Closed for the Final Examinations

Dear friends,

As I am too busy studying for the exams at the moment, my blog will be officially closed until further notice. I do not want to post merely for the sake of posting. When I have finished my exams, I will return to writing for this blog.

In the meantime, you might want to visit some of these blogs which are on my blogroll:

1) For good articles on eschatology, visit Kim Riddlebarger's blog.
2) For blogs, articles and studies in the area of homosexuality, check out the "Christian" Gay Movement Watch and Robert Gagnon's homepage.
3) For some excellent devotional pieces and great spiritual insights, read the blogs of Pastor Mike Messerli.
4) My friend Isaiah has a new blog here, and Daniel - as usual - has something to say regarding the Purpose Driven Church movement.
5) Last but not least, Pastor Lau has some important articles on Marriage and Divorce.

God bless,
Vincent

Some Tantalizing Tidbits

As I am busy cramming for the examinations, do allow me to post a couple of links to some interesting news and blogs.

The first highlight of the day is none other than the (ir)religious fundamentalist, Richard. Some fundamentalists kill themselves with bombs, fire, and shrapnel. Others, like Richard, sink themselves with poorly thought out arguments and logical fallacies like those in his infamous, The God Delusion. Now who is the one who is truly deluded?

And due to the follies of Richard, the Intelligent Design lobby will have much to thank him for. And of course, the main problem with The God Delusion is this: If Darwinism logically leads to Atheism, then it is likely a pseudo-scientific, religious philosophy and should not be taught in schools due to the constitutional separation of Church and State.

Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher and agnostic based in the US, criticized,

"Suppose it is true - that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? Perhaps, given the U.S. Constitution, the creationists are right and Darwinism should be excluded." (Michael Ruse, "The God Delusion," ISIS 98 (2007): 814-816)

Ruse concluded, "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

But the question for us today is this, “Is Richard Dawkins a Fundamentalist?” I’ll let the reader draw his own conclusions after reading this.

Rev David A. Robertson from Dundee (Scotland) commented,

“It is clear that Dawkins is using his post as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science not to promote science, but rather his own atheistic materialist philosophy. Using the language he does in his letter does not advance his cause, and indeed makes him sound like a self-important and petulant fundamentalist whose only resort to those who disagree with him is mockery and accusation.”

Truly, it seems that Richard is indeed a religious fanatic and fundamentalist.

There is also an interesting series of blogs on the recent dialogue between Daniel Wallace (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Erhman (Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) concerning the "Textual Reliability of the New Testament.”

Apparently, Bart Erhman sold many copies of his “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.” This book attempts to popularize his thesis that orthodox Christians, instead of heterodox-heretics like Marcion, were the ones who corrupted the Scripture with allegedly “orthodox” emendations. While it would definitely be engaging to listen to the dialogue between these two scholars - one an Evangelical and the other an apostate - I would also recommend the following very accessible book that refutes Erhman’s arguments in Misquoting Jesus - Timothy Paul Jones’ Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. This is certainly one book for the layman.

Lastly, here’s a movie you ought to catch - “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein. It's definitely better than watching those Hollywood nonsense.

The international distribution of the show has yet to be announced, and I personally do not know if it would be shown in Singapore.

Kevin gives us a brief description of the movie, “In the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein narrates an expose of the narrow mindedness of the scientific elite. It reveals how even some who have barely considered the scientific arguments of Intelligent Design have lost jobs and been effectively excluded from the scientific community. Those who dare to question the sacred fact of Darwinism with profane questions rising out of their work in genetics or math are said to be unscientific.”

It is also interesting to read bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's scathing critique of Dawkins' part in Stein's movie:

"Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?

It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?"

Machen on Doctrine

Note: My friend Daniel posted some quotations from Machen’s book, Christianity and Liberalism. It is Machen’s words in the second chapter of this remarkable book that inspired this post. The entire book is available online.

In his famous treatise against the false religion of the Liberals, Christianity and Liberalism, Gresham Machen made extensive comments concerning the importance of doctrine in the second chapter. His thoughts concerning the significance of doctrine were weaved into this remarkably clear, concise, scholarly, and yet spiritually rich polemic against one of the greatest heresy of his time.

Some of us had, probably in one way or another, met some zealous young Christians who would be keen to discuss or even have a debate on some nifty, theological points. A few of us from a fundamentalist background might also be familiar with the constant reiterations concerning the importance of doctrine for the Christian life. As familiarity sometimes really does breed contempt, the Christian pilgrim would sometimes be tempted to harbor a certain disdain or even disgust for any such reminders with regard to doctrine. In fact, for some of us, the insistence upon the importance of doctrine is likened to a kind of narrow-minded “Pharisaism.” Worse, some would even associate such an insistence with spiritual immaturity and “carnal” dogmatism.

But why would any Christian create such a false dichotomy between doctrinal precision and spiritual maturity? Regrettably, many church leaders I met have often associated Christian “maturity” with doctrinal broadmindedness and vagueness. Any attempt to spell out the doctrines as taught in the Word of God would be seen as subversive behavior, disrespect for the leadership, or schism. There are, of course, people who are guilty of all or some of the above i.e. subversion, disrespect for church leadership, and/or schism. But to stifle any discussion of doctrine within the church by using the guilt by association fallacy is unbiblical at best. Sadly, isn’t it relatively common to hear the parroting of this comment, “Doctrine is unimportant. Christianity is all about Christian living and service. Let’s not talk about doctrine. Let’s live out our Christianity with Christian service?”

In the second chapter of Christianity and Liberalism, which is entitled “Doctrine,” Machen pointedly states,

“At the outset, we are met with an objection [from the Liberals]. “Teachings,” it is said, “are unimportant ...” But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian.” (Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (NY: Macmillan, 1923), 18-19)

It becomes apparent that the mantra, “doctrine is unimportant,” is not uncommon after all. The liberals used to say it. The postmodernists are currently saying it. But worst of all, evangelical Christians are also mimicking the mantra of the liberals. Is doctrine really unimportant? Ironically, those who pontificate about the unimportance of doctrine are usually the ones who are regarded as being spiritual and godly within the church. The defenders of the faith are perceived as the enemies of the Church, while those who demonstrate a blithe disregard for Christ’s teachings are now welcomed just as Liberals were welcomed into evangelical seminaries all over the world earlier in the last century.

But Machen argues,

“Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. ... But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.” (Christianity and Liberalism, 20-21)

How can it ever be that the Christian life and service should be divorced from solid foundations in biblical doctrines? If the Christian walk and mien is all about appearing nice, compassionate and cheerful, or simply about being broadminded and accommodating, then why shouldn’t we be all initiated into the teachings of Buddhism or Hinduism (or a myriad of other -isms)? Most religions teach their members to be “good,” or to be nice, compassionate, cheerful, broadminded and accommodating. Most religion likewise indoctrinate their believers to follow the moral law, to donate to the poor, to help the helpless, and to be a “cheerful giver.”

So what is the fundamental difference between the religion of Christ, and the religions of the world? We have seen that the outward expression or practice of our religion may in many ways be similar; in reality, there are times when such expressions of piety and charity would be similar to those of another religion. It is therefore the content (propositional truths), or rather, the doctrine of Christ which sets Christianity apart from the other religions of the world. Some might say, “We do not know what doctrine you are talking about, but we know Christ.” My question to them is this, “Which Christ are you talking about?” For in order for us to know the Christ of the Bible, we have to know the teachings concerning Christ which is laid out in the Word of God. Similarly, if we are to practice the Christian religion as taught by Christ and the Apostles, we have to know the doctrines concerning the Christian religion as it is written in the Word of God.

The Word of God exhorts the church elders to hold “fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).” How can the elder “hold fast” the teachings he had been taught, if he was never taught in the first place? How would he convince the “gainsayers,” if he would adopt the attitude of theological “broadmindedness” and postmodern relativity? Such “sayings” by the gainsayer would only be another “breath of fresh air” amidst the theological hodgepodge found within the postmodernist’s viewpoint. But what about tolerance with regard to certain doctrinal differences?

Concerning Paul’s attitude towards doctrine and his tolerance of dissenters, Machen writes,

“Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.” (Christianity and Liberalism, 21-23)

Machen continues to elucidate,

“But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers ? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. ... The difference concerned only the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern "practical" Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace.” (Christianity and Liberalism, 23-24)

Let it therefore be known that differences often referred to as “theological subtleties” may seem innocuous enough to the “theological agnostics,” but one such difference might have destroyed Christianity at its inception - the teachings of the Judaizers. The practicers of the religions of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism may have similar expressions of charity and piety, but it must be remembered that the propositional truths as expounded by these three religions are fundamentally different and contradictory in many areas. It is these differences in doctrine, or rather, the specific teachings of Christ and His Apostles found in the Bible which set Christianity apart from the other religions of the world.

And to him who insists that “doctrine is unimportant,” let him explain why we shouldn’t be followers of the doctrine of Buddha or Brahma if indeed “doctrine is unimportant.”

An Informal Reply to Agagooga Concerning Some Allegations

As fellow blogger Gabriel Seah, or better known as Agagooga, has taken the pains to comment extensively on my previous post, I would like to return him the favor with this very informal reply. Please refer to his comments in the last post (in this post, his comments are in italics).

On a more cordial note, I would like to state that I appreciate Gabriel's input, and I wish him all the best in his studies and vocation.

A. Dan Brown is Sneaky

“Dan Brown's language is very sneaky. As I said, he did not say the EVENTS were true, he said the ORGANIZATIONS etc existed. Please note the distinction.”

This is not true. Dan Brown said, “All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist.” “All of it” would include all the allegedly “factual” information in the novel (except the plot/story line). The historical documents, if factual (as he claimed), would have substantial theological implications as well.

“You say that major religions should have special exemptions. How is this different from the double standards you accuse the government of having?”

Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I wrote, “The Bible, as well as the Quran and Sanskrit, are the religious texts of various major religions. As a multireligious society, the government cannot ban such religious texts.” The outlawing of religious texts central to worship would be considered religious persecution within a “multi-religious” society. The allowance of freedom of worship would include the legal possession and usage of such religious texts i.e. Quran.

How does allowing “the possession and usage of religious texts” by the various religions in Singapore constitute “double standards?”

B. Jesus and His Alleged Attacks Against Judaism

“Judaism is against humans being divine”

I suppose you mean, “Judaism is against humans claiming to be divine.” Christianity is also against humans claiming to be divine (it’s blasphemy!). Jesus, however, is not merely human. He is God Himself in the flesh. So, is Judaism against God claiming to be divine?

“Judaism preaches the indivisibility of YHWH.”

Indivisibility of what of YHWH? We Christians believe that the Trinity is indivisible as well. (See Thomas Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1996), 185.)

“Jesus falsely claimed to be a messiah.”

This is another one of your bare assertions. You need to show that he “falsely claimed” to be the Messiah. “Falsely” according to what documents and textual evidence?

“He contradicted the Torah and claimed that its commandments were null and void. One example of a Jewish religious law he transgressed (and urged transgression of) was that of diet - he said you could eat anything, which is blasphemy in Judaism. Another example is his plucking grain, which transgressed the Sabbath. In fact if you're really strict, the punishment for breaking the Sabbath is stoning.”

This is an interesting assertion from you.

Firstly, He did not claim that “its commandments were null and void.” If you insist, you should at least provide us with the relevant exposition and textual evidence. And what historical documents will you use to support your proposition?

If you are arguing from the New Testament, we must make a distinction between narratives of events, and their respective interpretations. Your question impinges upon the issue of hermeneutics. Should we interpret the events the way you did? What is your exegesis of the related texts?

You claim that Jesus “said [they] could eat anything.” You must mean that Jesus encouraged the Jews and His disciples to eat pork and other non-kosher food as well (i.e. everything). Where in the biblical documents (or whatever textual evidence you have) do we find this?

Secondly, we have the question of the Sabbath. Jesus claimed (and Christians agree) that He did not transgress the Sabbath according to the biblical texts. How do you exegete this particular passage to make it say what you want it to say i.e. that He did transgress the Sabbath?

Furthermore, you haven’t answered my question of textual evidence. This is important because: if you want to argue via reductio that based upon the Christian Bible, Jesus did indeed transgressed the Sabbath, the onus is on you to furnish us with that exegetical evidence from the OT and NT.

“I am not assuming the truth of the bible in any way. I am showing that, even on Christianity's terms, what Jesus did was a violation of Jewish law.”

Again, you’re begging the question. How would you interpret the Law in the OT? Why, according to your exegeses, do you think that Jesus transgressed the Law?

According to the biblical documents, Jesus did not violate any “law.” This is the understanding “on Christianity’s terms.” Besides, the law needs to be interpreted before it can be applied.

Finally, concerning your allegation that Jesus “attacked” Judaism, what in your opinion constitutes an “attack?”

Jesus may have taught doctrines that were not palatable to the Judaists, but does that constitute an “attack” on the Judaists? As an analogy, let us consider the Buddhists in Singapore. They are teaching certain doctrines in their sermons that we may find objectionable/heretical as Christians. Some of the Buddhists may even teach/discuss these doctrines in public places. Will you say that the Buddhists have attacked Christians in this regard? Again, if Buddhists do not follow certain Christian practices (and teach their disciples the same), will you claim that the Buddhists have attacked Christianity?

Following your line of reasoning, if the preaching or teaching of doctrines contrary to another religion is considered an "attack," have you considered the option that it was actually the Judaists who "attacked" Christians? The Judaists were preaching and teaching doctrines contrary to Christianity, even heretical doctrines. The Judaists were the ones who oppressed the minority Christians (see the Book of Acts on how Christians were sorely persecuted by the Jewish leaders). And the One who got "attacked" on the Cross was Jesus Christ, not the leaders of Judaism. So should we say that the Judaists persecuted and "attacked" Christ unto death, and not vice versa?

C. Christians shouldn't be offended by the double standards; besides, they persecute others when they get offended

“The degree of offensiveness... is evaluated by the leaders of a particular religion. This is amusing, given that Jewish religious leaders got Jesus crucified.”

I wrote, “The degree of offensiveness of a particular religious publication is not based upon headcount, but is evaluated by the leaders of a particular religion i.e. theologians and pastors who know what is at stake, and what exactly is being said in such literature.”

This statement is made within the context of a tolerant, multi-religious and multi-racial society.

It is amusing for you because you have amusingly made an anachronistic comment outside the Singaporean context (fallacy of abstraction and context-dropping).

“I am also reminded of the Last Temptation of Christ. It was considered offensive by some Christians, but now people realise it made a very pertinent, important and moving theological point.”

What pertinent, important and moving theological point are you referring to, pray tell? Pertinent to who/what, important to who/what, and moving according to who/what? How is that relevant to our discussion here?

The issue at hand concerns apparent double standards by the censorship board with regard to the “Da Vinci Code.”

(Note: In October 2006, our Minister George Yeo said that, “When I was MITA minister, we banned Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses while allowing 'the Last Temptation of Christ' because the Muslim reaction was entirely predictable."

On an earlier occasion (2/06), he said, “In ASEAN, we must not allow similar misunderstandings between Muslims and non-Muslims to surface. When Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses" was published some years ago, Singapore banned it because we knew it would cause trouble. In contrast, we did not ban "The Last Temptation of Christ" because the Christian ground and the Muslim ground are different.”

So it seems that the “Last Temptation of Christ” is not currently banned in Singapore, and this buttress our suspicion of existing double standards.)

“Some Christians wanting to persecute those who allegedly attack their religion: - Corpus Christi got bomb/death threats - The Last Temptation of Christ movie got molotov cocktail-ed in France - http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=10293&page=4#36”

In your previous comment, you wrote, “Christians want to persecute those who (allegedly) attack their religion.” You have failed to show how you know that Christians-simpliciter “want to persecute” such people because they attacked “their religion.” Unless you can argue for causation, your statement qualifies for the honorifics cum hoc, ergo propter hoc and bare assertion.

It is quite feeble that you have to resort to quoting the ST Forum as a source of authority. At best, your aforementioned examples only qualify your allegation as a hasty generalization.

I notice that you have added a modifier – “some” Christians. That makes better sense, but falls for the fallacy of guilt by association. Allow me to explain.

Your allegation = Some Christians want to persecute those who allegedly attack their religion.

But this allegation is true for almost every sect, cult, political association, pugilistic organization and religion, including atheistic and non-religious associations.

So,

P = Some X want to persecute those who allegedly attack their Y.

Where X is a subset of a particular class of people, and Y is the associated ideology/affiliation of this class. There will always be “some” X who would do objectionable deeds apart from the teachings of Y. In this case, the Bible (i.e. Sermon on the Mount) does not teach Christians to “persecute” their enemies.

But what has P to do with the issue at hand? Beside making the whole class of “Christians” or X look bad by associating them with the actions of certain groups of extremists (more accurately, self-professing Christians who do not follow biblical injunctions), how does P support your argument concerning the presence/absence of double standards in Singapore?

That is the point of the entire post.

Couple charged under Sedition Act for evangelism in Singapore

From the Straits Times, dated April 16, 2008

Couple charged under Sedition Act

A COUPLE were yesterday charged with distributing an evangelistic publication that cast Prophet Muhammad in a negative light.

Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, face two charges each - one under the Sedition Act and the other, under the Undesirable Publications Act.

They are alleged to have distributed the evangelistic publication to a Woodlands resident on March 6 last year, and to a Sembawang resident seven months later, on Oct 19.

Ong, who works in a telecommunications company, and his wife, a bank employee, were represented by Mr Selva K. Naidu.

In court yesterday, the police prosecutor sought an adjournment of the case, pending a Health Sciences Authority report on handwriting specimens.

It was not explained in court why this came about.

The couple were freed on a $10,000 bail each, and their passports were impounded.

The case will come up on April 29.

In 2005, a 27-year-old man became the first since 1966 to be jailed under the Sedition Act for posting inflammatory and vicious remarks about Muslims and Malays on the Internet. He was jailed a month. In a connected case, a 25-year-old was given a day's jail and fined $5,000.

Later that year, a 17-year-old blogger was given probation.

The following year, a 21-year-old accounts assistant was given a stern warning for putting up an offensive cartoon of Jesus Christ on his blog.

Under the Act, the maximum penalty is a $5,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to three years.

The maximum penalty under the Undesirable Publications Act is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or a jail term of up to 12 months.

By Elena Chong

A brief note

Within a multireligious and multiracial society, I believe most Singaporeans would agree that the deliberate provocation of religious sentiments via incendiary speeches or related acts should be monitored closely and even condemned by the law. However, the case as presented above is perplexing and very disturbing indeed. It seems that the distribution of “evangelistic publication that cast Prophet Muhammad in a negative light” is a seditious act in Singapore. But what about the distribution of books and movies that cast Jesus - the Lord, Savior, and God of Christians - in a “negative light?”

Apparently, it is not only considered non-seditious to distribute, sell, and promote books in Singapore that cast Jesus “in a negative light,” but also regarded as good entertainment to show movies that promote blasphemous massages concerning the deity of Christ.

Beside the Sedition Act, the Undesirable Publications Act (CAP. 338) “prohibits the importation, distribution and reproduction of undesirable publications.” The only conclusion I can draw at this moment is this: literature that casts “Prophet Muhammad in a negative light” is undesirable and illegal in Singapore, but materials and movies that blaspheme Jesus Christ is not only legal and acceptable, but also considered acceptable public entertainment.

Why are there double standards?

PS: Isaiah, a fellow Christian blogger, has more to say concerning the "seditious" tract. My friend, Daniel, has some comments concerning religious persecution.

A Logical Examination of the Unknowability of God Hypothesis

I have thought of including a logical argument in my previous post to prove the logical failure of the unknowability hypothesis of Neo-Orthodoxy. (1) Nevertheless, due to my tight schedule, I am only able to include the arguments here.

In the current post, I will show that the "unknowability hypothesis" - which is the basic epistemological assumption of Barth - is logically vacuous, and defies the Law of Non-contradiction. We are reminded that any proposition that contravenes the Aristotelian Law cannot be true.

Suppose, for a reductio, we accept the proposition that p = "God is unknowable" is true. In fact, let us agree with the Barthians concerning the unknowability of God that p = "God is X" is true, where X is an attribute of the noumenal God which is unknowable, and therefore, not known and can never be known. We agree, for argument sake, that we are ignorant of some truth concerning God (i.e. that p) which can never be known via Scripture (or by any other means for that matter). And so we suppose that p is true but not known to be true; then (p ∧ ¬Kp) is true.

Therefore, in accordance with the "unknowability of God" hypothesis, Barthians claim that (p ∧ ¬Kp) is true. (2) Furthermore, they know that (p ∧ ¬Kp) is true, that is, ◊K(p ∧ ¬Kp). (3) Now, this is extremely difficult for any logical mind to receive. How can we know that p ∧ ¬Kp? If knowing a conjunction entails knowing the conjuncts, then K(p ∧ ¬Kp) entails Kp and K¬Kp. Now knowledge entails truth (or more accurately, justified true belief), so K¬Kp entails ¬Kp, which is a contradiction for Kp. So, by reductio ad absurdum, it is not possible that K(p ∧ ¬Kp). We have hereby refuted the "unknowability of God" hypothesis of Neo-Orthodoxy.

To further elucidate the problem of the unknowability hypothesis, we understand that the basic premise of Neo-Orthodox epistemology is K(p ∧ ¬Kp). If p = "God is X," and X represents any attribute which is unknowable of God, then the Barthian's denial of the knowledge of X would paradoxically mandate the knowledge of X. Let us say that p = "God is unknowable." We have seen that Barthians insist that p ∧ ¬Kp is true. Knowledge of p ∧ ¬Kp would entail Kp and K¬Kp i.e. knowing that "God is unknowable," and at the same time, knowing that "God is unknowable" is unknowable. This is a contradiction of the Law of Non-contradiction. In other words, if the Barthian claims that they do not know that p, they must also admit that they know that p.

The onus is therefore on those who insist that "God is unknowable" to show that their epistemological presuppositions are logically viable and coherent.

Notes

1. The "Unknowability of God" hypothesis is basically the belief that God, who belongs to the noumena, is unknowable to the mind of man. This must be distinguished from the Reformed understanding of "Finitum non Capax Infiniti," or "the finite is unable to contain the infinite." The Latin phrase should be understood within the context of the Incarnation of Christ. As Frame had aptly commented, "In the incarnation, Calvin argued, God was manifested in human flesh. However, because nothing finite can completely contain the infinite (finitum non capax infiniti), Christ is also active outside the flesh of Jesus. No less than Luther, Calvin insisted that God wills to be known only in Christ. But he did not believe this meant that God is revealed only in the incarnation; Christ, the eternal Word, also operates outside the work of Jesus. Lutheran critics of Calvin's Christology called this the extra calvinisticum." (John Frame, "Incarnation," in The Westminster Handbook of Reformed Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 120.)

2. Where p = "God is X," including the proposition "God is unknowable."

3. For those new to modal logic, the basic unary modal operators are usually written □(or L) for Necessarily and ◊(or M) for Possibly. In modal logic, each can be expressed by the other and negation, that is:

Update:

Re: A clarification for those who are perplexed

I apologize for the use of symbolic logic which may be confusing for some, but it allows some of us to see the picture in a neat, mathematical way.

My point in this post, and the previous one as well, is this: we cannot teach that God is unknowable. Firstly, we cannot know that God is unknowable since this entails a logical contradiction. Secondly, if we do not know that God is unknowable i.e. p ∧ ¬Kp, we should abstain from teaching such a doctrine in theology classes. If you do not know that Tom is unsaved, would you teach others that Tom is unsaved with any certainty?

If God is unknowable (and Barth insists that He cannot be known even through Special Revelation), he has attributes that cannot be known i.e. p = God is X, where X is any unknowable attribute of God. Therefore, with or without the agreement of Barth, if he teaches that "God is unknowable," that proposition can be expressed as p ∧ ¬Kp. Since Barth teaches this in his Church Dogmatics, he must be fairly dogmatic (pun intended) concerning this.

But as we have seen above (in the two posts), to say that God is unknowable (and to say that you know that God is unknowable) is to say ◊K(p ∧ ¬Kp), and this entails Kp and K¬Kp. If you were to look at this expression carefully, you would notice that, to claim knowledge in the proposition that you cannot know p i.e. (K¬Kp), you must also claim Kp. To put this simply, to say that you know that you cannot know that p = God is X, you must paradoxically know that p. But this makes sense. To say, for example, that you know that you cannot know that God is X, you must know what God is X is in order to know that you cannot know that God is X! Contained within the proposition that "you know that you cannot know that God is X" is "God is X," and that logically entails knowledge of "God is X." Because without knowledge of "God is X," we cannot even claim knowledge that "we cannot know that God is X."

But the problem here is: p ∧ ¬Kp is possibly true. Then we can simply say that it is possible that God has certain attributes that we can never know, but we cannot know this for sure (i.e. it is not possible that we know this). In other words, we cannot say that God is unknowable. For surely God is knowable through Scripture, for scriptural revelation is propositional and clear. There may be attributes of God that we do not know and will never know this side of eternity, but we do not know this, and we cannot teach this as part of our theology proper.

To the Unknown God

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. (Acts 17:22-23, ESV)

In the Apostle Paul's address to the Areopagites on Mars' Hill, he declared his knowledge of God to them in no uncertain terms. He preached on creation, the sovereignty of God, and the resurrection of the dead. Paul did not entertain their assumption that God is unknown or unknowable. (1) He made known that which is unknown to the Areopagites, namely, the knowledge of the living and true God. But there are some today who would believe that God is unknowable and inconceivable even through Scripture. What therefore they worship as unknown, this I proclaim unto you.

In this post, I shall discuss the erroneous epistemology or the theory of knowledge underlining the theology of men like Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Rudolf Bultmann. Although I do recognize the invaluable contributions by these scholars to contemporary theological thought, I repudiate their epistemological presuppositions as being incompatible with scriptural revelation and human reason. I must, however, be careful to include a caveat: I am by no means a rationalist, a rationalist at least in the following sense - one who believes that God can be salvifically known through human reason and logic alone. But logic and reason are indispensable for man to comprehend God, a God who can be comprehended by the mind of man through Scripture.

Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena

According to Immanuel Kant’s epistemology, God cannot be known or conceived by the minds of mere mortals. Kant believes that the mind processes raw data which belongs to the noumena, and such data once processed by the human mind is perceived or conceived as that which belongs to the phenomena. Therefore, what the mind grasps is not the noumenon, but the phenomenon. We humans can never know anything concerning the noumena, because we cannot know anything apart from our mind, and that which is processed by the mind belongs to the phenomena.

One of Kant's salient points seems to be the commendable restraining of our carnal pride when it comes to knowledge. His epistemology would reasonably lead one to remain humble about what we know, and especially what we can never know i.e. knowledge concerning the noumena. What we can conceive and perceive is within the phenomenal realm. The following statement is perhaps a needful, albeit tautologous, reminder: that it is quite impossible to conceive that which cannot be conceived, or to know that which cannot be known.

Kant's epistemology becomes problematic and even self-contradictory when applied to matters of theology (see below). Theologians who adopt a Kantian understanding of the theory of knowledge seem to talk as if we can have beliefs about the noumena, such as beliefs pertaining to the noumenal God and the human soul. If knowledge is justified true belief, and if the mind cannot conceive things belonging to the noumena, we humans cannot have any true beliefs concerning the noumena which is processed by the mind. That which is conceived or conceivable by the mind belongs to the phenomena, and by default excludes the noumena.

Herein lies the crux of the matter: are our epistemic presuppositions leading us to the worship of an "Unknown God?" If God is ontologically unknowable, then He must remain unknown to mere man, and such a God is in essence an "Unknown God" who must remain unknowable.

Kantianism in Barth's Writings

Karl Barth was one such theologian who was influenced by a Kantian epistemology. Although some might argue that this is an unfair caricaturing of Barth’s theology, Barth was adamant that God is, and that He must remain, hidden, unknowable and indescribable to us. God ultimately belongs to the noumenal realm, and whatever knowledge we claim that we have is really of an incomprehensible reality. Such beliefs cannot be knowledge. For Barth, God is a personal God, “but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality.” (2)

As man cannot know the noumenal God, God must give faith to the believer in order to believe in Him. As Barth had lamented, “There is no way from us to God - not even via negativa not even a via dialectica nor paradoxa. The god who stood at the end of some human way - even of this way - would not be God.” (3) Such a believer then makes a “leap of faith” in order to believe that which is noumenal. But even so, no knowledge is possessed by the mind concerning God. When God reveals Himself to the believer or to whom He gives faith - the “man of faith” - the man “will confess God as the God of majesty and therefore as the God unknown to us.” (4) Whatever little we claim we know of God, more of God we do not and cannot know. He remains hidden; as our mind can only know that which is phenomenal, Man can never know the noumenal God. (5)

Concerning the inconceivability of the “Unknown God,” Barth writes:

1) Even though God reveals Himself to Man, God remains unknown to Man.

“We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge. The Epistle to the Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God chooses to come to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for he is ever the unknown God. In manifesting himself to man he is farther away than before.” (6)

2) The more we think we know God, the more he is unknown to us. God is inconceivable and unknowable.

"The revelation in Jesus, just because it is the revelation of the righteousness of God is at the same time the strongest conceivable veiling and unknowableness of God. In Jesus, God really becomes a mystery, makes himself known as the unknown, speaks as the eternally Silent One." (7)

"When attempts were later made to speak systematically about God and to describe His nature, men became more talkative. They spoke of God's aseity, His being grounded in Himself; they spoke of God's infinity in space and time, and therefore of God's eternity. And men spoke on the other hand of God's holiness and righteousness, mercifulness and patience. We must be clear that whatever we say of God in such human concepts can never be more than an indication of Him; no such concept can really conceive the nature of God. God is inconceivable." (8)

Therefore, even as God reveals Himself to the man of faith, his revelation remains hidden and God remains unknowable. This conclusion is partly due to his dialectical thinking in theology, also known as the "theology of paradox." His method is more accurately that of Kierkegaardian dialectics than Hegelian synthesis, although some of his approaches seem Hegelian in his presentation of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. (9)

Milbank has rightly observed that, “In the case of Karl Barth, a broad acceptance of a post-Kantian understanding of philosophy is turned to neo-orthodox advantage, in that he can insist that natural reason discloses nothing of God and yet that this opens the way to a renewed and, indeed, now more radical recognition that only God discloses God in the contingency of events as acknowledged not by reason but by faith.” (10)

According to Barth, God will always be “known as the unknown.” The mind of man can never know that which is noumenal, and God will remain unknown to Man. Man cannot have knowledge concerning the noumenal God. This God is therefore an “Unknown God.”

The truth is, although the finite mind cannot have a comprehensive knowledge of Him, we can nevertheless have a limited knowledge of God through His perspicuous and propositional revelation in the scriptures. As R. C Sproul has written, “Because God is infinite in his being and eternal, and we are finite and bound by both space and time, our knowledge of him is never comprehensive. We enjoy an apprehensive knowledge of God, but not a comprehensive knowledge.” (11)

Conclusion: A Self-Contradictory Epistemology

It seems clear to us that the statement, "God is unknowable," is inherently contradictory. (12) If God is indeed unknowable to man, how can Barth know that God exists? For a God who is unknowable cannot be known to exist, for his existence cannot be known. It is perhaps apparent that Barth knows for sure that God is a personal being, unknowable and transcendental in nature. For certain, Barth knows that God is unknowable, and a perusal of his Church Dogmatics reveals how much he does know, or claim to know, concerning the noumenal God who is allegedly unknowable.

Concluding this brief overview of Barthian epistemology, I would like to state that every theologian (e.g. Tillich, Niebuhr, Bultmann) who claims that God is unknowable contradicts himself in logic. God is a personal being who has revealed Himself specially in Scripture. He can be known through the writings of the Apostles and the Prophets who were inspired by the Holy Ghost. (2 Tim. 3:16) Furthermore, if Scripture is as authoritative as Barth often says that it is, shouldn't our epistemological presuppositions be derived from Scripture itself?
Although Man's knowledge of God will never be comprehensive and complete in this life, we can use the mental faculties (e.g. logic) that God has endowed upon us to study the Scripture, to know Him, and to love Him.

Notes:

1. A distinction must be made here concerning the "Unknown God" and the "Unknowable God." A God who is unknown may be knowable, but a God that is unknowable must remain unknown.

2. Karl Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God according to the Teaching of the Reformation, Tr. J. L. M. Haire and Ian Henderson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939), 31.

3. Idem., The Word of God and The Word Of Man, Tr. Douglas Horton (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1928), 177.

4. Idem., The Knowledge of God, 28.

5. See Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Tr. Hoskyns (London: Oxford Press, 1933), 91.

6. Ibid., 48.

7. Ibid., 73.

8. Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, Tr. G. T. Thomson (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949), 46.

9. See Peter S. Oh, "Complementary Dialectics of Kierkegaard and Barth: Barth's Use of Kierkegaardian Diastasis Reassessed," Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 48 (2007): 497-512. In contrast to Hegelian synthesis, the article contends that the dynamics of the dialectics of Kierkegaard and Barth should be understood in the manner of a complementary synthesis of two opposites (abstract).

10. John Milbank, “Knowledge: The Theological Critique of philosophy in Hamann and Jacobi,” in Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, eds. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward (USA, NY: Routledge), 21.

11. See R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: 1997).

12. See Ronald Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992).

PS: To my friends who are Barthians: this is just my point of view which I am free to express, just as you are free to express your own views. Our conscience is not bound by Man, but by the Word of God (which is the Scripture according to my convictions).

Update

I really like this post by Phil Johnson. Furthermore, it was posted only about two days after I've written this one. Isn't the Holy Ghost trying to tell us something?

Concerning Paul's experience on Mars' Hill, Johnson wrote, "It was as if someone [i.e. the apostle Paul] got in the midst of a bunch of academic postmodernists today and declared that the Bible is true. Just imagine an auditorium full of 21st-century university professors wringing their hands about epistemological humility and the dangers of overconfidence and the uncertainty of human knowledge and the subjectivity of all our opinions—and the whole dose of postmodern angst about being sure about anything. And suppose you stood up in front of that group with a Bible and declared, "Here's something you can be rock-solid certain about, because God Himself revealed it as absolute truth."

Is the Trinity a True Contradiction?

I came across this interesting paper from Quodlibet Journal some time ago. I think it would help to clarify some questions raised by my previous post, "Of Paradoxes and Pastoral Theology."

Quoting from this paper "Is the Trinity a True Contradiction?", Randal Rauser, the Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Briercrest Bible College wrote:

"In the mid 1940s a debate arose between Gordon Clark and some of the faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary, in particular Cornelius Van Til. At the center of the debate was Clark's belief that certain propositions of human knowledge are known univocally by God, in particular such truths as 7+5=12 and the law of non-contradiction. As a result, Van Til accused Clark of "rationalism". The counter-charge of irrationalism was not long in coming, and was laid out by Herman Hoeksema, a period commentator on the debate:

if the complainants [Van Til et. al] take the stand that Scripture reveals things that are, not above and far beyond, but contrary to, in conflict with the human mind, it is my conviction that the complainants should be indicted of heterodoxy, and of undermining all sound theology.

Either the logic of revelation is our logic, or there is no revelation.

Hoeksema continues: "And so, it still seems to me that the issue . . . is not the incomprehensibility of God, but the question whether revelation itself is intelligible to us. To deny the latter is to destroy the very foundations of theology."

Hoeksema's immediate concern is to ensure that "the logic of revelation is our logic" so that "revelation itself is intelligible". This raises two questions. First, why think that Van Til's view undermines the logic of revelation being God's logic? And second, granting that it does, why think this will undermine theology? Central to Van Til's position is that all the propositions that we affirm as true do not apply to God; it would appear he is saying that they are not affirmed by God as true. (It may be that neither are they false for God. Perhaps they just fail to have a truth-value when considered by God, though don't ask me how.) In short, no truth is such that God must, "of necessity" affirm it. Hoeksema then focuses on the implications this has for logic. His point seems to be that logic is fundamental to making any affirmations whatsoever. If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."

Rauser concluded:

"It appears then that there are no good reasons to consider the possibility of true contradictions within the being of God and many good reasons not to. Such a view fails to account for divine mystery, and it fails to address the problem of containment. As such, it would appear to place the theologian in danger of trivialism."

Of Paradoxes and Pastoral Theology

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
– Epimenides, Cretica

Ever heard of the falakros paradox or the paradox of the bald man? Here goes, “Is a man with one hair on his head a bald man? Yes, then what about two hairs on his head?”

The paradox can be presented as a formal argument with logical structure. For example, we may peruse the following soritical argument in its common form:

1 strand of hair on the head makes a man bald.
If 1 strand of hair on the head makes a man bald then 2 strands of hair do.
If 2 strands of hair on the head make a man bald then 3 strands of hair do.
…
If 99,999 strands of hair on the head make a man bald then 100,000 strands of hair do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000 strands of hair on the head make a man bald.

Another well-known paradox is the Paradox of the Heap i.e. if one grain does not make a heap, then two grains do not make a heap. If two do not then three do not as well. By using the same premises and a similar formal structure, we can arrive at the conclusion: 100,000 grains do not make a heap.

Such paradoxes are also known as sorites paradox (named after the Greek word for heap - σωρός or soros).But before anyone thinks that such paradoxes are just word games, let it be known that such “games” had led to much debate amongst logicians and to the writing of several prominent works by some of the best philosophers in history (e.g. Quine, Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein etc). The paradox is a serious problem because it introduces a tension between classical logic and mathematical reasoning; it also points to problems in the philosophy of language, that is, the “vagueness” of predicates in natural language.

Now here is the interesting bit. What has the sorites paradox to do with the Bible and theology?

Paradoxes are apparently found in the Bible as well. The Liar’s Paradox thought to have originated from Epimenides of Crete was studied intensely by medieval logicians. This is found in Titus 1:12 of the New Testament:

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." (Titus 1:12, ESV)

Epimenides claimed that, “All Cretans are liars.” Can he be telling the truth? If he is telling the truth, then he must be a liar being a Cretan himself. But if he is lying, then it seems that he is telling the truth. Therefore, if what he says is true, it is a lie; and if it is a lie, then it appears that Epimenides is telling the truth. Nevertheless, do note that the writings of the Apostle Paul in Titus only quotes Epimenides’ Cretica. It does not mean that the Bible is paradoxical or illogical (in the loose sense of the word) since it quotes the Epimenides Paradox.

So what has the presence or absence of paradoxes in the Bible to do with theology? We know of a very fundamental protestant position on Scripture known as the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. This doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the "perspicuity of Scripture") teaches that "the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will." "The witness of the Church throughout the ages is that ordinary people, who approach it in faith and humility, will be able to understand what the Bible is getting at, even if they meet with particular points of difficulty here and there." (Theopedia)

Obviously, if Scripture ought to be clear, logical (i.e. follows the laws of logic which is in the Mind of God), and capable of communicating unequivocal meanings through propositions, how do we as Christians view the presence or absence of paradoxes within Scripture? My position is that, no true paradoxes are ever sanctioned in Scripture. Even in the case of the Epimenides Paradox, the paradox was merely quoted by Paul. God does not communicate to us with paradoxes in the Bible because if He does, Scripture is no longer clear or perspicuous.

In view of the perspicuity of Scripture, I would like to think that even if paradoxes apparently exist in the area of theology, particularly pastoral theology where Scripture must be applied to life and practice, it must be due to a lack of in-depth study or an alleged “vagueness” of certain biblical terms that should be defined further. As a general rule, we shouldn’t introduce paradoxes into Scripture with our hermeneutics. Usually, such paradoxes are brought in to confound the issue, and not to resolve it. I am convicted that scriptural injunctions are never paradoxical, illogical or equivocal in view of the clarity of Scripture and the logic of God’s Mind. Furthermore, if paradoxes are unresolved in the area of biblical studies or doctrine, then it is quite impossible for a Christian to make sense of such biblical teachings.

With regard to our recent discussion of the Christian homemaker, it seems that the adherence to a paradoxical definition of the term “homemaker” is a preferred option for many interpreters of the Bible. Please do allow me to illustrate the problem or paradox here.

The Working Mother Illustration

Working for 1 minute a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress.

If working for 1 minute a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress, then working for 2 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress.

If working for 2 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress, then working for 3 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress. …

If working for 1439 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress, then working for 1440 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Working for 1440 minutes a day as a waitress does not make the homemaker a waitress.

And we have only 1440 minutes or 24 hours a day, everyday of our life - a tautological but needful reminder.

The Fashionable Teenager Illustration

In the area of fashionable designs and clothing,what are the exact “modesty” parameters for the Christian? For example, how short must it be for a skirt to become too short? Or how low must the neckline be before it becomes too low?

Again, we can introduce a sorites paradox to confound the teaching of Scripture; this seems to be the expertise of many teenagers when they protest against their Christian parents.

A skirt that covers 100% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers.

If a skirt that covers 100% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers, then a skirt that covers 99% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers.

If a skirt that covers 99% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers, then a skirt that covers 98% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers.
…

If a skirt that covers 1% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers, then a skirt that covers 0% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A skirt that covers 0% of the legs is modest enough for Christian teenagers.

The “homemaker” or “Christian modesty” is not the issue of discussion here. But I believe the reader can see that it does not make any sense to say that a mother is a homemaker no matter how long she works outside as a waitress. Neither can we say that a “skirt” that does nothing to cover the legs is modest even by pagan standards.

The intention of one who asks - “Where do we draw the line here?” - is perhaps not one which can be easily understood. He could be a sincere seeker trying to understand the clear teachings of Scripture; in this case, he is a neophyte in the things of the Lord, and a disciple of Jesus. Or he might be confused by contemporary notions and culture; in this case, he needs to exegete Scripture with Scripture using the analogy of faith. But there are some who clearly understand what the Scripture says. However, certain doctrines are not so palatable for the carnal mind, and they seek to introduce a paradox into Scripture where there is none.

In accordance with the Reformed Faith, it is my conviction that Scripture is perspicuous. As such, it is quite unimaginable that God would have left us with paradoxes within Scripture or in vital Christian doctrines.

Nay, there shall be no paradoxes and dialectical truths found in the Word of God.

The Pink Swastika - Homosexuality in the Nazi Party

Available online is an excellent book documenting the "gay political agenda" and its relation to Nazi philosophy and fascism. This book is entitled, The Pink Swastika - Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Kevin E. Abrams and Scott Lively. And who is better at introducing this book than its co-author Kevin Abrams?

The following is the Foreword written by Abrams:

The Pink Swastika is not a work of fiction. Ironically, the authors have discovered that truth is often stranger than fiction. The Pink Swastika is a response to the “gay political agenda” and its strategy of portraying homosexuals as victims of societal and Nazi persecution. Although some homosexuals, and many of those who were framed with trumped-up charges of homosexuality suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis, for gay apologists to portray themselves as historical victims of Nazi persecution, on par with the Jewish people, is a gross distortion of history, perhaps equal to denying the Holocaust itself. The Pink Swastika will show that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi deviants and homosexuals than there ever was against homosexuals.

Today in the West, a new and aggressive homosexualism is making its bid for power. The media, psychiatry, science and academia have all been corrupted and pressed into the service of establishing homosexuality as a normal and acceptable variant of human sexuality. Those who are unwilling to bend to the new dispensation are bludgeoned into submission with slanderous accusations of intolerance and “homophobia.” Our efforts will certainly fail to corroborate the politically correct propaganda offered by much of today’s media, academia, psychiatry, various federal agencies, the courts and human rights organizations which are now driven by the new sexual ideology rather than by honest debate and inquiry. Coming in the wake of a successful public campaign conducted over decades, our book will also fly in the face of much of today’s popular opinion. This having been said, we believe that The Pink Swastika will show clearly how the world the Nazis attempted to create is a world, not of the past, but of the possible future. It will show that, given its present course and left unchallenged, America could easily become the Nazi Germany of 50 years ago.

It is often said that the lessons of history leave us with a guide for the future. If this be so, then the lessons of the collapse of the democratic Weimar Republic and the social ideologies that preceded its defeat by the Nazis should provide us with insights into America’s future. As a practicing member of the Jewish faith, I remain wholly unconvinced that by solely remembering the Holocaust we will prevent another. The ominous parallels between the Weimar Republic of pre-Nazi Germany and today’s American republic are simply too pronounced to overlook.

This year, 1995, is the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It is also the 50th anniversary of Samuel Igra’s book, Germany’s National Vice, which we quote extensively. Largely purged from public view, Igra’s book documents the homoerotic foundations of German militarism. Other books, like Dusty Sklar’s 1977 The Nazis and the Occult, document the black occult roots of Nazi ideology. What The Pink Swastika does is to synthesize both the homoerotic and occult foundations of the Nazi regime.

It must be clarified — the Nazis were not Right-Wing Conservative Creationists; they were Left-Wing Darwinian Evolutionary Socialists. As a principle, an increase in pederasty and homosexualism parallels a militaristic Hellenic revival. History discloses that the most warlike nations are those whose male leaders were the most addicted to sexual relations with young boys.

The political agenda which has as its focus a plan to legalize and coerce a bewildered and unsuspecting public into accepting or regarding sodomy as normal or dignified, is based on falsehood, self-deception and skewed scientific research. In light of the medical record, history and the fact that sodomy represents a corruption of the natural and moral orders of creation, any positive affirmation of homosexuality is totally without merit. Human sexuality is never merely a physical concern, nor is it a purely private matter. It always has social implications. What goes on between partners influences society as a whole. In sexual matters, the issue is “what is advocated and what is practiced publicly” far more than what happens privately.

In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, February 26, 1992, Dr. Joseph Berger, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, writes, “in my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone with innate homosexuality. That notion has been a long proclaimed gay-activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal alternative expression of human sexuality. It has zero scientific foundation, though its promoters latch on to even the flimsiest shreds of atrocious research in their attempts to justify the notion.”

As they were during the Weimar period, 1918-1933, psychiatry and academia have been hijacked and pressed into the service of establishing homosexualism as the basis of a new Kultur. Professor Hans Blueher, a practicing physician whose specialty was psychiatry, was accepted by the Nazis as the apostle and higher authority of a new social order. Blueher’s school held that male homosexual lovemaking is in itself a good thing and spiritually energizing. Blueher’s teaching became popular in Nazi circles during the period between the two World Wars and promoted the idea that a well-regulated ritual of homosexualism was a unique force capable of creating the State and assuring its leadership. The resulting creed relegated women to a purely biological function and eliminated the family as a constituent cell in the community.

In 1973, the American Pyschiatric Association was also hijacked by American “gay” activists. Basing its decision largely on the skewed evidence of the 1948 Kinsey report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistics Manual and declared it a normal variant of human sexuality. Homosexuals, sensing that the burden of change had been lifted from them and shifted onto society, were able to present themselves as innocent victims of what they referred to as society’s bigoted and “homophobic” attitude towards them as persons.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, in “Defining Deviancy Up,” an essay published in the November 22, 1993 edition of The New Republic (pages 20ff), in describing the real effect of the APA decision, stated that a majority of society was made deviant while homosexuality was elevated to the status of normal. Krauthammer writes, “as part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.” In fact, the greatest single victory of the “gay” agenda over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they are seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific antisocial behavior.

In an interesting and informative study, a critical analysis titled “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: the Issue of Homosexuality,” by Dr. Charles Socarides (published in the Winter 1992 edition of The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 10, No. 3:317), Socarides quotes the warning of Abram Kardiner, psychoanalyst, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, 1966 recipient of the Humanities Prize of The New York Times:

There is an epidemic form of homosexuality, which is more than the usual incidence, which generally occurs in social crises or in declining cultures when license and boundless permissiveness dulls the pain of ceaseless anxiety, universal hostility and divisiveness...Supporting the claims of homosexuals and regarding homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual activity is to deny the social significance of homosexuality...Above all it militates against the family and destroys the function of the latter as the last place in our society where affectivity can be cultivated...Homosexuality operates against the cohesive elements in society in the name of fictitious freedom. It drives the opposite sex in a similar direction. And no society can long endure when either the child is neglected or when the sexes war upon each other.

Victim-plunder ideology is at the core of “gay” political strategy. Homosexualists exploit the public status of homosexuals to impose their new definition of human sexuality upon society. “Victim ideology” and “reductionist” thinking is destroying America from within. Today’s new victims see no reason to modify their own behavior. Victim psychology and philosophies undermine the legitimate workings of government and the justice, health and social systems. Like their Nazi predecessors, today’s homosexualists lack any scruples. Homosexuality is primarily a predatory addiction striving to take the weak and unsuspecting down with it. The “gay” agenda is a colossal fraud; a gigantic robbery of the mind. Homosexuals of the type described in this book have no true idea of how to act in the best interests of their country and fellow man. Their intention is to serve none but themselves.

The Pink Swastika documents a hidden aspect of German history. The authors contend that homosexualism, elevated to a popular ideology and combined with black occult forces, not only gave birth to Nazi imperialism but also led to the Holocaust itself. The militarists in Germany were happy with Hitler. His teachings on “total war” and of a secret Jewish conspiracy against Germany provided a good screen for their own veiled preparations. From its very inception, it was the goal of the Nazi Party, working as a front for the German military industrial complex, to overthrow the Weimar Republic by whatever means necessary. The Pink Swastika documents how, from their beginning, the National Socialist revolution and the Nazi Party were animated and dominated by militaristic homosexuals, pederasts, pornographers and sado-masochists.

As Igra explains in Germany’s National Vice, “the criminals who wreaked such astounding horrors on innocent civilian populations were not acting as soldiers drunk with the fury of battle, nor as patriotic fanatics, but as chosen instruments of a satanic religion to the service of which they had been dedicated by the systematic teaching and practice of unnatural vice” (Igra:94).

The Pink Swastika documents how the Society for Human Rights, founded by members of the Nazi Party, became the largest homosexual rights organization in Germany and, further, how this movement gave birth to the American homosexual rights movement. Its influence has grown. The President of the United States now receives official homosexual delegations at the White House who expect the President to repay them for helping him into office. They expected him to “normalize” homosexuality in the American military. As for the comparison made between homoeroticism and skin color, General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had this to say in a letter to Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colorado), “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument” (Salem, Ore.) Statesman Journal, June 6, 1992).

American civilization rests on the basic principles of Christian morality, which have their origin in the Hebrew Scriptures. The reason why the Nazis first attacked the Jewish people and swore to exterminate them physically and spiritually is because the teachings of the Bible, both the Torah and the New Testament, represent the foundations on which the whole system of Christian ethics rests. Remove the Bible as the constellation that guides the American Ship of State and the whole edifice of American civilization collapses. For my Jewish brethren searching for a Biblical basis for the legitimization of homosexuality, I refer to the words of Rabbis Marc Angel, Hillel Goldberg and Pinchas Stopler and their joint article in the Winter, 1992-93 edition of Jewish Action Magazine:

There is not a single source in all of the disciplines of Jewish sacred literature — halachah, aggadah, philosophy, muscar, mysticism — that tolerates homosexual acts or a homosexual ‘orientation.’ Jews who sanction homosexuality must do so wholly without reference to Jewish sacred literature, in which case their justification has no Jewish standing; or without reference to Jewish sources, in which case they act with ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. The idea, set forth by some of the non-Orthodox leadership, that the Torah prohibited only coercive and non-loving same-sex relationships, thus allowing for a contemporary, voluntary and loving same-sex relationship, is wholly without basis in a single piece of Jewish sacred literature written in the last 3,000 years.

Dennis Prager, a respected Jewish radio talk show host, commented, “There were two kinds of Jews in Auschwitz -- those who knew why they were there and those who thought it was just bad luck.” Today Jews have assimilated ideas foreign to the Jewish perspective and many liberal, secular American Jews, in adopting a tolerance for everything, stand for nothing. As the living, we owe a moral debt to that generation of Jews who were subjected to such inhumane and sadistic torture and extermination. The underlying causes of Nazi militarism are documented in The Pink Swastika. The Holocaust must be remembered for what it was, a war against the Jewish people and Western civilization.

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA
Kevin E. Abrams, Jerusalem, Israel
June 5, 1995

A Discussion With Mark Concerning the Homemaker Part 2

Dear Mark,

Let us continue the discussion ... 

Some other issues you mentioned

1) Some allegations against the authors of Passionate Housewives.

You wrote in your previous comment on my blog post, “I have not read the specific book Passionate Housewives, although I have read some articles and such by the co-authors and others associated with them ministry wise. From some of what I have read of them though, I believe they miss the bible balance, especially with regards to lower income families like the ones you mentioned (as always, I am open to correction).” 

With regard to those two co-authors “missing the biblical balance,” you further clarified, “I was referring to Mrs Chancey and Mrs McDonald. I tried to word my comment carefully to be clear that I was not claiming to be an expert on their views. The balance I refer to is that the bible allows a far greater amount of freedom for wives to work outside the home than Mrs Chancey and Mrs McDonald would allow at least from what I remember of their writings.” 

My sincere opinion would be: You should have at least read the book through once before coming to the conclusion that, "I believe they miss the bible balance." Is it the case that they have missed the biblical balance upon your study of their book, or is it your desire to believe that they have indeed “missed the balance” which has finally confounded or rather, prevented your reading of Passionate Housewives? 

Let me get this correct: you believe that they have "missed the biblical balance," yet you have not read their book. That is an honest admission on your part.

2) Caring of Widows 

You wrote, “What does the bible say about widows? 1 Timothy 5 tells me they ought to be cared for but not all widows. As verses 9 and 10 tell us, they must be above sixty, and have lived a certain life of good character.” Although this is a digression from the subject at hand, I would like to comment briefly on this passage. Of course, a more detailed study would require much more space than the following paragraphs. I have hinted on this passage in my previous post simply because diaconal responsibilities included the care for widows, and this might relieve the newly widowed women from taking up a full-time job and subsequently delegating the care of her children to someone else. 

I was indeed surprised that you have understood 1 Timothy 5:3-16 in this manner. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s renowned commentary on the Bible has this to say concerning 1 Tim. 5:9, “There is a transition here to a new subject. The reference here cannot be, as in 1Ti 5:3, to providing Church sustenance for them. For the restriction to widows above sixty would then be needless and harsh, since many widows might be in need of help at a much earlier age.” I have also mentioned this issue on my brief post on deaconess and the order of widows. It is sensible to understand 1 Tim 5:9-10 as listing out the qualifications of the widow-servant, “an order of ecclesiastical widowhood” as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown put it. 

Furthermore, if we are to accept your interpretation – that the Church is only to care for those widows over 60 years of age – how then would you interpret 1 Tim 5:11? “Also, 1Ti 5:11 would then be senseless, for then their remarrying would be a benefit, not an injury, to the Church, as relieving it of the burden of their sustenance. Tertullian [On the Veiling of Virgins, 9], Hermas [Shepherd, 1.2], and Chrysostom [Homily, 31], mention such an order of ecclesiastical widowhood, each one not less than sixty years old …” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments). 

But even if we are to accept your interpretation, it doesn’t bolster your position on the homemaker. Younger widows are counseled to remarry, and their new husbands would then be their protector and provider. Paul said, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully (1 Tim. 5:14).” Again, Paul seems to spell out the roles of the “younger women” who has remarried, and these responsibilities are clearly those of a homemaker. 

Where do we see Paul advising the young widows to work in the marketplace, leaving their children to the care of others? Paul emphasized, “Guide the house.” That is a fairly narrow scope of work prescribed for the wife from the perspective of this inspired, Hellenistic misogynist. 

I would also direct you to some commentaries here, here, here and here by John F. MacArthur available on the internet. 

You also mentioned that, “Deut 24:19 tells us that sheaves are to be left for widows and other needy peoples, but the widow still needs to go out and collect it. Unless a woman meets the special criteria for full time support in 1 Timothy 5, Christian charity towards her involved providing her with work, or giving her work that would be easier than normal.” 

In the situation where the husband is deceased, or is unable to work for health reasons, I have clearly stated that these are exceptions which should not be used to redefine the norm. When the husband is not around, it is obvious that the wife has to assume the husband’s roles, at least for a short while. This is when diaconal assistance should be afforded her according to the mandate of 1 Tim. 5:3-16. The younger widow should remarry; those that qualify for the order of widow-servants would be supported by the church on a permanent basis. But even so, younger widows who have yet to remarry and are in need should be supported by the church as well, at least for a time. 

3) Aquila and Priscilla 

You wrote, “Verse 3 says that by their occupation they were tentmakers. Both Aquila, and Priscilla were tentmakers by occupation. Was Priscilla a vocational homemaker? Given Paul’s hearty commendation of the couple in his other Epistles, she must have been. Did she have another occupation or vocation? Yes, she was a tentmaker. I think this example does show that being a homemaker as the bible commands is not incompatible with a woman having another vocation.” 

Let us peruse this passage of Scripture. Even as we read it, please keep in mind my words concerning hermeneutics in the previous post. 

“1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. 3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers (Acts 18:1-3, KJV).” 

Whichever translation of the Bible you use, the following information is gleaned concerning Aquila and Priscilla in those verses:

a. Aquila is not Singaporean; he is a Jew born in Pontus; 

b. His wife is Priscilla; and, 

c. Their craft or occupation was tent-making. 

Nothing more should be read into those verses. Points a and b are not very helpful for our current discussion. Perhaps point c might shed some light. The crux of the problem is: what is meant by the Greek word underlying the English word “occupation” in the KJV? Does it mean “full-time vocation?” Or does it mean that Priscilla was working full-time from 9 to 5 as a tent-maker, yet retaining her priorities as a homemaker and mother? And yes, we do not know if she had any children, and we do not know if she spent her time working in the marketplace from 9 to 5. 

The Greek word for “occupation” is the feminine noun “techne.” There are three occurrences in the NT, “AV translates as “art” once, “occupation” once, and “craft” once. 1 of the plastic art. 2 of a trade (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon).” The exact meaning of this word is, “An art, trade, craft, skill (Acts 17:29; 18:3; Rev. 18:22; Sept.: 1 Kgs. 7:14).” (Complete Word Study Dictionary, NT by S. Zodhiates) In other words, “techne” means the art, trade, craft or skill in which the couple was originally trained in. 

For example, my ex-pastor’s wife was an accountant by training or craft. Does this mean that she is currently working as an accountant full-time, and merely spends a small portion of her time as a homemaker? Aquila’s and Priscilla’s trade or skill was tent-making, but the Bible is at the very best silent on how much time Priscilla puts into her tent-making craft. It is absolutely probable that she is now taking care of her children full-time, with only minutes to spare in tent-making. 

There are a number of plausible scenarios, and I had urged that in the understanding of Scripture (hermeneutics), the clearer verses should interpret the more obscure ones. Like in this case, we have no reason to buttress your “working mother hypothesis” using this example, as the passage says nothing about Priscilla’s commitment as a homemaker, or the amount of time she spends in homemaking. Such speculation or eisegesis should be avoided. 

4) Concluding remarks 

You mentioned, “A woman should not have a career at the expense of her husband, children or home. However, I would disagree that the very fact that she has a career is automatically at the expense of her husband, children or home. It might well be, but again, it is something that must be looked at on a case to case basis.” 

You are once again imposing your pragmatic concerns in the exegesis of Scripture. As Christians, we must first understand what the Bible is saying on God’s terms. Only then should we consider the “biblical balance” you mentioned, which must include clear biblical passages elucidating such exceptions you had reiterated in our interaction. You have provided no such passages thus far. 

You had claimed, “I never said they [the husband and wife] had similar responsibilities.” But throughout your post, you had insisted that the wife can be the full-time bread earner despite being a nominal homemaker. You have reiterated that the wife can perform responsibilities which the husband's role requires him to do e.g. working full-time in the marketplace, being the provider etc. 

Lastly, you concluded that “the bible neither forbids [the wife] from working outside the home nor commands her to be totally focused on the home.” No matter what her motives are, the Bible clearly instructs the wife to be a vocational homemaker. Complementarian exegetes have consistently agreed that this is the understanding of the term “homemakers,” “keepers at home” or “workers at home” found in Titus 2:5. My brief exposition of Titus 2 is found in a previous post; please do consider it. 

I would like to conclude with the following words from Samuele Bacchiocchi, the Professor of Theology at Andrews University, “Our families, churches, and societies need women who are willing to accept their vital role as wives, homemakers, and mothers. God has equipped women with unique biological and spiritual resources needed for the survival and growth of the home. Biologically, God has endowed every woman with the marvelous capacity to conceive and nourish human life in her womb. Spiritually, God has endowed every woman who becomes a mother with the unique power to mold her children’s characters for time and eternity. ... A woman who willingly and joyfully accepts her role of wife, mother, and homemaker can experience greater reward and fulfillment than any academic or business career can provide. No greater joy and satisfaction can come to a woman than to have her children rising up and calling her “blessed” and her husband praising her, saying: “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all” (Prov 31:28-29). (Practicing headship and submission)”

References for your perusal: 

Biblical Womanhood in the Home by Nancy Leigh DeMoss (Crossway Books: 2002)

Where's Mom?: The High Calling of Wives and Mothers by Dorothy Kelley Patterson (Crossway Books: 2003)

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Book available online). 

PS: This post ends my reply to Mark's lengthy comment here. 

Update: Question: Vincent, do you have a "problem?" 

Answer: Of course I have a "problem." Don't you?

The following quote from Kevin's blog summarizes my "problem." "Our children are being raised by appliances." - Bill Moyers