Friday, 9 January 2009

How should Christians respond to the War on Terror?

This seems to be an appropriate time to repost an old book review I wrote. By posting in now it the current Gazan crisis I'm not condoning the invasion of Gaza by claiming it is nothing more than another episode in the war on terror. I do consider Hamas to be an illegitimate terror organisation, but I'm struggling to see how the mass destruction and traumatization that is going on in Gaza at the moment is a legitimate or morally defensible response to Hamas' evil. And I've become too cynical of polititians of any stripe to take anything said on the media seriously.

I also don't necessarily agree with every point made by Megoran (i.e. I don't think I'm a pascifist). Nevertheless, he raises important issues and throws light on the incredibly constructive work that believers in Jesus have done and still can do. It is also a helpful introduction to some basic Christian theology, for those who don't know too much about it.

Nick Solly Megoran, The War on Terror: How Should Christians Respond? (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Books), 2007
Conservative Evangelicals have in recent years acquired a reputation for being so individualistic and other-worldly that they have lost sight of the Church's obligation to be engaged in the pressing social and moral issues of the present. Whether true or not, Nick Solly Megoran can be seen as an example of a committed Evangelical, rooted in the tradition of Martin Lloyd-Jones and John Stott, for whom this is clearly not the case. His book is a plea to Christians to analyse their gospel and turn to their scriptures in order to face the most important challenge of our age: the War on Terror. His concern is not only to equip Christians to think about war, but also to build them up in their faith in Christ and enable them to witness to the gospel by talking sensibly to non-Christians in the context of discussions about war. This book has therefore a strong devotional and practical dimension. Each chapter opens with a discussion of a particular portion of the Bible and closes with concrete examples of how these biblical principles have been put into practice.

The War on Terror is divided into four sections with a final appendix. In Part one, Megoran gives an account of various responses to the War on Terror, both secular and Christian. The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism has been variously defined as either an “irrational evil” by those on the right or as the result of “government oppression” by those on the left. Both of the main protagonists, Bush and bin Laden, describe the war as one between good and evil. There is also diversity amongst Christians, depending in large part on whether they take up a pacifist or a “just war” position on violence in general. Megoran believes the former is the more biblical, which brings us to Part 2.

The chapters in Part 2 deal with the big questions raised by the war on terror. The first concerns the realism of Jesus' command that we should love our enemies (Mt. 5:9, 38-48). While not wanting to undermining the difficulty of this command, Megoran believes it is the only way to demonstrate the true nature of God and bring about genuine transformation. Just as God has reconciled to himself us who were once his enemies, so we are called to demonstrate the same grace to our enemies. We are liberated by the experience and empowered by the Spirit to do so. In other words, the key to the solution of war is the gospel of justification by faith (44). Reconciliation with God is good news for everyone: terrorists, superpowers, ourselves and the world.

The second question raised by the War on Terror is why God allows such violence to occur in the first place. Though the Bible gives us no answers, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 4.11-27) represented war as the undoing of God's creation and thus contrary to God's will. Jeremiah promised a new age in which the kingdom of God would be established and there would be no war. The reality of this future kingdom was initiated by Christ, who has reunited us with God. This reality is demonstrated today, in anticipation of its final consummation, wherever his kingdom of peace, justice and righteousness is proclaimed and lived out. This is the task of the church in an age of terror, as illustrated by the early church in Carthage.

Part 3 turns to the practical issue of how the church can concretely “proclaim and live out” Christ's rule. A key concept here is that of “citizenship” (Phil 3:12-21; Jer 29:1-23). Christians have to negotiate between two allegiences: to the state and to heaven. We are to seek the peace and prosperity of the state, which has the divinely instituted role of promoting virtue and preventing vice. On the other hand, the fact that God is our true king means that we are ultimately answerable to a different set of rules. It is these kinds of citizens that the world needs for true peace to reign. Examples are given of Christian responses to U.S. support of Nicaraguan terrorists in the 1980's and the French priest André Trocmé.

Indeed, the gospel as the creation of a community of divinely reconciled sinners creates the conditions for overcoming the idolatry of nationalism. This reconciliation between different peoples is the outworking of God's plan for history, as can be seen in Acts 10.1-23, in the work of post-war Polish and German Bishops and in the movement Reconciliation Walk.

Before we can work for unity in the world, however, we need to work for unity within the church. This is our proof to the world that we have been forgiven and have peace with God. Phil 4:2-9 provides us with five principles for conflict management within the church, which can also be applied to the international scene, as demonstrated by the work of MRA and the LWF in Guatemala.

A role model for being a “citizen of heaven” is ironically provided by Jos 5:13-6.27: the battle of Jericho. This violent story, however, has to be interpreted within the framework of God's big plan. The invasion of Canaan was the task of Israel under the old covenant, where citizenship was understood in earthly terms and so violence was necessary. When it is understood that we are now under a covenant of grace rather law, we are free to spiritualize the story and draw the correct principles. The goal of invasion was to create holiness, a land devoid of whatever is contrary to God. The means for doing so was faith. Examples of these principles in practice are provided by John Paton and Tom Skinner.

The final question concerns hope in the face of the threat of death. On the one hand, Ps 116 assures us that God actually works to save us from literal death in concrete situations, with the result that the church in general is strengthened. Megoran gives examples of deliverance from terrorists, brutal regimes and weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, often the saints do die (see v 15). Even then, their knowledge that death has lost its sting enables them to be witnesses to Christian hope, as the Evangelical church in Beslan has been able to do.

Part 4 brings the baisc theme together. Like Jeremiah, who bought a field despite immanent exile (Jer 32-33), we need to engage in prophetic acts, pointing people to a reality that transcends what is visible now. The work of FFRME and CPT are held up as varied examples. We need to follow Paul's example (Acts 27:17-31), who despite his hopeless situation in prison preached the kingdom and taught Jesus, held as he was by his vision of God's great plan (as Horatio Spafford and Rev. Mehdi Dibaj did). Ultimately, war is nothing new. It is the manifestation of sin, and so the only solution is the gospel, which justifies us and thus brings peace with God and with neighbour. As we wait for the consummation of Christ's kingdom, our task is to prayerfully read our scriptures, think about the issues raised by war and sin, praise God for what he has done and proclaim it to the world.

Megoran has not written an academic treatise. Though one may question at times his theological argument, that is hardly the point of the book. It is an introduction to the key issues that are a matter of life and death, and as such provides an invaluable reference point in a complex area. Most significantly, it is a call for action, and to that end I found the abundant examples of concrete Christian witness in action helpful, inspiring and at the same time shaming for my own inactivity.

Update: Old Testament Passion has posted an essay by a Christian Arab on the current crisis, along with his own views.

An Israeli view on the war in Gaza

Or perhaps I should say "the view of an Israeli," given that Israelis have about as diverse an opinion on contemporary issues as any healthy democracy (CNN interviewed a girl from Sderot yesterday condemning the current invasion). Hadassah Levi, author of the blog Zionism and the State of Israel, kindly offered the following information in response to my post What's going on in Gaza?:

Hamas has been raining rockets down on Israeli citizens for EIGHT years. They have shown no signs of returning Gilad Shalit and the Hamas government actively and publicly supports terror.

The Israeli economy benefits from open borders with Gaza and only keeps them closed when security concerns overwhelm economic ones.

The Israeli army does its best not to harm civilians in this attack on Hamas. It is focusing on destroying munition factories, Hamas offices and tunnels used for smuggling ammunition into Gaza from Egypt. Occasionally civilians do get hurt, just as they are getting hurt on the Israeli side (and that's not by accident).

Israel simply wants to prevent Hamas from shooting rockets at Israel by taking away its capability to do that (after all diplomatic avenues have failed).

Even with all the lies Arab propaganda is spewing, the international community has been fairly understanding of Israel's position. Israel does not go to war lightly and it is paying a fairly high price - the endangerment of all the civilians in the south of Israel as well as Israeli soldiers in Gaza and all over the country. But this is a necessary reaction.

An important thing to note: Hamas complains of lack of food, medicine, etc. Israel has been allowing humanitarian aid in to Gaza and Hamas gunmen have been stealing it in order to sell to the citizens of Gaza! Palestinians wounded in Gaza have been treated in Israeli hospitals. While all this has been going on, a Palestinian baby was brought to an Israeli hospital for a life-saving heart operation.

It doesn't get much more humanitarian than that!

For a different view check out this "on site" blog: In Gaza, repleat with photos, reports and a little video footage. See also the comment threads of Laila's latest post, there are links to two troubling articles by Avi Shlaim and Robert Fisk. Old Testament Passion links to an article by an Arab Christian on the issue. Here's an excerpt:

So, what is our role as believers in this situation? How can we be a model ofMessiah as we move forward in the reconciliation process? Are we too busychallenging the moral and ethical position of the other side that we areunwilling to take responsibility? Because our societies have chosen war andviolence, there is a great need for reconciliation. We can accomplish thisthrough taking on a priestly role of intercessor and prophetic role ofspeaking the truth.

Thursday, 8 January 2009

Arabs for Israel

Given the hateful, often distorted, and almost inevitably biased rhetoric that is racing round the Internet concerning Israeli-Palestinian relations, the principles and goals espoused by the fascinating organisation Arabs for Israel is a true breath of fresh air. I've come accross pro-Israel Arabs and Palestinians before, but they have been former Muslim's turn Christians (see John Hobbin's fascinating post and Walid Schoebat's website). This website, though not exclusively Muslim, is showing me a different, more hopeful picture ... My image of Islam may change yet!

Here's what they have to say about themselves:

Who Are We?

We are Arabs and Moslems who believe:

-We can support Israel and still support the Palestinian people. Supporting one does not cancel support for the other.
-We can support the State of Israel and the Jewish religion and still treasure our Arab and Islamic culture.
-There are many Jews and Israelis who freely express compassion and support for the Palestinians. We Arabs also express reciprocal compassion and support.
-The existence of the State of Israel is a fact that we accept.
-Israel is a legitimate state that is not a threat but an asset in the Middle East.
-Every major World religion has a center of gravity. Islam has Mecca, and Judaism certainly deserves its presence in Israel and Jerusalem.
-Diversity is a virtue not only in the USA, but would be beneficial around the world. We support a diverse Middle East with protection for human rights, respect and equality under the law to all minorities, including Jews and Christians.
-Palestinians have several options but are deprived from exercising them because of their leadership, the Arab League and surrounding Arab and Moslem countries who have other goals besides seeing Palestinians live in harmony with Israel.
-If Palestinians want democracy they can start practicing it now.
-It will benefit Arabs to end the boycott of Israel.
-We can resolve our conflicts using non-violent means. Sending our young people on suicide/homicide missions as a form of Jihad is a distortion of Islam. We can do better.
-We are appalled by the horrific act of terror against the USA on 9/11/2001.
-It will be better for Arabs when the Arab media ends the incitement and misinformation that result in Arab street rage and violence. We support the Arab media providing coverage of ways that people of all religions are and can live together in harmony.
-We are eager to see major reformation in how Islam is taught and channeled to bring out the best in Moslems and contribute to the uplifting of the human spirit and advancement of civilization.
-We believe in freedom to choose or change one’s Religion.
-We cherish and acknowledge the beauty and contributions of the Middle East culture, but recognize that the Arab/Moslem world is in desperate need of constructive self-criticism and reform.
-We seek dialogue with Israel. We invite you to join us on a path of love.

We are NOT:

Anti-Islam, Anti-Arab, confrontational or hateful.

We remember with deep sadness and respect the brave Arabs, known and unknown, who were killed or severely punished for promoting peace with Israel; a special thanks to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt who was killed at the hands of Militant and Radical Islamists after he signed the peace treaty with Israel.

We salute and commend Arab and Moslem writers, scholars and speakers, who found the strength, commitment and honesty in their hearts to speak out in support of Israel. We thank you for being the pioneers that you are and for holding such sophisticated and advanced views in the realm of Arab and Moslem thinking. You are inspiring us all.

ARABS AND MOSLEMS WHO WISH TO POST THEIR VIEWS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL CAN DO SO BY EMAILING US. WE WILL THEN POST THEM ANONYMOUSLY, IF THEY WISH. Please send all correspondence to: nonie@arabsforisrael.com

Update: For a blog related to this issues, visit the fascinating Muslims Against Sharia. I have also posted part of an interview with them.

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

Ten Important Archaeological Discoveries in 2008 Related to the Bible

The following is simply copied and pasted from Dr. Claude Mariottin's post of the same name. Given my general lack of knowlege of developments in the archaeological world, I really appreciate this helpful summary, along with links.

Ten Important Archaeological Discoveries in 2008 Related to the Bible
Several announcements were in 2008 about important archaeological discoveries that are directly or indirectly related to the Bible. It would be impossible to name all of them. What follows are ten archaeological discoveries announced in 2008 that are related to the Bible. They are not listed in order of discovery nor in order of importance to biblical studies. Rather, they are listed according to the dates of my posts describing each discovery.


Other archaeological discoveries that are also related to biblical studies:


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
P.S. Our professor has also posted a very helpful typology of archaeologists, depending on their degree of minimalism or maximilism.

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

What's going on in Gaza?

It seems that wherever I look I get partial or contradictory information. The general position in the Western media is that Hamas has brought this invasion on Gaza upon itself because it broke the ceasefire. Israel waited long enough and finally its patience snapped. I noticed, however, as I briefly glanced into the The Economist, that there is another dimension to the issue: Hamas apperently had to break the truce with rocketfire because Israel didn't keeps its side of the deal, namely opening the boarders. In the meantime I read somewhere else that the return of Gilad Shalit was part of a deal, something also left unfulfilled.

Then there is the question of the proportionality of Israel's invasion. I subscribe to bitterlemons.org, a discussion forum consisting of Israeli and Palestinian political experts. According to one Israeli, the civilian deaths in such operations are relatively low. According to the Palestinians, on the other hand, it is an all out slaugher of women and children (the Palestinan commentator calls it a war on the Palestinian people and not just Hamas). CNN recently gave the latest figures: 100 of 500 Palestinan deaths are women and children. Is this proportional? But then the news reports cause me to ask other questions: how many were killed by Hamas themselves, in misfired rockets and dodgey tactics? The news reader from German agency Heute said today that militants purposefully seek out civilian areas in order to protect themselves and further their cause with images of dead children, something, she said, one could expect from an organisation that equipts children with suicide bombs. On the other hand, Palestinians hold the IDF to be a racist, terrorist organisation which simply wants to destroy Arabs (see this interesting exchange, hat tip Laila, who also claims in another post that the Israelis also use human shields).

Who do I believe and where's the most objective source of information? How do evaluate this shocking information, for example, (again from Laila)? For a blog posts that claims that the war is against the Palestinian people and not just Hamas, go here. For a post with information on the iniquity of Hamas that's new to me, go here.

Update: This interview with a Scandanavian doctor working in Gaza is worth listening to. I don't know too much about the facts, but I struggle to understand how this war is justifiable ... [HT.
The Heathlander]:



Update 2: In a comment on John Hobbin's post, a certain Adam has the following to say on the claim that Israel is using White Phosphorus as an incendiary weapon into Gaza:

The Israeli army is not firing White Phosphorus as an incendiary weapon into Gaza. Here is a post describing their use as a smoke producing agent essentially to provide cover, enhance the element of surprise etc.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/280740.php
Update 3: I showed a video unfavorable to Israel above. Hadassah adds one that is favourable. Israeli doctors work to save a Palestian girl evacuated from Gaza:

Monday, 5 January 2009

Questions for Barth on the unity of Scripture

I'm currenty re-reading my notes on Hermann Diem's excellent Dogmatics, which is less a treatment of the doctrines of the church as an analysis of the nature of dogmatic theology itself. I'm particularly interested in his treatment of Barth's approach to scripture, as I'm convinced this played a foundational role in the development of Childs' so-called Canonical Approach (he references the book in a footnote at a critical juncture in his article "Interpretation in Faith" [1964], available on ATLA).

Diem rhetorically poses Barth the following five questions (pp. 98-100) on the nature of the unity of Scripture, along with how he surmises Barth would have answered:

Q 1) But in what does this unity consist?

Barth would have to reply that it consists in the fact that all these texts bear witness to the one Christ, though he would certainly not disagree that they do so in different ways.

Q 2) Does this unity consist only in the words and acts of Jesus Himself, or also in the witness of the NT authors?

In light of Barth's assumptions, the answer would be that the illuminating unity of the witness to Christ must be presupposed despite the obvious diversity of the witnesses, but that it cannot be demonstrated by the method of historical comparison, since, on the contrary, this alleged unity alone makes possible and checks the comparison.

Q3) But when the historical comparison leads to such different conclusions, how can this dogmatically assumed unity act concretely as a norm?

Barth can't extricate himself from this by saying it's just a matter of the “how” and not the “what”. Barth equates the question of historical truth with that of the true meaning and continuity of the Biblical texts, in connexion with which he is thinking primarily of each individual author. Thus even as regards the comparison of the texts it must be true that historical truth is also theological truth, and conversely. He would say, and in fact would have to say, that historical study, if well done, cannot challenge this supposed unity.

Q 4) But then, what about the studies that contradict this?

We do not know what Barth would say to this, and so will endeavour to think out the question further for ourselves.

It cannot be Barth's opinion that such normative authority would simply flow from a concordance of Biblical texts, since this could only mean a levelling out of their concrete individuality, on the elucidation of which through Biblical theology Barth places such emphasis. But if Barth avoids this method, must he not have some other norm by which he appraises the values of individual Scriptural texts? But this attempt to find a canon within the canon he also rejects, even if it were derived from the canon itself—as for example, the doctrine of justification—because this would mean fettering the facultas semetipsi interpretandi of Scripture. Nor could he consider as such a possible norm the preaching of the historical Jesus, since this is accessible to us only in Scripture, which we must not seek to get behind.

Q 5) But in this circular argument—which states that dogmatics must test present day preaching as regards its accordance (a) with the word of Scripture, and (b) with revelation, which is apprehensible only in Scripture—how can we find a norm for dogmatics?

Barth repudiates critically ordering and interpreting in detail the Biblical texts from a systematic viewpoint derived from the Bible itself.

In his Church Dogmatics, Barth discusses these issues. Here he attempts to distinguish his definition of the Word of God as the formal principle of dogmatics from a material Biblicism, and says: "Dogmatic affirmations must have a Biblical attitude." By this he means "the mode of thinking characteristic of Prophets and Apostles. It is the attitude not of observers, reporters or philosophers, but of witnesses, of men who, whatever they say, originate from the reality of the Word of the Lord, as of something absolutely given, and speak with the impetuous power of a torrent rushing down the mountainside” (Die christliche Dogmatik, 1927: vol I.I, 435). Here we are faced by "a form of thought, to think in which the dogmatist must learn to practice, as anything else is learnt. But, what is more, a form of thought which does not appear in other connexions, and in which we cannot learn to think except in the school of witnessing Apostles and Prophets" (ibid. 437). The Biblical attitude is something "to which we can grow accustomed only by the exegesis of Scripture itself, just as a new-born child accustoms itself to breathe and drink" (438). But this Biblical attitude as the determining factor in dogmatics cannot spell a material Biblicism:

"At its climax, where exegesis must pass into original thought, a dogmatics which limits itself to being merely a Biblical exegesis, inevitably becomes the pious word of the man of today, to qualify which is, however, its very business. All too often, material Biblicism has in fact made an arbitrary 'Sic volo, sic jubeo,' the first and last word of the dogmatist who adheres strictly to the Biblical text, and has caused historical, psychological and speculative thought to reign unhindered as though dogmatics were non-Biblical; and dogmatics, qua critical discipline, has thus neglected its very task. It should not be forgotten that whereas material Biblicism is quite a modern phenomenon, only too closely related to the psychology of religion, the Biblicism of Reformed dogmatics, for example Calvin's, is clearly distinguished from mere exegesis, and in distinction from preaching and exegesis invites us to a Scriptural attitude of thought which is formal Biblicism" (439).
I have to confess, these are tough ideas for me to get my head around. Oh, and if any Latin expert could translate facultas semetipsi interpretandi and sic volo, sic jubeo I'd be grateful!

Sunday, 4 January 2009

Barr on Biblical criticism as a "worldview"

Kritik ist kein neutraler Begriff, auch keine Methode, auch kein Forschungsbereich wie die Einleitungswissenschaft. Die Idee Kritik verweist auf die Freiheit. Sie ist keine Methode, sondern die Freiheit, die Ergebnisse der Methode anzunehmen. Man kann sogenannte “moderne Methoden” anwenden, ohne im geringsten vom Geiste der Kritik berührt zu werden. Kritik bedeutet die Bereitschaft, nicht nur Methoden anzuwenden, sondern ihnen zu folgen, wohin immer sie führen mögen. Auf die Bibel angewandt, bedeutet das besonders: die Freiheit, zu exegetischen Ergebnissen zu kommen, die von der früheren theologischen Exegese abweichen. In diesem Sinne ist die Kritik ein Kind der Aufklärung; aber zugleich auch ein Kind der Reformation, denn die Theologie der Reformation war in diesem Sinne ausgesprochen “kritisch.” Die theologische Tradition war nicht mehr imstande, die Möglichkeiten der Interpretation vollkommen zu bestimmen.[*]
Interesting: "Criticism is no neutral category." I'd like to see how Barr's understanding fits within his wider worldview. Compare this to the contrasting statements of Seitz and Childs.

[*] Barr, "Bibelkritik," 31.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright on "the black religious experience"

For a powerful introduction to Black Liberation Theology, or the "black religious experience," check out this video of a slickly presented speech by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Barak Obama.

Saturday, 3 January 2009

A Barr quote which is right but misunderstands Childs

Once again, Barr says something correct and then oddly supposes that this is not Childs' position:

The Bible ought to

say something about God, about his works, about Christ and salvation. But in order to do this it must take up just that which Childs forbids, a ‘vantage point outside the text’; for only so is it in a position to make estimative judgements, to make decisions about truth. (Holy Scripture, 137)
I'm really driven to wonder to what extent Barr actually made an effort to understand Childs, rather than just attempt to write him off.