A pain in the ark

It's a title that I'd have loved to come up with first, but British journo Adam Rutherford got there first. Writing in The Guardian he also coins a term I've never heard before, but may be tempted to adopt, "duff theology."

"Christian fundamentalists are of course silly people. This primarily 20th-century phenomenon uses James Ussher's silly biblical generation calculation to assert duff theology and literal truth to Genesis, which while quite elegant in its prose, is also quite silly. The story of Noah is not just silly but hateful, and impossible... I just don't understand why anyone would want to hunt for physical proof of a story that revealed your God to be a bit of a genocidal arsehole."

Oh come now Mr Rutherford, aren't you overstating the hateful and genocidal bit. Haven't you seen those cute kiddie illustrations of the animals placidly going in two-by-two? Just look at this delightful illustration from the Gustave Doré Bible. Anything hateful or genocidal here?

Oh, uh, wait a minute, um, er, scrub that last comment...

Denial, thy name is Missouri

I keep trying to avoid negative comments about the Missouri Synod, but it's hard. Especially when leading figures within this multi-million member sect keep saying outrageously silly things.

I'm sure there are intelligent, thoughtful people in the Missouri Synod... somewhere. While most of those fitting that bill probably left way back in Seminex days, there has surely been time enough for a marginal increase in IQ levels across the synod since.

Here we are in the twenty-first century, and a church executive who can also presumably manage to tie his own shoelaces, seriously suggests Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals.

Now I know the LCMS was, along with the Seventh-day Adventists, one of the original big promoters of Young Earth Creationism, but even so you'd think at least one of the bigtime synodical shakers and movers would occasionally pick up a copy of Scientific American.

Or perhaps New Scientist.

Or, all else failing, an issue of National Geographic.

Apparently not, unless it's to tut-tut over the evils of evolution.

Here's what I'm talking about:

I’ve been following debates/arguments/dicussions/conversations about the historicity of Adam and Eve. For our Lord Christ, the fact of the creation of Adam and Eve by God, and their union to one another, ordained by God, is the very foundation of marriage and all human sexuality. Precisely because the Lord taught this, this has an enormous impact on how the Church and the faithful, should — no not should, that’s way too soft a word — absolutely must — affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Where does any scientific evidence fit into this bit of logic? It doesn't. A literalist reading of Genesis trumps anything the modern world can throw at it. Adam and Eve were historical because... this guy can't think of another way to endorse marriage???

The writer goes on to quote an obscure British fundamentalist to "prove" his point.

The historical reality of Adam is an essential means of preserving a Christian account of sin and evil, a Christian understanding of God, and the rationale for the incarnation, cross and resurrection. His physical fatherhood of all humankind preserves God’s justice in condemning us in Adam (and, by inference, God’s justice in redeeming us in Christ) as well as safeguarding the logic of the incarnation. Neither belief can be reinterpreted without the most severe consequences.

In other words, if my dogma runs aground on contrary evidence, the facts are wrong. Above all else "safeguarding the logic of the [author's understanding of the] incarnation" and letting God slip out of responsibility for "condemning us" is paramount.

You can imagine these guys baying for Galileo's blood. A heliocentric cosmology at the cost of "severe consequences" to our tidy doctrines? No contest! String the heretic up!

This is medieval thinking. Medieval logic. The Enlightenment has yet to break across the fusty "confessionalism" of this dinosaur synod.

Which is why it keeps publishing Alfred Rehwinkel's laughable 1950s creation science text, The Flood.

And why in recent times it has published and promoted the specious YEC drivel mentioned here, here, here and here.

Coincidentally, the current issue of New Scientist has a cover feature on denial.

Denial... is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to be belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact. (p.36)

What New Scientist calls denialism could just as aptly be called idolatry.

Dennis faces a tag team in Tyler

I've never met Dennis Diehl in person, but I've got to know him as well as you can know anyone via the Internet. On a previous website I published some excellent articles by Den. He's far too honest and reflective a guy to have remained a fundamentalist minister.

Recently Dennis debated former WCG ministerial training honcho and AICF executive Art Mokarow in Tyler. The subject: Is the Bible the inspired word of God? What Den didn't realise when he accepted the invitation was that he'd end up facing a tag team: Art and "Oxford" educated academic Ron Moseley.

I've just read the transcript, and Den did a great job on behalf of all of us who have left fundamentalism behind. Reg Killingley was a fair and skilful moderator, Mokarow was thoroughly pleasant and polite (though it was hard to find much of an argument in his statements), while Moseley came across - and this is of course just my impression - as a total blowhard.

Art Mokarow introduced Moseley thus: "I met this gentleman three years ago at the Dallas gathering of scholars. We had 25 scholars come. We were in Dallas for five days. They were from a variety of denominations, and many from Worldwide and splits. I met this gentleman [Dr. Moseley]. I found out he had a doctorate from Oxford."

Well, actually not. In 2008 I wrote the following very brief comment on Ambassador Watch after Moseley was featured in Dixon Cartwright's publication The Journal.

A seemingly scholarly article by Ron Moseley, a graduate from Oxford Graduate School and a Fellow and Scholar of the Oxford Society of Scholars. Sounds impressive, but considering the blatantly apologetic quality of the writing I googled the guy and found that Oxford Graduate School isn't associated with Oxford University but is located in Dayton, Tennessee. Moseley now runs his own school which is, according to its website "accredited and in good standing with a religious accreditation commsion [sic]".

I thought it was a fairly tame comment. A blistering response was however received from the man himself. This is a cut down version.

Concerning the article posted by Gavin, whoever that is, I will gladly clear the record. Yes, I studied five separate years at Oxford University in Oxford, England, and have read numerous papers at Kellogg College, and Magdalen College, which are major parts of Oxford University. I lived in the dorm at Rewley Center at Kellogg College. I have also studied twelve years during the summers at the Hebrew and Jerusalem Universities in Jerusalem (that is in Israel) not Tennessee. Yes, I did graduate from Oxford Graduate School, which is in Tennessee, which is a fully regionally accredited graduate schoo. It is not associated directly with Oxford University nor has it claimed to be. However, if one graduates from Oxford in Tennessee, it is required they earn a minimum of one semester in Oxford University in Oxford, England, as a part of their education. Oxford Graduate School in Tennessee has at least two professors, one in law and one in philosophy, which are also instructors for Oxford University in England and live there and travel to Tennessee due to the close association of the schools although not academically. I have also studied at the University of Texas in Austin, as well as several other fully regionally accredited colleges including Princeton Theological Seminary, which is a part of Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. I might add, of all the schools named both in the U.S., Israel, and Europe, by far the best school was Oxford Graduate School in Tennessee... I resent any insinuation of a second class school due to it being located in Tennessee or its quality. While in Oxford University one of my courses in Literature was on Frankinstein, there were no such cases of inferior curriculum in Tennessee... Tell Gavin commission is spelled "commission" not commison (sic). Go figure... It case you didn't get the message, yes, it pissed me off!

Charming fellow! How could one not respond in a spirit of Christian humility!

Ron, thanks for the info. Unfortunately you posted under the wrong thread.

I fully and unreservedly accept your scholarly claims, but would respectfully make the following observations.

1. Paragraphs are useful in breaking up a body of text, even in Brill publications.

2. Schoo is spelled school.

3. Frankinstein is spelled Frankenstein.

4. The word "commsion" appears in that form on your Institute's website. I just cut and pasted it, adding the (sic) in order to show that the error originated elsewhere.

5. Does your Institute offer anger management courses? The response you offer is way out of proportion to the comments offered on the blog.

Fully accepting your fine credentials, which are of a far higher order than any I possess, I am still struck by the less than scholarly tone you adopt.

Yes, I know, I shouldn't have, but the Devil made me do it. Note however that Moseley made no claim to degrees from Oxford (UK) or Princeton, or Hebrew University for that matter. In fact Dr. Moseley supplied the following information to The Journal.

He studied in America, Jerusalem and England. He has a Ph.D. in Second Temple history from Louisiana Baptist University and a D.Phil. and D.Litt. from Oxford Graduate School, Dayton, Tenn. He studied during five separate years at Oxford University in England and studied parts of 12 years at Hebrew University and Jerusalem University. He has also studied at Princeton University.

Putting aside the minor matter that, Dr. Moseley's claims notwithstanding, Princeton Seminary is a separate entity to Princeton University, how exactly do you explain the listing over at St. Elias' faculty page?

Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, and Second Temple History
Dr. Ron Moseley, Ph.D., Oxford Graduate School, England, D.Phil., Oxford University, England, D.Litt., Oxford University, England, M.Div., Luther Rice College, M.A., (Jewish Studies), Oxford University, England.

Beats me. They read differently again (and presumably with greater accuracy) here. I looked up Luther Rice and the wonderfully generic-sounding International Seminary, but to use Dr. Moseley's own delightful expression, they seemed pretty "rinky-dink."

Ph.D. provider Louisiana Baptist University is cheerfully unaccredited.

In any case, reading the transcript of the debate I was struck by Dr. Moseley's colorful turn of phrase.

[I]n the New Testament, all these cats who were with Jesus died or had gone off to India.

It’s like when one of these old boys gets a tattoo of an ant on his shoulder and by the time he’s 60 years old it looks like an eagle drug down to his knees. Can I get a witness?

Paul was so prominent and not one of the 12 apostles because Jesus said to the 12 apostles go only into the Jews and nobody else because you guys got real problems with circumcision and even touching, eating, with these other cats.

But Paul had a non-Jewish dad.

The word rib means cell. I’m not saying He cloned Eve, but the word dust [in Genesis 2:7] goes back to the root of a-tom, not Adam but a-tom, like atom.

Well, we learn new things every day!

The transcript is due to appear in the May 31 issue of The Journal. Beg, steal or borrow a copy. Well, maybe not steal... It's a clash of world-views ranging - again, just my opinion - from perceptive, through slightly confused, to ludicrous (Den, IMHO, provides the perceptive part.)

Can I get a witness?


Photo of Dennis Diehl: Dixon Cartwright, The Journal: News of the Churches of God

The impossible Ark

Thankee koindlee to Jim West for this link to an article on the Ark over at The Bible & Interpretation.

It's kind of sad that these common sense points even need to be made in the twenty-first century, but the human instinct to believe nonsense - "as many as six impossible things before breakfast" to quote the Queen of Hearts - is still a powerful drive.

Anglogelicalism

(This piece originally appeared on the recently terminated Dunedin School blog.)

Kevin Ward offers some intriguing thoughts on that peculiar beast known as “evangelicalism” in the August 09 issue of Stimulus. A generation or two ago Harold Lindsell, editor of Christianity Today, bemoaned the watering down of the “e-word” in The Battle for The Bible, and proposed that the righteous of the land abandon the term in favour of the “f-word” (fundamentalist.) Ward comes at it from the other direction: the “e-word” has been hopelessly contaminated by the “f” crowd. Time to concede the rout and stage a hasty strategic retreat. From henceforth the more thoughtful members of the “e” crowd might consider hoisting the letter “o” aloft. Let us be “orthodox”!

Dr Ward makes an interesting case, with a strong historical perspective on the scene in Aotearoa/NZ. Alas, those of us who are not part of the Borg Collective – made up of Anglo-Reformed Protestants and their cognate groups – may feel sidelined by the argument. Although as a third generation Kiwi, and being familiar with the Borg mantra that “resistance is futile,” I still have too many Danish and German genetic markers to graciously cede the “e-word” to the dominant Anglo usage.

Between them Wesley and Edwards represent two faces of a new movement of revival, which has borrowed a label from the Lutheranism of the Reformation and calls itself Evangelical.

Diarmaid MacCullough

Some years ago I was vacating a school-house in a small Taranaki town, ready to move to Wellington. The new tenant-teacher and his wife stopped by to check it out. She spied The Evangelical Catechism on the bookshelf and enthused: “Oh, I do approve!” Little did she suspect (nor was I about to tell her) that the esteemed volume was the American edition of the Evangelischer Gemeindekatechismus. Neither Billy nor Franklin would, I imagine, have recognised it as expressing their belief-system. The European usage tends to value the evangelical (ie. evangel/proclamation-centred) over against what are really biblicist (bible-centred) and tradition-centred approaches.

Hence Bultmann was actually a better evangelical by far than Lindsell.

Dr Ward makes no reference to the prior use of the “e-word” before it was applied by Wesley to a pietistic form of Christianity, and ultimately mutated across in mutilated form into Reformed and Anglo usage. The rest is history. Today this kind of Anglo-centrism is often taken for granted. A text on modern Christianity breezily acknowledges the way the “e-word” was used before it was mingled with Pietism and revivalism, then dismisses the former meaning as irrelevant. Really? Is this the theologian’s way of crooning “lie back and think of England”?

Having said that, maybe the “e-word” is indeed a lost cause for thoughtful Christians who genuinely identify with the positive progressive social values that were once associated with that label in the English-speaking world. Dr Ward asks “does a rose by any other name still smell the same?” Fair question, but if you start calling rhubarbs roses, where oh where will it all end?

What would Enkidu?

Headlines blare that Noah's Ark has been found, and on the slopes of Mount Ararat no less. But wait, there's more: the wonderfully preserved boat was found by a bunch of "evangelicals."

Land sakes, you don't say!

Here at Otagosh however we can reveal exclusively that the claim is false.

The Ark isn't Noah's. It belonged to Utnapishtim.

Yes, this is the long-awaited proof of the divine origin of The Epic of Gilgamesh. Skeptics repent! Even now we're rushing to register the First Church of Uruk with the charities commission. We anticipate all donations will be tax deductable.

Forget Yahweh, or any of the other pale imitators. It's Adad and Nergal, Shullat and Hanish, Ninurta and Enlil all you infidels should be really worried about! If I was in your shoes at the moment, I'd be particularly cautious around Ennugi and Ea as well.

It's all there to read in Book 11 of the Epic, written long before the Israelites fiddled with it.

Expect a revival of the true faith, temples springing up bursting with hymns of praise and sacred prostitutes. A sign has been delivered to a faithless generation, Gilgamesh is lord of our hearts, and moreover (and this is very important)...

(Normal service will be resumed in due course.)

Pullman's fable

Out here in Her Majesty's Antipodean colonies we have to wait for Philip Pullman's latest novel - The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ- to be released on May 3 (according to Amazon, May 4 in the US). Among some of the biblioliterati there have been advance kneejerk reactions and much grinding of teeth at the sheer awfulness of an outsider writing a book like this. Perhaps they forget what a rank amateur Mark was.

In any case, Rowan Williams' review in the Guardian is a helpful corrective to pious academic puffery. The first paragraph is worth quoting in full.

On the back of the book is printed in large capital letters, "THIS IS A STORY". It's worth remembering that emphatic statement as you read the book. This is not a speculation about the beginnings of Christianity, a claim to have uncovered the real, suppressed history of Jesus. It is a fable through which Philip Pullman reflects on Jesus, on the tensions and contradictions of organised religion – and indeed on the nature of storytelling.

A year ago I read C.K. Stead's My Name Was Judas.This is another fictional retelling of events that intersect the Gospels. Plausible it was not, but literature - thank God - transcends sober scholarly consensus. It was a stimulating read and told its own truth.

Could it be that Mark was attempting something not entirely dissimilar in his time? At the very least he was creative with his sources.

In any case, I'm eagerly awaiting a copy of Pullman's work, having taken great delight in his His Dark Materials series. A fable deserves to be judged on its own terms; just ask the archbishop.