

I am a 43 year old Florida Resident who never has had health insurance in my adult llife time ! I am one of over one Million Florida Residents who need a little help from my State! Our lives could be shortened by illneses that could have been prevented with access to Medical Services that would potentially keep us alive and heathy! For example I am an asthmatic and access to Medical Services would help, people like me greatly !  “

 

This is an aspect of Martin Luther King that the ruling class wants us to forget.

 

Such as an injustice in an allegedly godly nation is a spit in Christ’s face.

 

I think that proponents of the Christian Right should reconsider their priorities.

Jesus did not threatened prostitutes and homosexuals with hellfire (meaning the lost of one’s existence) but religious bigots and those failing to apply charity.

 

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

SIGN THE PETITION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Did Jesus endorse atrocities?

Deutsche Version: Hat Jesus Greueltaten gut gehiessen?

Youtube Version

 Image

 Arguably, two of the favorite verses of fundamentalists and antitheists alike are:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is generally thought that Jesus agreed with everything standing in the Old Testament, like the genocide of the Amalekites, the wives of dead soldiers being killed by the Israelites being forced to marry the murderers of their husbands, adulterers being put to death, and so on and so forth.

Image

I don’t view the Bible as a set of truths having fallen from Heaven, but as a human book describing the experience (or lack thereof) of real people with God. But they wrote down their thoughts and experiences using their worldview and their Ancient-Near-Eastern understanding.
Without denigrating these people, it is a fact they were both materially and morally primitive. Before judging the moral character of an individual, it is always indispensable to study his or her worldview and to delve into the historical context she led her life. Many self-righteous indignation about the deeds of Mahomed stem from the unwillingness to follow this basic principle.

Now, back to our present concern. I believe that in Jesus, God lived, died and rose from the dead. But in order for him to be fully human and not some kind of super-spirits like many Gnostics thought, he had to give up his all-power, his omniscience (all-knowledge), also with respect to spiritual and moral issues. I know this might sound blasphemous to quite few of my readers, but asserting the contrary would turn Jesus into a super-human.

As a human being, Jesus shared the worldview and presuppositions of the conservative Jewish society where he was raised.
This is why his treatment of women, while quite normal for our modern minds, was truly revolutionary in his particular context.
When trying to judge Jesus’s moral character, most Skeptics tend to interpret literally what he said in order to make it sound as negative as possible, even if it contradicts other verses.

Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus really said these very things mentionned at the beginning of the article. Some theologians think the passage might have been added by Mattew to fit the needs of the early Jewish Christian communities, but I think this text is at home in the context of the sermon on the mount.

According to most antitheists, the litteral interpretation is the right one, and Jesus wished adultery women and disobedient children to be stoned, and thought genocides could be great.
But why did the same Jesus also say:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44″But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…”

After all, he was referring to the very same Mosaic tradition he allegedly considered to be inerrant.

One possibility is certainly that Jesus was inconsistent and contradicted himself: he didn’t realize the consequences of holding fast to the Torah as he preached.
To my mind, a better interpretation is that Jesus saw the love for God and for one’s neighbor as being not only the highest command of the law, but its fulfillment, its very reason of being.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Matthew 22:37-39

Image

In that respect, Jesus was very progressive if he thought that certain aspects of the Law didn’t promote this high goal.

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.
Matthew 19:8

When all his sayings are considered, it seems likely that Jesus meant that higher purpose as the accomplishment of the law.
Of course, it is also probable that the conservative Jewish context he grew up in prevented him from entertaining the thought that the Torah (and other non-canonical traditions) contained mistakes, but this is debatable.

Eric Seibert on Biblical atrocities

Lothringische Version: Eric Seibert iwer Biblische atrozitäte.

Unjust violence and misogyny in the  old testament

Progressive Evangelical theologian Randal Rauser interviewed Biblical Scholar Eric Seibert on the topic of violence in the Bible.

Eric Seibert

He did an excellent job showing why the usual strategies of Conservative Evangelicals such as Paul Copan and William Lane Craig completely fail to show that the god they worship is not a moral monster (or does not suffer under a split-brain disorder).

I don’t, however, share his pacifist convictions. I believe in Just War Theory and in the righteous retribution of wicked deeds.
So it is not the presence of violence within the Bible which shocks me but atrocities committed against innocents, such as Canaanite babies or toddlers, or a law stipulating that a raped woman having not dared scream should be stoned as a adulteress.

I think there is just no way one can defend such kinds of laws as stemming from God.

Now this raises lots of question concerning the inspiration of Scripture. If we know there are clearly parts of it which contradict God’s will, how can we trust the others?

I think that a paradigm shift is clearly necessary.

Evangelicals should stop seeing the Bible as being necessarily more inspired than other Christian and Jewish books, as I explained in a prior post a long time ago.

Such a change does not, however, inevitably implies embracing theological liberalism and anti-supernaturalism.

To take a concrete example, I read the books of the apostle Paul in the same way  I read books from C.S. Lewis: I believe that both were examplary Christians, great defenders of the faith and extraordinary men, and the presence of logical, empirical and theological errors in their writings does not prevent me at all to appreciate all the right things they figured out.

But if we don’t believe that the books within the Biblical Canon are more inspired than books outside it, how can we make the difference between right and wrong beliefs about God?

While I cannot speak for all progressive Christians, I believe that we should base our theology on the fact that God has to be perfect in order for Him to be God. Even tough human beings are faillible creatures they are quite able to recognize perfection and to find out what is morally right and wrong as Saint Paul explains in the first chapters of the letter to the Romans.

Even if the books of C.S. Lewis are not inerrant, most Christians agree he was an extraordinary man of God, had many genuine spiritual experiences and reached profound insights in God’s nature.

But God did not directly speak through him, he used his own culturally-conditioned concepts to write about the Almighty, which involves he also got God wrong at times.

I view the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers in exactly the same way: like modern Christian writers, they had genuine experiences with and thoughts about God they wrote down.

Of course such an approach does not eliminate all difficulties.

For why did people pretending to be believers commit atrocities they justified theologically? Conservative Protestants (and former ones) focus on the problem of atrocities in the Old Testament, but this is only one part of a more general difficulty: the problem of divine hideness.

Christian conquistadors viewing the slaughter of native Indians as the divine Will or isolated tribes routinely sacrificing their children to their deities are troubling as well.
For in all these situations, God allowed countless humans to have noxious and murderous false beliefs about Him.

While I cannot address such a huge problem with a few lines, I believe that God is able to redeem the suffering of all the victims of religious violence who just have to choose Him for an everlasting bliss.

Whilst this does not solve the problem, I find that this largely mitigates it.

Evangelical talibans

Christian patriarchy, misogyny, oppression and abuses  

Christian patriarchy is a radical Calvinist movement  which teaches that the state of affairs concerning the treatment of women in the Old Testament does not only reflect the culture of the ancient near east at that time but also represents God’s holy will for females living at all times.

Christian patriarchs like John McArthur teach that it is a sin for a woman to work, to vote and to choose herself her husband.

But even more moderate Conservative Evangelicals fosters a structure where abuses against women are much more likely to happen than in the secular world or in progressive Churches.

Timothy Swanson did an excellent job at exposing this madness in a post whose content I have reproduced here.

The post is very long but it is really worth being read entirely.

Mein Foto

On Domestic Violence: How Conservative Christianity has Chosen Patriarchal Gender Roles Over the Protection of Victims

 
“A woman, an ass, and a walnut tree, the more they’re beaten, the better still they be.” ~ European Proverb c. 1400 AD
“Take up a stick and beat her, not in rage, but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will rebound to your merit and her good.” ~ Friar Cherubino in Rules of Marriage on what a medieval husband should do if his wife does not obey his verbal correction
“Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” ~ Noel Coward, from Private Lives
The men are placed in charge of the women, since God has endowed them with the necessary qualities and made them bread earners. The righteous women will accept this arrangement obediently, and will honor their husbands in their absence, in accordance with God’s commands. As for the women who show rebellion, you shall first enlighten them, then desert them in bed, and you may beat them as a last resort.
~ The Koran, Sura 4:34
“Yes, he pushed you around and hit you in the face and left bruises all over your kids, but he is still your husband.  Just go home, pray for him, turn the other cheek, have more sex with him, and look for better ways to keep your house cleaner and make your children obey immediately. A happy husband whose wife is loving him this way would never abuse her!” ~ The typical advice given in ultraconservative and Patriarchal Christianity to abused women (see below)
Since I was first admitted to the practice of law, I have represented victims of domestic violence, first as a staff attorney for the local Legal Aid organization, and both in my private practice and a volunteer on pro bono cases through the present time. Some of the cases involved violence against an aged parent, a few involved violence against men, and a few cases were same sex or sibling disputes. However, and unsurprisingly, most were violence by men against their intimate partners.
In that time, I have noticed a common thread among the victims. In the vast majority of the cases, the victims belonged to either a church or a culture that emphasized the submission of women to men – often both. The city and county in which I live and practice is home to many immigrants from all over the world, and most of them come from “traditional” cultures. Our county also tends to be conservative, and has a high rate of church attendance. We also have a relatively high rate of poverty, which is also associated with domestic violence. All of these contribute, of course.
Without a doubt, the biggest frustration for a lawyer in these cases is that, very often, the victim goes right back to the abuser and the cycle repeats itself.
The problem is, a lawyer, a judge, and a policeman can only do so much. We have a limited time in which to encourage a victim to protect herself and to continue to protect herself (and sometimes children as well) in the future. In my experience, the barrier to this is the culture, which usually works against the victim by telling her that she needs to submit more, obey more, express her opinion less, and then she won’t be beaten. Not only that, but she is expected to reconcile despite the abuse, and without proof of a genuine and long-term change by the abuser.
I wish I could say that the church is helping to change the culture, but that would be a lie.
The conservative church, in particular, has become focused on the idea of “feminism” as the enemy, and has thus decided that marital problems are caused because the woman isn’t submissive enough. I will detail more of this later, but first, a history of the laws related to the abuse of women will help to show the connection between power and abuse.
Pretty much as far back as any record of civilization can be found, men have been considered to be the superior sex, and women were expected to obey them. I could spend a lot of time and space putting citations for this fact, but it is readily apparent to anyone who has studied history.
In Hammurabi’s Code (c. 1772 BC – before the Old Testament was written) – best known for “an eye for an eye” – put women in the same class as children, slaves, and chattel. The husband (father, master, owner) was owed obedience, and could subject his wife to criminal prosecution if she failed to obey. (It was assumed he could use physical discipline as well, as long as he didn’t maim her. Although he could use deadly force for the worst offenses.)
Aristotle, who along with Plato provided much of the philosophical backbone of the Greek and Roman world of the New Testament, believed that females started out as males in the womb, but suffered a developmental defect that made them female. Thus, women, children, and slaves were all fair game to be punished and corrected with physical force, because they were congenitally inferior and in need of correction.
 
 
In ancient Rome, a man could strike, maim, or even kill in some circumstances, a wife who was not sufficiently submissive. Saint Augustine strongly advocated for women to be obedient in order to avoid beatings. It was just assumed to be the way of the world. (Again, I am not going to spend time finding the exact citations for these ideas, but they are not difficult to find. See the note at the end for a good starting place.)
Even as late as the late 1700s, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England notes that “chastisement” was considered normal.
“The husband … by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children…for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer.” (From Chapter 15.)
Note: there are multiple references in writings of this period of the “rule of thumb.” The rule was that a husband could beat his wife with a stick, so long as it was no wider than his thumb – or longer than his forearm. (For me – a fairly small man – the stick would be ⅞” in diameter, and 17 ½” long. Any volunteers?) By the time this saying became popular, the law had already changed, so it is not certain that this was a true statement of the fine points of the law, but it is not disputed that “chastisement” of a wife was not actually outlawed until at least the late 1600s.
Throughout the history of literature, the abuse of women is treated as a source of humor, or taken for granted. In my blog, I have already noted a couple of these instances. In the Miracle Plays of the Middle Ages. In modern impoverished communities such as those described in Their Eyes Were Watching God. It’s in the culture.
And now, I will say something nice about the Puritans, who I am not generally very fond of, for a variety of theological and ethical reasons. However, they did get this one right. The 1641 Massachusetts Bodie of Liberties, while it did not grant freedom of religion or speech, did grant this important, and somewhat unprecedented freedom to wives:
To be “free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband.”
Unfortunately, this right was all too often a right without a remedy, as it was poorly prosecuted, and inconsistently punished. In 1976, twelve battered wives filed suit against the New York City Police Department, alleging that battered wives were treated differently than victims of assault by strangers. They won. The court held that justice was indeed being denied to beaten wives. Bruno v. Codd, 407 N.Y.S. 2nd 165 (1978)
The sad thing about this is that this wasn’t the Middle Ages. This was the late 1970s: during my lifetime. While things have improved somewhat, there is still remaining inconsistency in prosecution.
Up until now, I have been discussing primarily the criminal justice available to beaten wives. But what about divorce? Couldn’t they leave? Actually, no. Not until the late 1800s in most parts of the United States. In England this happened in 1878. A woman could not divorce for violence, nor for her husband’s adultery. (A man could divorce for these reasons.) A woman would have to be “abandoned” in order to be granted a divorce. (There is a tedious, but informative story about this very thing in Peregrine Pickle by Tobias Smollett, which I reviewed here.) So, as long as a man financially supported a woman, she was stuck. She could try to have him prosecuted, but she couldn’t leave.
 
The point of this history is in part to dispel the current fad in conservative Christian circles to believe that the past was a more moral, “godly” time. The second point is that an acceptance of violence against women has been the norm for most of history, in all times and places. It is only in the relatively recent past that this has changed. And obviously, it has changed only to a degree, and only in the attitudes of some. Thus, it is ludicrous to say that the cause of domestic violence is feminism. General acceptance of such violence predated even first-wave feminism by 3500 years. At least. Feminism was a reaction, in part, to this violence.
Furthermore, it follows that the key to changing the mindset that tolerates and encourages violence is not to attack “feminism” as the bogeyman, but to change the attitude that says that it is okay to force a woman to obey a man.
Caveat: Before I get going on this point, I do want to make some things clear. Domestic Violence is not just male to female, but the damage primarily occurs in this direction. Also, the power differential has historically been in favor of the man, as I have shown, so male to female violence reinforces this inequality in power.
Second caveat: I do want to be clear that a general belief in male rule is not the same thing as violence. Not all who believe the woman should obey the man are abusers. If I am reading the statistics correctly (see the links below for the source), 75% of those who believe in the “traditional” hierarchy will never abuse their wives. However, the point is that we need to stop the 25% from feeling encouraged by our culture and our religion.
I also want to make a distinction between “hard” Patriarchy and “soft” Patriarchy (whose proponents often prefer “Complementarianism”). Hard Patriarchy is represented by Douglas Phillips of Vision Forum (Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy), Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles), Michael and Debbie Pearl, and a number of others. Hard Patriarchists advocate an absolute rule by men and fathers strikingly similar to Hammurabi’s code. (I have discussed the Patriarchists’ connection to Christian Reconstructionism and White Supremacy here. I have discussed the Patriarchists’ desire to return to the culture of the ancient world – such as Hammurabi – here.) The emphasis is on hierarchy and obedience.
In contrast, “soft” Patriarchists hold to a view of male rule within the home and church, but balance it with a corresponding duty by the man to love and serve his wife. This would describe most of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, who largely functioned in egalitarian manner, with mutual decision making, and an emphasis on love rather than hierarchy.
My concern is that over the last couple of decades, the focus in Complementarian circles has shifted away from the idea of mutual sacrifice and love toward the hard Patriarchal emphasis on womanly obedience and the supposed evils of “feminism.” (I use the quotes because the term is used as a bogeyman, and no distinction is made between the various waves of feminism or the different schools of feminist thought. Thus, Douglas Phillips can use the term to refer to everything from women’s suffrage to the present, while most probably are thinking of some sort of lesbian man-hater promoting abortion. That is a big difference. As I explained here, the Patriarchists are big fans of R. L. Dabney, the Confederate chaplain who claimed that women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery would destroy Christendom.) This is also why Doug Wilson can claim that those who disagree on “feminism” are heathens. Note the use of the code phrase “creation order of human sexuality,” which means male dominance. See below for more on this.
Why do I go to such lengths to explain this? Because the ancient lie that the cause of domestic violence is unsubmissive women and that the cure for violence is more submission is making a comeback in conservative Christian circles.
Let me start off with John Piper, who I once considered to be a reasonably mainstream preacher. (Before learning of statements like this, and others that are pretty far out there.)
I posted this link in my previous post on women in ancient cultures. Here, Piper clearly advises that a woman should stay and submit to abuse. Not leave and seek safety for her and her children. Not report a violent crime to the authorities. Stay and submit to abuse. 
Or how about this one, from a Saddleback Church pastor. (Not Rick Warren, the most famous of the bunch.) That’s right, just like it used to be legally, he says that morally, violence is not grounds for a divorce. Stay and submit to abuse. 
Or what about Paige Patterson, president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? What does he say?
“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.”  And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”  And sure enough, he did.  She came to church one morning with both eyes black.  And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter.  And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”  And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.”  And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
“And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came.  And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front.  And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.”  And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?”  And he’s a great husband today.  And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.  And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.  Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.”
Well, bully for him that he came to church, but I see nothing about follow up to be sure that the abuse stopped permanently. Based on my experience, it probably returned as soon as the cycle continued on to the next phase.
 
I hesitate to even dignify Michael or Debbie Pearl with a quote. They are best known for their book, To Train Up A Child, which advocates beating children with plumbing tubes. Several children have died as a result of their teachings. (See note below.)
In what surely must come as no surprise, the Pearls advocate women submitting to violence as well. 
“Has your husband reviled you and threatened you? You are exhorted to respond as Jesus did. When he was reviled and threatened, he suffered by committing himself to a higher judge who is righteous. You must commit yourself to the one who placed you under your husband’s command. Your husband will answer to God, and you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer.Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands’…You can freely call your husband ‘lord’ when you know that you are addressing the one who put him in charge and asked you to suffer at your husband’s hands just as our Lord suffered at the hands of unjust authorities…When you endure evil and railing without returning it, you receive a blessing, not just as a martyr, but as one who worships God.”
That’s right. Better to be a martyr – that is dead – than to leave and protect yourself or go against the man in any way.
[Note: I do not personally know anyone who is a fan of the Pearls, but they are somewhat popular within the Christian Patriarchy movement, and the teachings are a slightly more extreme version of the beliefs regarding absolute obedience by children and women that are the hallmark of Patriarchy.]
One more example. This one is from Nancy DeMoss, in an interview (along with Mary Kassian, promoting their new series on “biblical” womanhood) on the once fairly mainstream Focus on the Family radio.
We need to be sensitive to the occasions where women have a background of abuse—but we can’t say that the solution for abuse is for women to “cling to their rights.” Christ laid down his rights . . . We are the most like Christ when we are serving, and when we’re not “the end thereof is the way of death.” Feminism is the “forbidden fruit,” and the world’s ways are attractive, but when we bit into it we get a mouthful of worms . . . When you lay down your “rights,” then you find God leads you to pleasant paths . . . We live in a broken world, no one has a perfect marriage . . . we have to wait for eternity to find happiness. 
That’s right! Once again, the “solution” to violence is for the woman to “lay down her rights.” You know, like the right to safety for her and her children.
I also can’t help but note the gratuitous reference to “feminism” as being the enemy. I’ll admit that the use of “feminism” to represent the idea of getting out of an abusive marriage makes me rather inclined to embrace that form of “feminism.” [I want to do a further post on this interview, because there are so many more poisonous things said that need to be addressed.]
I also wince at that line, “we have to wait for eternity to find happiness.” This is sometimes true – the world does not owe us happiness – but again, this is used in the context of explaining why women should endure abuse.
The great Victorian novelist, Wilkie Collins notes this attitude in No Name, when the passive Norah resigns herself to her fate. (See my more in-depth review of that book here.)
“The way to happiness is often very hard to find; harder, I almost think, for women than for men. But if we only try patiently, and try long enough, we reach it at last — in heaven, if not on earth.”
Or, as C-3PO puts it: “We seem to be made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.”
The basic worldview is that women’s happiness, women’s right to be free from violence, and indeed women’s right to life, are all secondary to the need to submit.
[Note: there is so much more awful stuff in that Kassian/DeMoss interview that I wish to address in a different post on the current obsession with gender roles in the conservative church. Stay tuned.]
Needless to say, I find this to be an appalling response to a serious problem. Furthermore, it demonstrates a tendency to side with the perpetrators against the victims – something totally contrary to the Christian ethic. In fact, I would say that one of the key themes of the Bible is to do justice to the oppressed. To oppose the oppressor, to defend the powerless, not those with power. (See Isaiah 58 for more.)
The problem is that for some reason, conservative Christianity has decided that the main if not sole cause of problems in marriages is that women are no longer “submissive.” That is, that “feminism” is the source of our problems, and that all we have to do to go back to whatever Utopian ideal of great “biblical” marriages is for women to reject feminism, give up their rights, and take whatever men give them.
This is a disgrace to our faith.
As a lawyer, I know there is a better way to address domestic violence. It isn’t a secret.
1. Call the police. Violence, even between spouses, is a crime in the civilized world. Treat it as such.
2. Zero tolerance. If you hit, the marriage is over. We do not risk the lives and safety of others, particularly children.
3. Since women – particularly poor women – are at financial risk in a split, be prepared to assist.
4. Before even considering putting the marriage back together, the abuser needs to demonstrate a change. Anger management, two years of a demonstrated change minimum. Preferably five years. (This is similar to drug or alcohol addiction – a long track record of sobriety is needed.)
Now, one of the things that is often raised in this case (and was raised by Patterson, above) is the idea that submission to abuse will result in the salvation of the perpetrator. I’m sure all of us who have spent time in conservative churches have heard that one. In fact, we probably heard a story similar to the one told by Patterson. Leaving aside the fact that I have deep suspicions of anecdotes told by pastors when they are a bit self serving, I have noticed that the stories circulating in churches have all the hallmarks of urban legends. It is always a friend of a friend. Somebody someone once knew. As I indicated above, I deeply doubt that Patterson’s case resulted in a complete transformation. If it did it would be rare. But all the rest are third hand stories. Urban legends.
Do you know what? Unlike those urban legends, I could easily demonstrate the more usual result when a woman goes back and submits. I dare you. Look through the archives of the newspaper of your city or town. Chances are, you will find a case involving a dead woman. Dead at the hands of a husband or partner. And, chances are, the story will mention that the police had previously been summoned to the residence due to violence. Perhaps she even filed for a restraining order. But she went back. And now she is a “martyr” as the Pearls would put it. Thirty percent of women who are are murder victims were killed by their intimate partner. (US Bureau of Justice statistics, 2000)  In fact, here is a recent case from my own hometown. I am happy to note that the wife survived her gunshot wounds. [Update 7-11-2013: She subsequently died from her wounds.] I am not happy to report that the shooter was an attorney. 
This is the usual result of returning and submitting. Not conversion of the violent man. Not some promised miracle. No. After the victim goes back and submits, the abuse continues, and probably escalates. In some cases, someone dies.
There is a solution to the cycle of violence, and it isn’t telling the victim to be nicer and more submissive. It is removing the violent person from the situation.
It is fitting that Eminem and Rihanna perform this song, as both have had their own experiences with domestic violence. Trigger warning. This song contains violence and language, and is highly disturbing. It also illustrates the cycle of violence far too well.
I have, in the course of my law practice, assisted in quite a few divorces involving Christians and also involving violence. I could write an extensive post on the problems in marriages, and may some day. I think that churches often take the wrong approach. However, it is particularly in the “women must submit” diagnosis that things go the most wrong. In the non-violent breakups, the woman generally believes she has been submissive. (I would note that in many of these cases, she has, but has been unloving – a totally different problem.) In all my cases, I have only had one in which the man complained of a lack of submission.
This particular case was also the most troubling divorce I have ever facilitated. (I represented the wife.)
The husband was (and is) a pastor. Also, one of the creepiest people I have ever met. He insisted upon having his way sexually with his wife in a way that she found degrading and painful. Things got so bad that she would lock herself in the guest room every night to avoid rape. It wasn’t until her adult children insisted she get counseling that things changed. The female counselor (provided by the denomination, actually, and a licensed professional) recognized the problem, and helped her end the marriage. It took some work by the counsellor and myself to break through the years of “submit” to get her to believe that she was not sinning by ending the marriage. (I am happy to report that she is doing well several years later. I am also happy to report that the denomination terminated him from his position – a very rare thing, in my experience. However, he quickly found another position in another state. Apparently real creeps never lack employment in ministry.)
Once again, not all or even most of those who espouse hierarchy in marriage are abusers. But the philosophy attracts abusers because it provides them with cover and justification. And, when we tell women that they must stay and take abuse, we become participants in that violence.
This is one of several areas that the American Church seems blissfully unaware of how non-Christians view it. I was told from my childhood that “unbelievers” rejected my religion because they wanted to sin. They viewed us as a bunch of prudes intent on ruining their fun. This isn’t completely untrue. We are viewed as prudes. Sometimes, we deserve it.
But what I have come to realize working in Family Court is that we are also viewed – for good reason – as immoral. Because we say things like this.
There is a great comment on John Piper’s video (linked above) by a person who goes by the handle of “butchkitties.”
“Richard Dawkins wishes he were as effective as this video at convincing people that Christianity is a morally bankrupt mess.”
When we decide that a belief in an ancient hierarchy of rule by men trumps the physical safety and lives of women, we are indeed morally bankrupt, and even an atheist can do better than that.
Note on SGM and child abuse:
Not only is this tendency to emphasise power structures over damage to people expressing itself in a failure to defend women from violence, it has also popped up in the recent lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries resulting from the cover-up of child molestation. (SGM is a church popular with The Gospel Coalition, one of the better known proponents of Complimentarianism, and also known for its authoritarian ways. John Piper is a prominent member of this group.)  (Since several of the perps have been convicted, it is safe to say that the abuse occurred. I think there is also good evidence that the church attempted to cover for the abusers.) Again, submission to the powerful (the church leaders) becomes more important than justice for the victims. Or even protection of the victims. In fact, the leadership apparently made the molested children formally “forgive” and “reconcile” with their molesters. For more on this, I recommend thewartburgwatch.com for their ongoing series on the abuse and coverup.
Again, the same prescription applies – as it should for the Catholic Church as well: Call the police. Prosecute the perpetrators. Support the victims in their recovery.
Note on the Pearls:
Here is a quote that gives an idea of the philosophy of child raising advocated by the Pearls:
Never reward delayed obedience by reversing the sentence. And, unless all else fails, don’t drag him to the place of cleansing. Part of his training is to come submissively. However, if you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.
Unsurprisingly, Sean Paddock, Lydia Schatz, and Hana Grace-Rose Williams died as a result of these teachings.
 
Note on Rape:
This is a bit beyond the scope of this post, but a related misconception, particularly in Patriarchal culture is that rape is caused by something the woman did or didn’t do.
I previously noted Douglas Wilson’s claim that rape is caused by women not submitting enough, and I reproduce it here:
A blogger and friend of Douglas Wilson re-posted the following excerpt from Wilson’s book, Fidelity: How to be a One Woman Man as a response to the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, a novel about kinky, violent sex. All excerpts can be viewed on Amazon.com using the search within the book feature.
Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.
True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours. (Page 88.)
It is beyond the scope of this post to explain why this is offensive, and I assume most of my readers will find that point to be completely obvious. It also fits neatly with the Christian Patriarchy view that women are in fact lesser beings, and therefore must always be under the protection (and control) of a man. In fact, Wilson makes this reasonably clear in the opening of the first chapter of the book:
This book was written for men and their sons. I suggest that wives read this only when their husbands give it to them, and not the other way around. The introduction mentioned the issue of “straight talk” – and this means, in part, a rejection of euphemism. Some of what is said here may be offensive to Christian women, but the point is certainly not to give offense. The point is to provide biblically specific and pointed help to Christian males. (On page 13.)
Although, again, this discussion is beyond the scope of this one post, I may have to explore the degree to which misogyny and the control of women are a core belief of the Christian Patriarchy movement.
Suffice it to say that, like many of Wilson’s ideas, this one is not only factually false, but obviously factually false. Those places in the world where women are most likely to be raped also happen to be those places which most adhere to the Patriarchal view of male-female relations. Even worse, many of those in these areas of the world that advocate patriarchy mutilate the genitals of their females, which ensures that the sex act is not an “egalitarian pleasure fest.” That, in fact, is the point.
If Wilson were really concerned about ending rape, he might note that women are the safest in those countries that have strong rape laws, a view of women as equals, and influential feminist movements.
[Subsequent note: in the same book, Wilson denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS, and advocates that women have unprotected sex with their HIV positive husbands. No, seriously. Search inside the book at Amazon.com. Page 169]
I would add as well that in the aftermath of the recent Steubenville rape case, there has been a renewed assertion of the lie that rape is about sexual desire. (This ties in nicely with the claim that “she was raped because she was wearing that.” Again, just like with domestic violence, the response is to blame the victim. Not submissive enough. Wearing the wrong thing. I really wish that more people would make an open-minded study of rape culture and the actual facts regarding rape before making such offensive and obviously factually false claims.
Here are a few good rebuttals: Gang Rape is about violence, not sex. 
Note on the duty of the woman to obey:
It is beyond the scope of this post to argue over the particular theological interpretation given to certain passages of the Bible by patriarchists. I may eventually compile some links by those who have a better knowledge of Greek language and history than I have in a future post.
For now, I want to focus on the implications of the supposed duty of a woman to obey her husband. (Patriarchists interpret the Bible to require absolute, unquestioning obedience.) As lawyers, we refer to such things as rights. The husband (in this hypothetical) has a right to his wife’s obedience. The question then would be, what is the remedy? How can the husband enforce the right to absolute obedience? If he can’t, then it isn’t worth much as a right.
As I have demonstrated, the historical patriarchal answer has been that a husband may take physical action to compel obedience. In Hammurabi’s time, that might extend to capital punishment. Later, this would be limited to reasonable beatings, however one might define that.
So, what to do if one cannot outright advocate committing a crime, eliminating beatings as a method of enforcement?
The ever-resourceful Douglas Wilson has a solution for you. (I swear, finding crazy stuff written by DW is almost too easy.)
Yes, that’s right! You can subject her to church discipline (the Protestant equivalent of excommunication) if she doesn’t do what you want. After all, to fail to obey one’s husband is sin. To do it after being warned is persistent sin – and thus warrants discipline until she decides to stop sinning by obeying her husband absolutely. So I guess threatening one’s wife with damnation is sort of better than beating her. I still find it abusive.
[I note that, after this post made a big stir on the internet, Wilson retracted it. However, it is very much in harmony with his views of the absolute duty of obedience, so I’ll admit to doubting that the retraction represents a true change in Wilson’s actual opinion.]
For a good rebuttal and discussion, see this post. 
One of my favorite exercises is to reverse the roles in a situation to expose how sexist (or racist) the “solution” is. In this case, note that the woman is told to go pray about it, but the man is allowed to seek a remedy. Try it backwards. Tell the man to go home and pray. “God, please make my wife do the dishes.” Or, “God, please make my wife have more sex with me.” I would be embarrassed to make that request. But instead, it’s, “God, please keep my husband from beating me.” Yeah, that makes sense.
Or how about this. “A man shouldn’t cling to his rights to have sex and a clean house. Christ’s example proves we should lay down our rights.” Why don’t we hear this? It actually makes more sense than “don’t cling to your right not to be abused.” Didn’t Saint Paul actually use Christ’s sacrifice to describe the way a husband should act. But instead, the woman is told to submit to abuse, while the man is advised on how to get his way. The man is never told that he will need to wait for the afterlife to have clean dishes.
The conclusion is inescapable. A man’s “right” to be obeyed trumps the woman’s right to personal safety.
But, it does fit with the worldview that men are active. Women are passive. They “receive, surrender, accept.” A man takes action to get what he wants. A woman must passively hope that God rescues her.
I will also admit that if I were the pastor and a parishioner came to me asking me to discipline his wife for not doing the dishes, I would be sorely tempted to tell him to get off his lazy ass and go wash them himself.  
Note on the Martyr Complex:
During my childhood years, our family attended John MacArthur’s megachurch in Los Angeles. While he is not nearly as extreme as the partriarchists I quoted above, he is not only a complementarian, but also does not believe abuse is grounds for divorce. At least he grants that a woman has a right to protect herself from physical harm. However, I note that he does not consider verbal and emotional abuse to be grounds for a split.
I believe that this has some serious moral and practical problems. Let me explain.
First, there are plenty of abusive spouses who stop just short of a hit. However, they create an environment of fear and intimidation that is far from healthy. Also, it is damaging to the children, who are typically emotionally abused as well. I can speak from the experience of my practice, my observation of friends and acquaintances, and an abusive situation within my extended family.
Here is the problem: the spouse (nearly always the woman) is able to feel self righteous because she stays and submits. She becomes a martyr. She can tell her friends at church (and her relatives) about how hard her life is, and she gets lots of sympathy. She is able to be the “good person,” the “godly person,” even as she allows her children to be verbally and emotionally abused. And the Church backs her up.
This is yet another reason why domestic violence – and its little sibling verbal and emotional abuse – should be treated seriously. By insisting that there is nothing noble about staying in a bad situation, the following could be accomplished. First, bullies would lose their enabling. If victims leave, they would be left with their own unpleasant selves. Second, all this complaining and the martyr complex would be met with a demand for action. Protect the children, and stop enabling bad behavior. 
 

Naked Calvinism: presuppositionalism

Most Calvinists keep saying that people are generally totally closed to God’s invitation to believe in the Gospel owing to their alleged utter depravity.

As a consequence they keep saying that an evidential approach (providing people with arguments for the faith) is doomed to fail because unregenerate humans are too wicked to be receptive.

As a consequence they adopt a presuppositionalist methodology which consists in showing that all wordviews other than “Biblical Christianity” (and by that they really mean Calvinism) are incoherent.

A non-Calvinist fundamentalist offered a response which is really worth being read.

The lack of common ground between Calvinist apologists and non-Calvinists is undoubtedly real. However it is not caused by the total depravity of their opponents but by the willingness of reformed folks themselves to endorse doctrines that no decent, sensible and sensitive person can possibly accept, like God predetermining a person before her birth to become wicked while condemning her to eternal torment at the end of her life as a punishment.

This also underscores the real danger posed by a Calvinist theocracy: if you are willing to buy this, it is really a small step to introduce torture or execution against heretics (which inflict, after all, only a finite amount of suffering) as Calvin himself did with Michael Servetus.

Calvin executing Servetus?

It is no coincidence that the large majority of Islamic movements confess a believe in divine determinism very similar to reformed theology.

Important presuppositionalist.

Cornelius Van Till, Gordon Clark and James White


Erlösung durch die Liebe

English version

NDE

Das Fundament meiner Theologie ist Gottes Vollkommenheit, denn Er muss perfekt sein, um Gott zu sein und Er ist zwangsläufig viel besser als die heiligste Person auf der Erde.

Wenn ich auf alle Religionen schaue, erscheint es mir wahrscheinlich, dass Gottes Offenbarung zum Menschen das Leben, Tod und Auferstehung von Jesus von Nazareth war, der uns gelehrt hat, sogar unsere schlimmsten Feinden zu lieben.
Während alle Christen immer an die Notwendigkeit von Gottes Gnade für das Heil geglaubt haben, glauben römische Katholiken, dass zusätzliche gute Werke nötig sind, wie es im Buch von Jakobus berichtet wird, während Protestanten weitaus das Buch von Jakobus ignorieren und sich auf Paulus konzentrieren, der vermeintlich lehrte, dass man durch reine Gnade errettet wird.

Unter Protestanten lehren Arminianer, dass man die freie Wahl treffen muss, Seine Gnade anzunehmen, während Calvinisten lehren, dass Gott manche Menschen zwingt, seine Gnade zu akzeptieren, während sich die anderen geradlinig zur Hölle bewegen.

Meine eigenen auf Gottes Vollkommenheit basierten Gedanken führten mich zu den folgenden Schlussfolgerungen:

1) Gott will, dass jeder Mensch eine immer währende Beziehung mit Ihm erleben wird.
2) Menschen begehen viele Sünden, die Gott verletzen und die er nicht nur vergessen kann.
3) Deshalb wird Gott jede Sünde jedem vergeben, denn es ist die Liebe, die sein Wesen definiert
4) Gott wird jedem vorschlagen, die Ewigkeit mit Ihm zu verbringen

Bedeutet es, dass alle Menschen bei Gott im Himmel sein werden? Vermutlich nicht, denn zumindest einige Menschen, wie viele in den Evangelien beschriebenen Pharisäer den in Jesus von Nazareth offenbarten Gott ablehnen werden. Und Gott wird ihren freien Willen respektieren. Und wenn es gar keine Hoffnung auf Erlösung für sie gibt, werden sie letztendlich aufhören, zu existieren.

Ich persönlich weiß, dass ich im Himmel sein werde, weil Gott mich liebt, ich Ihn liebe und Seine Liebe viel größer als alle meine Übertretungen ist. Und ich habe den ehrlichen Wunsch, mich dieser ultimativen Liebe immer mehr zu nähern, indem ich Jesus Christus nachfolge, der den Tod und die Sünde am Kreuz und am leeren Grab besiegt hat.

Wüstenland

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)