Hebrew Roots

A great article, by a Jewish writer, on the so-called "Hebrew Roots Movement."

These are non-Jews who have no intention of converting to Judaism yet follow laws, customs, beliefs, and practices commonly associated with Judaism. And while they do believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the messiah—though in these circles he goes exclusively by his Hebrew name, Yeshua—they are emphatically not Christian. They do not celebrate Christmas or Easter. They do celebrate Passover and Sukkot. They do not display, either in their homes or as jewelry, crosses or other traditional Christian symbols.

Some of these people might be more accurately described under the label "Armstrong Roots Movement", tallit-wearing William Dankenbring, a former Plain Truth writer, being just one example. Dankenbring claims:

Those who ridicules [sic] and ignore God’s commandment of wearing “tassels” on one’s clothing, and using the “prayer shawl,” may think they are clever and righteous in God’s sight, believing this commandment was ONLY for Israel, and has been superceded by the “New Covenant.” But alas, they are sadly mistaken. The New Covenant does not abolish God’s Law. Rather, it writes these precepts into our very HEARTS and minds, so that we will NEVER forget them (Heb.8:10).

There are clear historical linkages between the Adventists, WCG and the Sacred Names Movement. While some like to emphasise the differences between the HRM and similar groups (such as Messianic Judaism), it's intriguing that these movements seem to find their American heartland in many of the same places COG sects thrive. That's got to be more than a coincidence.

While the majority of Christian denominations subscribe to some version of replacement theology—that the church has replaced Israel, that the New Covenant has replaced the Old—a few have embraced certain aspects of the Torah. More than two centuries ago, a group of Russians who came to be known as the Subbotniks began observing the Torah, switching their weekly day of prayer to Saturday and adopting various Jewish practices like circumcision; some members of the group, whose descendants still live in the former Soviet Union, converted. A number of contemporary Christian sects observe the Sabbath, most notably Seventh-day Adventists, who also do not eat pork, shellfish, or other foods proscribed by the Bible, and do not observe Christmas, Easter, or other “pagan” holidays. The Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert Armstrong in 1934, was a radio ministry whose followers observed Saturday Sabbaths, most of the Jewish festivals, and many of the laws of kashrut. (It was later known as Grace Communion International.) Followers of the Sacred Name Movement, a Seventh-day break-off, call God “Yahweh,” and Jesus “Yeshua.”

Which isn't to say that the vast majority of Church of God believers and alumni would find an event like that described at the Dallas Sheraton anything but downright weird. As, obviously, do real Jews.

Not to be Mythed

A couple of soon-coming events on-line that I've marked on my calendar.

A "Disdate" (something between a discussion and a debate that may include a certain amount of politely restrained dissing) on Jesus Mythicism between David Fitzgerald (taking the mythicist corner) and Daniel Gullotta (taking the consensus position). Not the two debaters I'd most like to see - what a missed opportunity it was when the much awaited event featuring Ehrman and Price fell flat! - but it could still be interesting. I've never been particularly impressed by Fitzgerald, and Gullotta, while wonderfully confident, is not exactly a voice of experience. Gullotta writes on his blog:

Fitzgerald and I [were] invited to be involved in a recorded debate hosted by the Miami Valley Skeptics, where we would discuss the historicity of Jesus and why the two of us have come to us radically different readings of the evidence. The show is designed to be a question and answer style debate... There will be questions throw at David and I, in which we will be given space to answer, but also time given so we can respond and offer criticism or insight. The show will be published on the 24th of August.

The podcast, when it's available, will be posted at  miamivalleyskeptics.com

But wait, there's more!

John Shuck is interviewing Don Cupitt on an upcoming Religion for Life podcast (available sometime Sunday US time). Evangelicals and fence-sitters in mainline churches tend to loathe Cupitt. Moderate Baptists have been known to tear his books apart while foaming at the mouth - and that after only a few pages. I must admit that it took me a while to get used to the irritating Oxbridge accent and the writing style, but now I'm something of a fan. Julian Baggini in his Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2003) comments:

Cupitt finds himself under fire from Christians and atheists, who both think he is actually an atheist after all and should just admit it, but I think his attempt to save something distinctive from the wreckage of religious belief is admirable and has lessons for believers and atheists alike. 

Comments policy

The existing comments policy on this blog reads thusly:

This is intended as an apologetics-free zone.  A sense of humour definitely helps. Comments here are moderated.

It's not much of a policy, but perhaps it's better not to be too pedantic.

And yet I keep feeling uncomfortable when people who guard their own identity closely launch out on less than charitable terms regarding others, many of whom are willing to disclose their identity.

Of course it gets complicated. Some people post anonymously, but many of us know who they are anyway.

A clarification. Blogspot's idea of moderation is to either allow a comment to be posted in its entirety, or rejected in its entirety. I don't know the number of times I've though "that really needs editing!" but, alas, the option just isn't there. A reasonable paragraph followed by a petulant outburst... what to do?

Should it be open slather?

My idea of an acceptable comment is something you could say to someone's face over a cup of coffee, and still be on good terms.

I'd appreciate your feedback.

The Journal - the Curate's Egg issue

The expression "the curate's egg" is believed to date from an issue of the satirical magazine Punch in 1895. A curate is served a bad egg (on toast?) for breakfast by the bishop. Ever the diplomat, the curate remarks that "parts of it are excellent."

Which brings us once again to the 175th issue of The Journal. Parts of it are indeed excellent.

A reprint of a 1996 article (appearing in In Transition) by the late Gary Fakhoury exposes the Achilles heel of the Tkach reforms. I hadn't read this when it first appeared, but even now I feel some sympathy, at least in broad outline. Fakhoury raised important questions and the cabal simply obfuscated and prevaricated. Their position was never based on scripture.

Furthermore, I was reminded, WCG leaders have a moral obligation to challenge the teachings of Herbert Armstrong, even if it splits the church. But you, little member, have a moral obligation not to challenge their challenge, for that is divisive.

While it's now all history, in '96 it was very much an alive issue. The self appointed, self entitled leadership bulldozed through change in doctrine without any accountability and at huge human cost. Reasonable people like Fakhoury - multiple thousands of them - were completely frozen out of the process, ignored, sidelined, by a smug pseudo-evangelicalism that brooked no systemic change in hierarchic structure, and absolved itself from acquiring any mandate.

Phil Arnold resurrects the hoary old chestnut, what did the 'W' in Herb Armstrong's name mean? He goes with the official version - Herb just added it in for effect - and has a personal story that confirms it. I'm still a bit sceptical. Back in the early seventies the Australian church magazine The Lutheran ran a major article entitled "The Spiritual Wilderness of Herbert William Armstrong." Where did they get that little gem of detail from? Who knows? There are other alternatives that have been tossed around over the years, some credible, some simply mischievous. On balance the meaningless 'W' is probably the most likely explanation, but hey, the guy was a compulsive liar on most things autobiographical, so the case is probably still open - as if anyone cares. More to the point brethren, what does the 'C' in Roderick C. Meredith stand for?

Reg Killingley slams an ad in the previous issue from the Obedient Church of God which refers to the head of the Catholic Church as "the Poop".

Perhaps you could ask advertisers to follow basic rules of protocol in referring to others in their ads. They can disagree with someone all they want but the payment of money should not be used as a license for puerile disrespect.

Sage advice. Sadly, as noted in the previous posting, the anonymous moron responsible for writing that ad is back again this month with something equally as grubby and offensive.

Ken Westby, one of the "bad boys" of "the 1974 Rebellion" has an intriguing article entitled Splits happen, even to one true churches.

They called me “the devil” back in 1974. Well, maybe not the devil or the Satan, but a bad hombre under devilish influence. I was accused of being used by the Prince of Darkness to attack “the church,” to cause a split.

Ah, the good old days...

Big church splits, firings and purges produce strange phenomena. One day the church has loyal, faithful employees, effective and good-hearted ministers; the next day these same individuals are evil plotters, disloyal dissenters, snakes, inciters to rebellion (which, you must remember, is akin to witchcraft), attackers of the [One True Church] and the poor innocent brethren within, etc., etc.

Well worth the reading. You can download the PDF of the entire issue here.

It's for material like this - as well as the nostalgia kick - that I still read The Journal. It portrays all sides of the ongoing COG experience as it meanders down the path to its inevitable terminus; the outrageous and the considered both. Thanks Dixon.

The Journal - 175th issue

The latest Journal is out dated July 31, and it's a scorcher. Some really good features, which will be highlighted in the second of two postings here.

But to deal with the worst first, so we can all move on...

In the main news section:

Brian Harris with The new pope: Is he the one? Quote: "Prophecies relate to the arrival of an influential pope who, in an old quest, will give a new European leader his support, uniting the Catholic world against the mainly Protestant nations of the United States and Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the nations of Western and northwestern Europe, which are the descendant nations of ancient Israel migrated from their original homeland."

Sad, not to mention stupid.

Ray Daly with The wonderful earth tomorrow: What will it be like? Quote: "How about the several islands off of the Straits of Gibraltar? Think land masses. And, while thinking on these things, think Atlantis.

"These land masses in some circles, are called Pan. Atlantis was part of Pan. But Pan existed only until the earthquakes during the time of the reign of King Uzziah (840-790 B.C.).

"It was at that time that Pan sank beneath the seas and the mountain ranges rose to their present size. It was such a calamity that the earth tilted 10 degrees on its axis."

Ray should have stuck to J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan.

In the Connections ad section:

The Obedient Church of God is back displaying its not inconsiderable ignorance and creative grammar. Quote: "I CHALLENGE all offshoot WCG sinisters 1 Kings 18:19 and dare you offshoot WCG sinisters to SPEAK UP and defend your lies of WHY you do not obey God’s 4th Commandment in 1/2 the World! So STOP HIDING from this SIN: While YOU “quietly” MOVE God’s SABBATH to FRIDAY using man’s phony 1883 IDL (International Date Line), just like the Poop moves God’s Sabbath to SUNDAY."

Talk about poop!

Art Mokarow announces "(TheBiblicalReporter.com) is a new website to take vital world news and compare it to Biblical Prophecy. It will compare today’s news with what was documented thousands of years ago in the Bible."

Oh how very original. C'mon Art, you've got to be well past retirement age. Time to sit back with a nice cup of tea and read some Dostoyevsky, learn some basic Dutch, or watch the complete seven seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space 9. Frankly dude, with this prophecy stuff you're just embarrassing yourself. One William Dankenbring is more than enough.

Now I know this sounds a tad unappreciative. But having isolated the more egregious guff in a strong Bullgeschichte containment field, next time we can go back and discover some material that is much more stimulating. If you can't wait (and why should you?) the PDF is available here.

Paul, the Great non-Communicator

No, no, that's starting to make sense! Change it!

Paul is generally agreed to be a great theologian. Deep, profound. Which may or may not be the case. But consider, hardly had the apostle to the gentiles shuffled off the stage, than everybody seemed to agree that his letters were downright confusing. Whoever wrote 2 Peter 3:15-16 (it wasn't Peter) certainly didn't think much of Paul's communication skills. Then, for three hundred years, all that deep theological stuff was either forgotten or ignored. If you asked a second century Christian about justification by faith, they'd likely just stare at you blankly. The only guy who allegedly came close was Marcion, and he's regarded as a heretic!

Two thousand years later Paul's letters have been pored over, each word and phrase studied, scrutinized and exegeted, to an extent unprecedented in ancient literature. The rule of thumb seems to be, if you think you've understood Paul, you haven't. But don't take my word for it, here's what Nicholas King, a British Jesuit scholar, wrote in the introduction to his 2004 translation of Romans: It is, he says:

“...very hard going, and the translator faces a formidably difficult task. A single phrase in Romans 5:12, for example, may have as many as eleven different meanings, and the jury is still out on which of them best suits the context.... At times, I have to say, I have despaired of making Romans intelligible to a modern reader.”

The crazy thing is that it's non-Christian scholars, including Jewish New Testament experts (now there's poetic justice!), who seem to have the best handle on the prickly apostle. Paul, it turns out, has been misread from at least Augustine onward. Was Paul anti-Torah? Did he eat the first-century equivalent of ham on rye? Probably not.

So if Paul was such a genius, brimming over with revelatory insight, how is it that he wasn't able to pass on those insights in any coherent form? What on earth did the Roman Christians - many of whom would have been illiterate - make of his letter to them when it was first read aloud ? How much of it did they - could they - understand? They didn't have the benefit of reading it for themselves at their leisure, it was read to them, everyone scratched their heads, and then it was apparently forgotten. In our hyper-literate age when everyone has a New Testament, and probably a selection of translations to draw on, are we any the wiser? How much do we really understand, even after reading it again and again?

Did Augustine? Luther? Calvin? Barth? or Herb Armstrong for that matter? Can you really expect to extract a meaningful, consistent theology from what are largely polemic, rhetorical writings?

It would be sheer arrogance to think that any of us has heard, or ever will, the definitive word on either Paul or his gospel. One suspects he himself kept moving the goalposts.

And you have to wonder whether the apostle is sitting up there somewhere, laughing.

Adapted from a 2010 posting

Red in Claw and (von) Fange

I came across Erich von Fange's In Search of the Genesis World in 2010. It's a creationist text, and I hadn't tackled one of those in a very long time. Maybe, I thought, they've got some better arguments to offer than the ones I was pilloried with as a youth.

It's released by Concordia Publishing House, official publishing arm of America's second largest Lutheran body (2.5 million members), the Missouri Synod. Here's how they are currently promoting it on their website.

In Search of the Genesis World: Debunking the Evolution Myth strengthens readers' knowledge of creationism, offering a well-researched, Christian response to the origins of the world and the universe.

The Bible is shown to be a faithful framework for the study of the ancient world....

In Search of the Genesis World examines the sciences that treat the ancient world. It seeks to answer the important question: How does the Bible hold up against 'science'? Obviously, the search must be conducted in a responsible manner. We must distinguish carefully between fact/truth and "spin".

Prepare to respond to evolutionary theories withIn Search of the Genesis World.

So we're not dealing with backwoods snake handlers. Indeed Fange boasts a PhD. from the University of Alberta, and is a former professor at Concordia College in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

So I settled down and diligently worked my way through the nearly 400 pages with a highlighter and a notepad at my side. I've got to concede that it's a remarkable book, though perhaps not quite in the way that Dr. von Fange intended.

The first thing to note - in view of the many "gap theory" aficionados who might frequent this blog (and you guys know who you are!) - is that Fange is an unapologetic Young Earth Creationist (YEC). But, wouldn't you know it, a certain Ambassador College graduate and Plain Truth writer comes into his account, and he's cited as an authority!

So let's dig in. We'll travel to Tonga, climb aboard the great Andean mountain elevator, turn popular journalists into evolutionary experts, try to find Rhodesia on a map, rub shoulders with Erich von Daniken, speculate on the lost continent of Mu and - especially exciting for a New Zealander like myself - discover fascinating, previously unknown details about Maori culture.

Into the Pacific

It must be a bother having to write a book about evolution when your own belief system allows only a few thousand years for the history of the universe. This probably explains why Erich von Fange spends so much time tip-toeing through some particularly vacuous material, like a rag and bone merchant on the prowl, that has seemingly little or nothing to do with his subject (see below on von Daniken and Mu.)

It also gives us an opportunity to check out von Fange's capacity for elementary-level research; the kind you'd expect of a competent twelve-year old. This isn't an unreasonable expectation given that Dr. von Fange's area of expertise is education (oh come now, you surely didn't expect it to be biology, palaeontology or geology did you?)

Before 2000 BC almost every corner of the world had been visited by people who possessed amazing technical skills. They erected vast astronomical instruments... They are found on remote uninhabited islands as well as on the continents and major islands... On remote Tonga island a massive stone lintel atop three huge stone pillars has two incised lines that indicate winter and summer solstices. (p.275)

Ha'amonga 'a Maui

Now let's pause for a moment. Remote Tonga island? Despite being a qualified professor of education, Fange seems to have an extremely limited grasp of world geography. Tonga isn't an island, but the name of a group of islands. The structure Fange refers to isn't found on "Tonga island" (there's no such place) but on the island of Tongatapu, and is known as Ha'amonga 'a Maui. It is believed to have been built in the thirteenth century, probably as a gateway to the royal compound. It was only in 1967 that the then reigning monarch of Tonga, perhaps eyeing the tourist potential, began claiming that it had Stonehenge-style astronomical significance. Fange could have saved himself considerable embarrassment just by picking up a copy of the World Almanac, or doing a Wiki search.

Fange's unique expertise also extends to New Zealand geography and history.

Before and during the Golden Age, small bands of the curious and adventurous, the rebels and the ostracized, left or fled the Iranian Highlands for the great unknown world, much like the defeated Maori rebel or chief who fled with his followers to find another island home or perish in the sea. (p.326)

I wonder just how many islands Fange thinks make up New Zealand? I wonder whether he knows the difference between the designations Maori and Polynesian? I wonder whether he did any serious research at all? The Maori are the first people (tangata whenua) of New Zealand. There are two main islands, bearing the highly original names North and South Islands, and most of the population prior to the arrival of Europeans lived on the North Island (and in fact still do). Evidence of atoll-hopping refugees? Zero. Certainly Maori arrived from elsewhere in the Pacific, but after settlement (and becoming the people referred to as Maori today) there is little or no evidence of return journeys. The sole exception might be the colonisation of the Chatham Islands by the Moriori, but I doubt Dr. von Fange has ever heard of the Chatham Islands, let alone the Moriori.

He has heard of Rhodesia though, and seems to think there is still a country bearing that name (p.301) - which is a bit weird if he bothers to even occasionally follow the news.

But then, if you're prepared to state that "there are good reasons to suppose that at least some dinosaurs were on the ark," (p.57) without providing a scrap of evidence for these "good reasons," or even the barest of footnotes, presumably ancient Tongan astronomical observatories and imaginary sea voyages by unhappy Maori chiefs are small change.

You have to wonder what Concordia is doing, promoting this stuff. Does anyone there actually edit for something other than spelling and punctuation?

The Scientific Genius of Robert Gentet

I'd like to say that this kind of nonsense is the exception, but unfortunately it isn't.

One moment you're reading a Young Earth Creation text from the Missouri Synod, then zap there's a flash of recognition: the author is citing a WCG writer. (For those unfamiliar with the acronym, WCG refers to an apocalyptic Adventist sect that has now largely sunk beneath the waves; the Worldwide Church of God.)

Thomas Lapacka I knew about. The former Pasadena WCG minister traded in his suit and tie for the clerical collar of a Missouri Synod clergyman some fifteen years ago, and went on to write a book about it. But I didn't know about Robert Gentet.

Gentet was a "science" writer (using the term science very loosely) for The Plain Truth. His best-known article may have been Dinosaurs Before Adam? which first saw the light in 1963, then achieved "reprint article" status as the definitive word on the subject for church members.

Obviously Gentet was a major promoter of the "gap theory," which is anathema to YECs. But Fange's approach is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," so that wasn't too much of a jolt (he also cites ID gurus Behe and Johnson without indicating that their position is very different to his.)

But no, it seems Gentet had a Damascus Road experience on creationism - or perhaps St. Louis Road - for he returned to his LCMS roots after leaving WCG and, failing to find a job in the oil industry, went on to be ordained as a Missouri Synod minister. Along with this metamorphosis, Gentet completely abandoned the pre-Adamic theory of creationism which he had previously espoused, and adopted a variety of YECism (the "CCC" model). He now runs creationhistory.com - where you can find his potted bio.

Fange cites Gentet as an authority to back up his own views. Two dilettantes are, apparently, better than one.

Both of these illustrious gentlemen have the hard task of explaining how the planet came to be as it is in just a few thousand years. Noah's flood comes in handy here, and both of our geniuses seem to have been influenced by Alfred Rehwinkel's 1950s book called (not surprisingly) The Flood. I had a copy of this opus on my bookshelf as a teenager. Rehwinkel was yet another dilettante (his degree was in theology), LCMS member and - like Fange and Lapacka, his book appears under the Concordia imprint.

So, how do you explain, for example, those big, pointy things made of rock? The Andes mountains for example?

What is surprising is that the earliest intensive agriculture in South America is believed to be east of the Andes in the Amazon lowlands before it was carried over the Andes, perhaps even before the Andes existed. Much of the Andes chain is very recent - shockingly recent! (p.218-219)

Do tell!

The Andes rose abruptly in historical times when man was already sailing ships. There was a sea harbor in Lake Titicaca. (p.219)

Well, land sakes, who'd have thunked it! But then, this is the same guy who writes:

Our belief in a young earth is founded on the Bible, and there is nothing in the way of evidence to shake that belief. (p.289)

Can we hear an Amen! from Brother Gentet?

Honestly, one could rabbit on about the gaping holes in Erich von Fange's book for months, and not exhaust the possibilities. Could it get any worse?

The striking fact is that natives never seem to discover a new idea for themselves, nor do they modify anything in the slightest. When change has come to a community, it came from the outside. (p.47)

What racist drivel. Fange wisely omits to define what he means by "natives," but I suspect he has people of a different skin colour to his own in mind. On page 212 he gets explicit by referring to Africans as "natives." Why not blond Swedes? The truth is that all of us can trace our origins back to tribal communities: Angles, Saxons, Goths... The statement is garbage, and inherently illogical.

And let's be upfront about that term "natives." It's insulting and demeaning in contemporary usage. Only a moron in a hurry would use it in a serious work of non-fiction.

Racism seems to be an undercurrent in Fange's world-view. He clearly doesn't like the work of ground breaking French Jesuit scholar Teilhard de Chardin. Fair enough, that's his right. But when it comes to blaming someone for the Piltdown hoax, Fange has Teilhard collared right from the start. Why Teilhard and not one of the English suspects?

The whole business seems contrary and out of character for an Englishman. (p.157)

Yes, it has to be the greasy little Frenchman according to the von Fange logic. One can only observe that Herr Doktor von Fange can't have met a great many Brits in his travels. At times Fange seems to have "lost it" completely.

Fange doesn't endorse von Daniken, but he does spend a lot of time trawling through the guano trying to pick a pearl or two (p.299-308). His conclusion: "The point of our discussion is that interesting and useful facts may indeed be found in some very peculiar sources..." Perhaps if he spent more time reading Scientific American rather than a tattered copy of Chariots of the Gods he might have learned something more useful. He then goes on - heaven knows why - to commit another four rambling pages to the literature on the lost continent of Mu. This in a book with the subtitle "Debunking the Evolution Myth"?

Fange constantly divides the world up into Christians and humanist liberals. In fact, the only reason evolution exists is that "the evolution belief system is designed not to explain the world, but clearly to attack and erode the faith and values of Christians." (p.265)

To put the kindest construction on this statement, one could call it myopic.

[I]f in the future Christians are burned at the stake, evolutionists will light the matches. (p.265)

Is this really the best that Concordia and the LCMS can up with as a popular Creationist text?

(Note: rhetorical question.)

A version of this article appeared here in four parts in 2010.