Discussion in Arminianism's Grundmotif: God's Goodness and Man's Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty and Middle Knowledge

Are Arminian Theology and Middle Knowledge (Molinism) Compatible?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/09/are-arminian-theology-and-middle-knowledge-compatible/

 

by Roger Olson

September 4, 2013

Comments

 

One of the most basic impulses of Arminianism is that God is not the author of sin and evil—even indirectly. On this virtually everyone knowledgeable about Arminian theology agrees. Divine determinism, the belief that God directly or indirectly determines all that happens according to a predetermined plan, was rejected by Arminius and has been rejected by all Arminians since him. I have demonstrated that in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Against Calvinism. Arminian theology and divine determinism are like oil and water; they cannot mix. And the reason they cannot mix is because of the Arminian Grundmotif which is God’s goodness. If divine determinism is true, the fall and all its consequences, including eternal hell, are part of God’s plan and made necessary by God even if only indirectly.

* * * * * * * *

Side Note

What is Middle Knowledge? That God knows not only what will happen but what would happen, along with all the permutations and instances of those possibilities ad naseum and ad naseum.

What is Molinism? Molinists hold that in addition to God knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any given circumstance including any resulting events and actions.

Importantly, Open Theism says this is not so and that the future of an indeterminate cosmos, and free will humanity, is always open, changeable and independent, or irrespective, of God's foreknowledge. That God and His creation react to one another based upon relationship to one another rather than upon His foreknowledge of events. That this arrangement is based upon God's divine decree when He created. That openness and freedom are the inherent structures upon which God created.

Assertion: Was Arminius a Molinist or not? If yes, did he rely on middle knowledge to reconcile God's foreknowledge with man's free will?

- R.E. Slater 

* * * * * * * *

In a now famous and much discussed article in Sixteenth Century Journal (XXVII:2 [1996]: 337-352) Dutch theologian Eef Dekker asked “Was Arminius a Molinist?” and answered in the affirmative. (Molinism is, of course, synonymous with belief in middle knowledge.) Several leading Arminius scholars have agreed. Reformed theologian Richard Muller agreed in God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Baker, 1991). (He came to the same conclusion as Dekker before him.) Dutch theologian William den Boer agrees in God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609) (Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2010). Now, in two recent studies of Arminius’s theology three American theologians agree. (I will be responding to their two books at a professional conference in November, so I’m going to decline to name them or address their arguments directly for now.)

 

So it would seem a consensus is developing that Arminius himself was a “Protestant Molinist” and may have actually introduced Molinism, middle knowledge, into Protestant theology. (Molina was himself a Catholic contemporary of Arminius.)

However, other Arminius scholars are not so sure. One of the most scholarly and exhaustive studies of Arminius’s theology is William G. Witt’s Notre Dame doctoral dissertation which I used extensively in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Witt argued that Arminius mentioned but did not use middle knowledge. Another Arminius scholar who agrees with Witt is F. Stuart Clarke, author of The Ground of Election: Jacob Arminius’ Doctrine of the Work and Person of Christ (Paternoster, 2006).

 

Without doubt one can find references to middle knowledge in Arminius’s writings. The question is whether he relied on middle knowledge to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with free will (and there is no doubt he believed in libertarian free will) and, whether he used middle knowledge to explain God’s sovereignty in providentially governing the whole universe including creatures’ free decisions and actions.

 

Dekker argues that, in using middle knowledge, Arminius unwittingly fell into determinism. Den Boer admits that even if Arminius’s use of middle knowledge did not imply determinism, it raised some serious questions for Arminius’s consistency—especially in the practical realm. That is, even if middle knowledge does not imply determinism, it does convey the impression, at least to the untutored, that their lives are predetermined.

 

I have argued here before that believing in God’s middle knowledge, that knowledge whereby God knows not only what will happen but would happen, not only what free creatures will do but what they would do freely in any possible situation, set of circumstances, is not in-and-of itself inconsistent with Arminianism’s basic impulses which have to do with God’s goodness (his “twofold love”). However, I have argued, and continue to maintain, once one believes that God uses middle knowledge to render certain that every creature does what they do by creating them and placing them in circumstances where he knows they will “freely” do something, then determinism is at the door (if not in the living room) and that it is inconsistent with Arminianism’s basic impulses. Hence, it makes God the author of sin and evil even if only inadvertently.

 

In order to test this we must go back to the first disobedience—Adam’s and Eve’s fall. The question is not whether God knew they would disobey but whether God rendered their act of disobedience certain.

 

Advocates of middle knowledge usually rely on a distinction between “certain” or “infallible” and “necessary,” with only the latter making God the author of sin and evil. The argument is that God’s use of middle knowledge to render the fall certain, even infallibly (it could not have not happened given God’s foreknowledge of what Adam and Eve would do and his creation of them and placing them in that situation) does not render the fall necessary.

 

I tend to think that’s a distinction without a difference.

 

That use of middle knowledge, providentially to render the fall certain, necessarily implies a plan in the mind of God that makes the fall not only part of God’s consequential will but also part of his antecedent will. And, as everyone knows and agrees, the distinction between God’s consequential will and God’s antecedent will is crucial to Arminianism’s argument that God is not the author of sin and evil.

 

Why else would God use his middle knowledge providentially? And why would he use it at all if not for the purpose of meticulous providence?

 

Many Calvinists have used Molinism, middle knowledge, to “explain” predestination and reprobation in order to get God “off the hook,” so to speak, as not the author of sin and evil. I think, for example, of Millard Erickson and Bruce Ware—two evangelical Calvinists who use middle knowledge as the “key” to reconciling God’s sovereignty and human free will. However, they at least admit that their view of free will is compatibilism—that free will is compatible with determinism. In other words, if my argument is correct, they “get it”—middle knowledge used by God for providential advantage requires a compatibilist view of free will.

 

To the best of my knowledge no Arminian claims to believe in compatibilist; all embrace libertarian free will.

 

But, to me, at least, libertarian free will means “ability to do otherwise than one does.”

 

Now, admittedly, Arminian believers in middle knowledge, including those who believe God uses middle knowledge to render creatures’ decisions and actions certain according to a plan, claim to believe that creatures who sin do so with libertarian freedom. In other words, they could do otherwise. Well, at least Adam and Eve could have done otherwise than disobey God. (The picture gets more complicated for their posterity under the effects of the fall.) But could they have?

 

If middle knowledge is true and God uses it for providential advantage, as Richard Muller says, offering inducements to creatures that God knows they will follow given their dispositions and inclinations, then God is not only “in control” but “actually controlling” everything including Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience. They could not have done otherwise even if they did it “freely.” That is the very essence of compatibilism!

 

Let’s use an illustration. Suppose I know one of my students so well that I know (beyond any possibility of being wrong) that if I suggest he read a certain book he will misunderstand the subject of our course and go on to fail it. Without the book, he would pass the course. I suggest he read the book. Why? Well, perhaps because I need someone to fail the course. I don’t grade on a curve and the dean is worried that I am not upholding academic standards. All my students pass with flying colors. My career is in jeopardy as is the academic credibility of the school. So I use my middle knowledge of the student’s dispositions and inclinations to bring it about infallibly that he fails the course. Nothing I did took away his free will. He read the book voluntarily (no external coercion was used, only inducement). (Note: None of that would happen; it’s purely hypothetical.)

 

Now, who is really responsible for - or, the “author of” - the student failing the course?

 

And can it fairly be said that by rendering his failure certain, using my middle knowledge, I did not make it necessary?

 

Now, there’s no point in appealing to God’s freedom to do whatever he wants to do. This is a debate among Arminians - and Arminians, following Arminius, are not nominalists:

[Nomianlism - (in medieval philosophy) the doctrine that general or abstract words do not stand for objectively existing entities and that universals are no more than names assigned to them. Compare conceptualism, realism (def 5a).]

We all agree that God is essentially good by nature and cannot simply do anything capable of being put into words. No informed Arminian would say “Whatever God does is automatically good, just because God does it, period.” So that objection to my scenario isn’t relevant to this context—a debate among Arminians.

I tend to agree with Eef Dekker, against several leading Arminius scholars, that if Arminius used middle knowledge to explain God’s sovereignty, then he unwittingly contradicted himself. He contradicted his own most basic principle which is that God is by no means the author of sin and evil. He unwittingly fell into determinism at that point and should not have relied on middle knowledge. Why he did, if he did, is a separate question. I think reasonable answers can be imagined (having to do with his desire to build bridges between himself and his critics).

 

So what does this mean for Arminians? I’m certainly not going to say that one cannot be an Arminian and a Molinist [(a seemingly contradictory expression - R.E. Slater)]. What I will say is that, in my opinion, Molinism is a foreign body in Arminianism even if Arminius himself used it! If he did, it was a foreign body in his own theology in the sense that it conflicted with his own basic belief commitments about God’s goodness, God not being in any sense the author of sin and evil, and creatures’ free wills (especially in disobedience).

 

No one should be surprised if a theologian falls into contradiction with himself at times—especially if he (or she) writes much over a very long period of time. I’m a historical theologian and have studied the theologies of virtually every major Christian theologian from Irenaeus to Pannenberg (and beyond). In every case I find some tension, some element of conflict within the theologian’s own system.

 

Besides, being Arminian does not require absolute agreement with Arminius. If that were the case, he would have been the only Arminian (and maybe not even he would be!).

- Roger

 

[My personal take: If Arminius were alive today he would be an Open Theist and in complete agreement with today's discussion by Dr. Olson. - R.E. Slater]

 

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

He Said It Better Than I Did: A Guest’s Comment about Molinism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/09/he-said-it-better-than-i-did-a-guests-comment-about-molinism/

 

by Roger Olson

September 6, 2013

Comments

 

Very nice essay, Roger. You’ve put your finger on a key internal tension within Molinism.

 

While Molinism is *officially* committed to a libertarian view of creaturely freedom (and thus soft determinists like Ware are *not* Molinists, even if they co-opt the label), such a view of freedom requires that middle knowledge counterfactuals of actual creatures be explanatorily *posterior* to actual creaturely free choices.

Thus, if Adam and Eve are free (in the libertarian sense) to eat or not eat the forbidden fruit, then it must not be fixed *independently* of their actual choices that IF they were to be placed in such-and-such circumstances that they would eat the forbidden fruit. For if the truth of that conditional were independently fixed, then they would have no say about whether it is true, and thus couldn’t act as to bring about its falsity.

This means that they couldn’t do otherwise than eat the fruit in those circumstances, which in turn means that they weren’t free in a libertarian sense, contrary to hypothesis. Hence, the truth values of middle knowledge counterfactuals must be explanatorily *posterior* to actual creaturely free choices.

But this is a huge problem for Molinism because the providential usefulness of middle knowledge is predicated on its being explanatorily *prior* to actual creaturely choices. That’s the only way it can inform God’s creative decree. So Molinism is internally inconsistent. Its alleged reconciliation of creaturely libertarian freedom with meticulous divine providence depends on both affirming and denying that the truth values of middle knowledge counterfactuals are explanatorily *posterior* to actual creaturely free choices.

 

 

Amazon link here

 

In this book, Roger Olson sets forth classical Arminian theology and addresses the myriad misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it through the ages. Irenic yet incisive, Olson argues that classical Arminian theology has a rightful place in the evangelical church because it maintains deep roots within Reformational theology, even though it maintains important differences from Calvinism.

 

Myths addressed include:

 

Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology

 

Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible

 

Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option

 

Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will

 

Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God

 

Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology

 

Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace

 

Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination

 

Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith

 

Alone Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

 

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

2014 Wesleyan Philosophical Societal Conference Information

 

 

Catherine Keller is the keynote speaker at the

Wesleyan Philosophical Society meeting

in March of 2014, Nampa, Idaho.

 

Paper proposals are due October 1, 2013.

 

Wiki Info - here

 

Net Info - here 

 

 

* * * * * *

 

 

Call for Papers, Wesleyan Philosophical Society
Annual Meeting: March 6, 2014,
Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID
Keynote Speaker: Catherine Keller, Drew University

 

 

Historically speaking, Western philosophy has focused intently upon the mind. Consistently if not absolutely, philosophy from Plato onward has spent its time dwelling upon ideation, perception, cognition, and recollection, and has pursued, again de facto if not de jure, a duality of mind and body that continues to this day.

Likewise, if perhaps more ironically, some branches of Christianity have understood faith to be a mental assent to certain propositional statements, a mind-oriented decision that involves ideas and beliefs. Even in the Holiness movements of the 19th and 20th century, which emphasize the emotional as well as the rational, the seat of the emotions is still the mind. In spite of the body of Jesus Christ, we have managed oftentimes to advocate for disembodied faith centered upon the soul.

Some orienting questions to consider exploring include:

- What would a philosophy of the body look like from a Christian, and/or Wesleyan context?

- How do we privilege or disenfranchise our bodies as we engage God and the church?

- What do Christian ethics tell us -- via subtext -- about sin and the body?

- How do we account for the body of Christ Jesus in our thinking?

- What can we learn about God, faith, sin, and suffering via the body?

- Do both philosophy and theology need a corrective with regard to mind/body dualism?

- How does contemporary philosophy deal with the legacy of Descartes’s mind/body dualism?

- How does philosophy of mind help identify and explore the relationship between body & mind?

- Do ancient or eastern philosophical traditions offer insight to the issues surrounding bodies?

- In what way does John Wesley appropriate or challenge the Western tradition on these matters?

- How do contemporary neurological studies inform philosophy regarding the mind and body?

Papers that examine the role of the body in philosophy, Christianity, and ethics are welcomed; papers exploring other themes will also be considered.

 

 

 

3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking, Part 2

The ethics of a Syrian military intervention:

The experts respond

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/29/the-ethics-of-a-syrian-military-intervention-the-experts-respond/

 

Yonat Shimron

August 29, 2013

 

WASHINGTON (RNS) As the Obama administration readies for a probable military strike against Syria, Religion News Service asked a panel of theologians and policy experts whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria in light of the regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. Would the “Just War” doctrine justify U.S. military action, and what is America’s moral responsibility? Here are their responses, which have been edited for clarity.

 

 

Duke University Divinity School emeritus theologian Stanley Hauerwas is often considered America’s most important Protestant theologian. Photo courtesy Duke University

---

This image available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

 

Stanley Hauerwas

Professor emeritus of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School

 

What possible grounds does the United States have for intervention? The language of the world’s policeman comes up again. You want to know, ‘Who appointed you the world’s policeman?’

 

You could say the U.S. can justify the intervention because stability is part of our foreign policy in order to maintain ourselves as the premier country in the world. So it’s smart to intervene. But there’s no moral justification.

 

Of course (nerve) gas is a terrible weapon. You hear echoes of weapons of mass destruction. And with gas you can’t control it in terms of its indiscriminate effects. But again, I just don’t know how intervention fits under “just war” categories. Syria isn’t attacking the United States.

 

The U.S. ought to ask the Arab League to do something. Near neighbors have more responsibility in these situations. If the U.S. intervenes, we just reinforce the presumption, which is true, that we’re an imperial power.

 

The language of intervention and no-intervention is meaningless. America has hundreds of military bases around the world. We’ve intervened. The question is what are the limits of American intervention? Right now there doesn’t seem to be any. President Obama is clearly worried about being involved in an intervention in Syria you can’t get out of. I appreciate that. But America is everywhere.

 

The just war tradition is based on a series of arguments to be tested before using force against another population. Legitimate and competent authorities must logically argue that the use of force will end or limit the suffering of a people and these forceful actions are the last options after all diplomatic, social, political, and economic measures have been exhausted.

 

 

William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Religion News Service photo courtesy Brookings Institution

---

This image available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

 

William Galston

Senior fellow, Brookings Institution

 

In principle, just war theory does justify military intervention to protect innocent human life — as long as the proposed action meets the tests of effectiveness and proportionality. But nations may undertake military action only after every other possible means of ending the bloodshed has been exhausted.

 

Although we can argue about whether that condition has been met in the case of Syria, prospects for diplomatic progress appear slim, and the Syrian government’s recent use of poison gas against a rebel stronghold probably derailed diplomacy indefinitely. For the Assad regime, there’s no middle ground; if it doesn’t prevail militarily, it will disappear. So it’s reasonable to conclude that if we do nothing, nothing will change, and the slaughter of civilians will continue indefinitely.

 

If we can act effectively to protect innocent human life, we have an obligation do so — unless the costs to us are prohibitive (and there’s no reason to suppose they must be). We failed that test in Rwanda but met it in the Balkans. We do not know whether the options we now have will prove effective, but that uncertainty does not justify doing nothing.

 

 

Qamar-ul Huda, senior program officer in the Religion & Peacemaking Center of the United States Institute of Peace. Photo courtesy United States Institute of Peace

---

This image available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

 

Qamar-ul Huda

Senior program officer in the Religion & Peacemaking Center of the U.S. Institute of Peace

 

The just war tradition, in religious or secular traditions, emphasizes the principle of proportionality, that is to say that an attack on any population shouldn’t target noncombatants, the environment or natural resources; the attack shouldn’t annihilate the opponent’s military if it is clear they are in a position of surrendering or losing.

 

“Just war” arguments for a military intervention in Syria need to consider the problem of no action by the international community, which can increase civilian suffering and validate the actions of an abusive government. These discussions need to study the problems of intervening and limiting the force against military institutions and how civilians will be protected in the midst of the intervention and post intervention.

 

Also, we need to examine, when the intervention is over, how efforts can limit or mitigate sectarian violence and the possibilities of a civil war. We need to ask: Ultimately what new responsibilities do the interveners have in rebuilding, reconstructing and restoring peace in Syrian society?

 

 

 The Rev. Drew Christiansen, a Jesuit priest and visiting scholar at Boston College who has been a longtime adviser to the U.S. Catholic bishops on international affairs and the Middle East. Photo courtesy Caitlin Cunnihgham, Boston College

 

 

The Rev. Drew Christiansen

Jesuit priest and visiting scholar at Boston College and longtime adviser to the U.S. Catholic Bishops on international affairs

 

My problem is that I don’t see why this kind of chemical attack matters so mightily when 100,000 civilians have been killed in Syria already. It seems to me that you’ve had massive attacks on civilians — with the world standing aside — that should have been the reason for intervention. But there’s also a question of proportionality and success, and I think that there are good reasons to think you might make things worse by a military attack.

 

There’s no objective for success right now. They’d do much better to try to work long-term for support of the elements of the rebellion that the U.S. wants to support, and we should work strenuously to build up the capacity to respond and build up the responsibility to protect (vulnerable populations), which we can’t do now.

 

I just don’t see why the particular (chemical weapons) attack should justify intervention at this point, especially if it’s just a rap on the knuckles to remind Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now if the chemical attacks were to become a pattern there would be good reason to intervene. But for one occasion, it seems to me that it doesn’t weigh up compared to those who should have been protected and haven’t been, and those who still need protection. I just don’t understand. It seems to me you need a strategic objective, which doesn’t exist, and therefore just war norms don’t apply.

 

 

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson,

founder and director of the Two Futures Project and the author of the forthcoming “The World Is Not Ours To Save: Finding the Freedom to Do Good.” Photo courtesy Tyler Wigg-Stevenson

---

This image available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson

Chair of the World Evangelical Alliance’s Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons and author of “The World Is Not Ours To Save: Finding the Freedom to Do Good”

 

As Christians we know precisely and unambiguously what we are for, in Syria as everywhere: peace, justice, and reconciliation. We also stand absolutely in opposition to all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, because they weaponize the tactic of indiscriminate killing, categorically forbidden by every Christian tradition of ethics on war and peace.

 

This clarity regarding moral ends, however, does not carry an automatic prescription of means to achieve them. This is what complicates our thinking about the American response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. The one who takes innocent life, in any situation, calls down the wrath of the Lord upon his or her head. But the United States is not the sword of God. Its response to Assad’s atrocities must be contextualized by prudential wisdom about the extended consequences of different actions. In such matters no “expert” can really know the future.

 

This is why our moral certitude actually leaves us in a place of profound tension regarding proposals for tactical intervention: We know what is right, but not the course of action to bring about the right. All we have is a set of convictions against which we can weigh a host of imperfect proposals.

 

 

Rabbi Michael Broyde, professor of law and senior fellow, Emory University’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion. Photo courtesy Rabbi Michael Broyde

 

Rabbi Michael Broyde

Professor of law and senior fellow, Emory University’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion

 

Jewish traditional just war theory can certainly be used to justify military intervention in Syria both to topple a dictator and to save the lives of those without guilt. But even more needs to be noted. The Jewish tradition avers that it is wrong to stand by while one’s neighbors blood is shed (and while that biblical verse does not directly apply for a variety of technical reasons), its ideals certainly ought to guide us. When the lives of innocent people are at stake, all people should do whatever they can to save those lives, even if this means that the lives of the guilty will be lost.

 

Of course, if there is any lesson in modern times, it is that the theory of just war in any religious or legal tradition can not only be evaluated based on the theory, but also based on the likelihood of success. A proper application of just war theory can produce a situation in which good people apply just and lawful force to a bad situation and make it much worse, both in theory and in practice.

 

In the real world, just war theory has to actually work, and not just theoretically work. Doing nothing is a moral option when doing anything makes a bad situation worse. Options that bring peace and protect the innocent are to be favored when reasonable people think that they are likely to work in fact.

 

 

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University. Photo courtesy Andrew Bacevich

---

This image available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

 

Andrew J. Bacevich

Professor of international relations at Boston University

 

From a moral perspective, it appears that observers see killing civilians with chemical weapons as somehow different from killing civilians with conventional weapons. I don’t know why there would be any distinction. Egyptians who are killed are just as dead as the Syrians who were killed, and though it appears that dying of a chemical weapons attack is an awful experience, frankly bleeding to death from a gunshot wound to your chest or stepping on a mine that blows off your leg is equally awful. So anyone who makes an argument that there’s a moral obligation to act has to address that question: Why here and not there?

 

The second aspect it seems to me is: What do we expect to achieve? Even if there is a moral case for intervention, how does the use of force remedy the situation? It appears to me that this is going to be a very limited attack with a very limited target set. There’s no intention of overthrowing the regime and no intention of limiting the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian Army.

 

So beyond allowing ourselves to feel virtuous because we have done something in response to a reprehensible act, what has been gained? If indeed the episode in Syria rises to the level where it is different from Egypt and we really are morally obligated to do something, then it ought to be something more than just a gesture. And of course as a practical matter, [frankly] nobody’s got the appetite to do anything more than make gestures.

 

 

Robert Parham

Executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.

 

As President Obama campaigns for military action against Syria, Christians would do well to remember the eight rules of “Just War.”

 

First is the just cause of protecting innocent human life.

 

Second is securing the authorization for war from Congress.

 

Third is last resort, the exhaustion of efforts at conflict resolution before launching a war.

 

Fourth is just intent. Restoring U.S. honor or punishing Syria after it has crossed the “red line” of chemical weapons hardly passes just intent.

 

Fifth is probability of success–a high chance to achieve war’s stated purpose.

 

Sixth is proportionality of cost. War must do more good than harm. Do U.S. strikes prolong the civil war and create more refugees?

 

Seventh is just means. Targeting non-combatant civilians is immoral, which makes strikes in urban areas problematic.

 

Eighth is clear announcement. The U.S. must state clearly why and when Syria will be struck.

 

These are high moral hurdles to cross. Yet it is better to cross them than to rush into war – war is always more costly with more negative unforeseen consequences than war-makers project.

 

 

(This article was reported by Yonat Shimron, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, David Gibson and Lauren Markoe.)

 

KRE/AMB END RNS

 

 

continued -

3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking,
Part 1

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/09/3-christian-perspectives-on-war-just.html

 

 

 

 

 

Dallas Willard: The Protoevangelical Faith of Evangelicalism, Part 2

 

 

The Many Beating Hearts of Evangelicalism

Part 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/09/05/dallas-willard-proto-evangelical/

 

by Scot McKnight

Sep 5, 2013

Comments

 

Let us agree that one way of talking about evangelicalism is to speak to five themes:

• Bible,
• Conversion,
• Cross,
• Evangelistic and Social Activism, and its
• Focus on Salvation.

 

How does Dallas Willard fit into these major themes? This is the question Gary Black Jr asks in The Theology of Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith.

 

I cannot emphasize the value of this book enough: Dallas Willard was way ahead of the curve on many issues.

 

Dallas left an imprint on each of these themes. That, in many ways, was his genius, but even more he set theology in the context of Christlikeness, or he set theology in the context of formation. Any theology that is not in the context of formation needs to be recontextualized.

 

What area of Willard’s theology was the most challenging for you?

Where do you think his impact was/is?

 

To begin with, Dallas Willard ordered these themes so that Bible and conversion generated cross-and-activism in the context of a robust view of salvation. If you listen to the Word, you will be converted into those other themes.

 

Scripture: it is the human and divine in concert. He’s not into either inerrancy or plenary inspiration theologies. Infallibility is “for the purposes of guiding us into a life-saving relationship with God in his kingdom” (58). The Bible is comprised of “witness testimony” and as such has “the limitations of individual perspectives” (59). God can be trusted to communicate what God wants us to know. Once again, his view emphasizes the divine infallible ability to accomplish divine purposes. Many defenses of Scripture result in rationalism and dogmatism.

 

Black says Willard removes his view of Scripture from so much of what evangelicals fight about. Scripture is a “physical, written manifestation of God’s revealed presence” (60). Here he sketches Logos, which is “present in the Scriptures, in history, in nature, and also discovered in the lives of individuals” (60). Scriptures are an objective presence of the Logos in the world, but not an all-inclusive representation of the Logos. The living Logos transcends language (62). Straightforward readings are its design. Methodology does not necessarily lead to encounter into transformation. Let the Bible be the Bible, and listen to it. The highest view of Scripture listens and applies Scripture.

 

Also, Willard believes in a “conversational revelation”: that God speaks and we hear God’s voice. We are called to live our life “with God.” God still communicates; cessationism is contra the Bible. God still uses the “still small voice.” God is a person; we are persons; person-to-person communication follows.

 

Willard on “conversion”: his focus is transformation, not the term “conversion.” Thus, he connects justification and sanctification, and conversion is thus a life-long event. It is progressive adaptation to ontological status. It is holistic conversion of the whole self into Christlikeness.

 

Black sketches Willard’s VIM theory: vision, intention and means. Christlikeness met with intention to be Christlike and the spiritual disciplines are the means. It is more than correct belief and it cannot happen all at once. God’s Spirit transforms.

 

On activism: Willard thinks evangelicalism’s activism (in evangelism) is rooted in an unhealthy and unbiblical understanding of salvation. In other words, discipleship has left salvation’s house. He advocates “discipleship evangelism.” If the aim is Christlikeness, then activism must be entirely devoted to that — not to forgiveness or guilt or status.

 

Only in light of the above can we see what Willard is onto when it comes to crucicentrism. Justification is a restored relationship with God. “Just as if I’d never sinned” is unhelpful. Atonement is God giving his Son for us and our salvation. The cross is one dimension of that giving. New life is atonement. How it happens is a mystery. Salvation is about deliverance — from sin and sins. Not just imputation of a meritorious condition but a new relationship — again showing how relational theology is at its core. Traditional evangelical atonement theories — penal substitution —  then can miss the whole point. It is all about a state of being. Thus it is not so much believing in the cross but entering into the cross.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past Series Links:

 

Dallas Willard: The Protoevangelical Faith of Evangelicalism, Part 1

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/09/dallas-willard-protoevangelical-faith.html

 

 

 

 

"Yes, I'm the Mechanic" ... Contentedness in Public Service ...

"Yes, I'm the Mechanic"

 

http://vimeo.com/73684887

 

 

Auto-repair shop owner George Zaloom says there's no reason

why every Christian shouldn't find joy at work.

 

 

 

"I love this video profile of George the mechanic and his sense of purpose in the honest work he does for the citizens of his community. We spend at least a third of our adult lives in the workplace (at least in the developed world) so it is a wonder to me that we don't have a more robust theology on God in the workplace and the high calling of the ordinary working life. Not all of us can be Bono or Oprah and change the world from a stage. Most of us are working hard to change our little corner of the globe. Like in George's case, one driver at a time. I look forward to more video profiles like this one!! "- Vimeo viewer Pam H.

 

 

 15 Bible verses about serving God
and others out of love (NIV)

http://voices.yahoo.com/15-bible-verses-serving-god-others-5172029.html

 

 

Romans 12:11 (#1 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.

 

Deuteronomy 13:4 (#2 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

 

Galatians 5:13 (#3 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.

 

1 Peter 4:10 (#4 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.

 

Joshua 22:5 (#5 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

5 But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul."

 

 

1 Samuel 12:24 (#6 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

 24 But be sure to fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart; consider what great things he has done for you.

 

Mark 10:45 (#7 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

1 Chronicles 28:9 (#8 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

9 "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

 

Malachi 3:18 (#9 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

 

Matthew 6:24 (#10 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

 

Luke 22:26-27 (#11 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

 

John 12:26 (#12 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

 

Romans 7:6 (#13 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

 

Hebrews 9:14 (#14 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

 

1 Peter 4:11 (#15 of 15 Bible Verses about Serving God and Others)

 

11 If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

 

 

 

3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking, Part 1

Reading through the reports today I came across an article on America's thoughts about going to war with the Muslim country of Syria. A deplorable government to be sure, committed to torture and human atrocities, oppression and tyranny by both the father and his son for decades:

 

Syria has been under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens. Its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.^[7] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1970 to 2000.^[8]

 

Syria is a member of one International organization other than the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement; it is currently suspended from the Arab League^[9] and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation,^[10] and self suspended from the Union for the Mediterranean.^[11]

 

Since March 2011, Syria has been embroiled in civil war in the wake of uprisings (considered an extension of the Arab Spring, the mass movement of revolutions and protests in the Arab world) against Assad and the neo-Ba'athist government. An alternative government was formed by the opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Coalition, in March 2012. Representatives of this government were subsequently invited to take up Syria's seat at the Arab League.^[12] The opposition coalition has been recognised as the "sole representative of the Syrian people" by several nations including the United States, United Kingdom and France.^[13][14][15]

 

- Wikipedia

 

Another article to help understand Syria's current state of affairs and areas of conflict was found here:

 

Elizabeth O'Bagy: On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War: "The conventional wisdom—that jihadists are running the rebellion—is not what I've witnessed on the ground."

 

A Divided Syria

Hence, in the following piece Johnathan Merrit provides three avenues for societal response: (1) the Just War Theory as proposed by Thomas Aquinas in his day of Medieval government; (2) Christian pacifism as resulting from the Anabaptist experience of purgings in 16th century Europe; (3) and a new theory going under the name of Just Peacemaking. This latter response I found to be the most intelligent and worthy of consideration. It responds according to the degree made necessary:  Just Peacemaking supports the prevention of war through nonviolent direct action and cooperative conflict resolution. It is not intended to be a substitute for just war or pacifism, but rather a supplement and corrective (further reading on this topic may be found through provided links below).

 

The last article I've supplied is from Frank Schaeffer's intensely critical piece directed towards the American media's handling of President Obama's resolve to not commit American troops so immediately into the position of global enforcer and preventionist. Frank provides stiff support for the president's actions even though it could have been more easily interpreted as a lack of action based upon political expediency as I did. Still, it requires the American public's support for, or against, its military involvement in regional conflict. And I suspect, if given the choice, Frank, like myself, would likewise explore the third alternative of "Just Peacemaking" before too hastily marching to war with America's sons and daughters into regional conflicts where there are too often no winners.

 

And so, it is with deep prayer and sincerity of heart that healing would come between the Muslim nations within their tribes and nations, even as it would come with America and the West. If we are to enter into any kind of global cooperation and synergy then all wars and hostilities between nations must cease. From Somalia to Egypt, from America's urban centers to Europe's class conflicts, from Russian, China, the Mid-East, and Indonesia. But to so simply focus on peace must first require us to place our focus on justice and liberty, however it is worked out, so that power and wealth learns abeyance to the needs and rights of all men everywhere.

 

R.E. Slater

September 4, 2013 

 



Supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad gather in Damascus’s Bahrat Square
Courtesy of FreedomHouse (http://bit.ly/17lre46)



 

On Syrian conflict, three Christian perspectives

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/09/03/on-syria-three-christian-perspectives/

 

by Johnathan Merrit

September 3, 2013

 

The Syrian civil war has become a humanitarian hell. More than 100,000 are dead, images of a state-sanctioned chemical weapons attack have evoked a global protest, and most Western leaders agree that Syrian President Bashar Assad is an all-around bad guy. But enacting another bloody and expensive war against an unstable Middle Eastern country, particularly one with the backing of Russia and Iran, is something many Americans have little stomach for.

 

So which position should Christians support?

 

Traditionally, Christians have viewed war through one of two lenses. Those who hold to just war theory believe that war is often right if the violent conflict meets certain criteria. This is the view held by most Catholics and conservative Protestants. On the other hand, Christian pacifists believe that violence is incompatible with a faith that is patterned after the one who blessed peacemakers and urged his followers to “turn the other cheek.”

 

But in recent years, a third view called just peacemaking has gained traction among some Christians. It has been promoted by evangelical theologians Glenn Stassen and David Gushee, and supports the prevention of war through nonviolent direct action and cooperative conflict resolution. Stassen and Gushee point out that just peacemaking theory is not intended to be a substitute for just war or pacifism, but rather a supplement and corrective.

 

Below are position statements on the Syrian conflict from Christian thought leaders representing each of these perspectives:

 

 

Just War Theory

Russell Moore, President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

 

The first principle of a just war, that of a just cause, has been met in this case. Assad’s regime is lawless and tyrannical, and rightly provokes international outrage. That said, there are other principles missing here, both to justify action morally and to justify it prudentially.

 

I do not see, from President Obama, a reasonable opportunity to prevail, or even a definition of what prevailing would mean. Regime change is not the point of this action, and even if it were, we don’t yet know who the good guys are. Replacing one set of terrorists with another does not bring about justice or peace.

 

I agree with the President on the moral urgency of Syria, and I morally reject the crypto-isolationist voices that tell us, in every era, to tend to “America First” and leave defenseless people around the world on their own. In this case, though, the Administration is demonstrating neither an imminent threat to national security nor a feasible means to alleviate the very real human rights crisis in Syria.

 

Moreover, there is the very real threat to religious minority communities in Syria. How will an attack further jeopardize the Body of Christ in Syria? Could it be that an anarchic regime of al-Qaeda sympathizers could do to the church in Damascus what Jesus prevented Saul of Tarsus from doing? Those are questions worth answering, and that means the President and the Secretary of State must communicate to the country not just the moral condemnation of the Assad regime (most of us agree), but the more difficult task of communicating the moral case for American intervention in this civil war, making clear how such wouldn’t make the situation worse.

 

Saving national credibility is important but it does not make a war just. The President must use his bully pulpit to make the case that what he wants to do here is more than a symbol, a symbol that will leave blood and fire in its wake. Right now, it seems the Administration is giving an altar call for limited war, without having preached the sermon to make the case.

 

If I were in Congress, I would vote “no” on this war. 

 

 

Pacifism

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, author of Strangers at My Door

 

The news this weekend feels to me so much like Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN in 2003. We always want to go to war for a moral reason. But as a Christian, I have to ask, “How is Assad’s violence toward innocent civilians morally different than our ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad?” When I see the images from Syria, my gut wrenches. But I don’t ask, “How could anyone do that?” because I was in Baghad in 2003. I know that we did that–and did it while we were telling our citizens we weren’t.

 

Of course, that was the Bush administration. But I cannot forget the stories I’ve heard from friends in Afghanistan about drone attacks under the Obama administration. We love drones because they don’t put US soliders at risk. But when they hit the home of a known Al Qaeda operative, they kill indiscriminately.

 

Obama is trying to maintain credibility by meeting force with force. But Jesus showed us a better way–that we can only overcome evil with good. We are in no position to do this as a nation because we’ve invested all of our resources in the overwhelming power of military machines. But these technologies cannot bring peace. Indeed, I fear our investment in them has catapulted us into a policy of perpetual war. If troop numbers are down in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Pentegon needs somewhere else to do its business. If not, contractors would be out of business. This is a cruel economic calculus.

 

Our only hope is to refuse cooperation with a system that demands violence and begin investing our lives and resources in things that make for peace. Of course, someone will ask, “But what about the innocent victims? Don’t you care for them?” As a disciple of the nonviolence of Jesus, I have to admit that some people may die because of my refusal to fight with violence. But people also die when we fight with violence. Nonviolence is not passive. It seeks to devote our resources to a better way. In our present public policy framework, this looks like opting out. But it is not disengagement. Christian nonviolence is engagement of the most serious kind. I give thanks for small experiments like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, Muslim Peacemaker Teams, and the Global Nonviolent Peaceforce. We won’t have better options on the global stage at a time like this until we invest seriously in these approaches to intervention. 

 

 

Just Peacemaking

David Gushee, author of The Sacredness of Human Life

 

From all indications, President Obama has never been contemplating more than a relatively small punitive strike on Syrian military targets, so we are not really talking about a “war.” The question is on what basis might a punitive strike by the United States (and possibly some group of allies) be morally justified, and whether there are any alternatives that are morally preferable.

 

In the world envisioned by the official declarations and principles of the United Nations, the world community, acting primarily through the UN Security Council, would long ago have intervened in the Syrian civil war. Proven use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would certainly have triggered the condemnation of the world, and the UN would have stepped in with various steps to protect civilians, separate the warring parties, and isolate and possibly remove the Syrian regime. Sadly, we do not today live in the world envisioned by the United Nations, because power politics and alliances and resentments continually prevent the five powers of the UN Security Council from acting in concert.

 

Just peacemaking theory would suggest that the United States should first test the UN’s own principles by taking a case for rigorous international intervention in Syria before the UN Security Council. Show all the evidence. Call for the UN to live up to its own principles. Draft a strong resolution. Only if such a resolution should fail would the US have a case for going it alone. The president could say that international moral and legal norms and humanitarian concern demand international action, but failing that, the United States is acting in the stead of the international community. This is a case that could be far more effectively made after an effort at the UN.

 

But in this case, so far, anticipation of failure has led to a preemption of a UN effort. This has led the US out onto a very shaky limb. And the weakness of the President’s isolated position is reducing the likelihood that the United States (or anyone else) will end up doing anything at all. Meanwhile, civilians continue to die in large numbers, and the threshold against using chemical weapons has been breached without penalty by Syria. 



Just Peacemaking



Just Peacemaking is the product of 23 scholars across various denominations who

have collaborated annually for six years to specify the 10 practical steps and develop

the undergirding principles of this critical approach.

 

 

 

 

The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of

Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-left-and-right-entire_b_3852157.html

 

by Frank Schaeffer

September 3, 2013

President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.

 

From now on there's a twenty first century template that will be applied by the nation when we talk war: ask Congress for permission to throw America's military might around.

 

President Obama has just struck a blow for peace. The left and right are so tied up in knots trying to parse the present politics of the situation that they forget that this president thinks long term.

 

President Obama has again proved that he will leave his opponents in the dust. By using the Syria crisis as a teaching moment on constitutional prerogatives the president has extended his reach far into the future. He may have paid lip service to reserving his right to use the military with or without Congresses approval but in fact he's done the unthinkable: the president has just seriously and voluntarily curtailed presidential war making power--for a long time to come.

 

More than gay rights, more than reform of the medical delivery system, more than attempts to regulate Wall Street, more than ending two bad wars, this surprising action by President Obama will mark his presidency. His action is the beginning of the end for the imperial presidency that Kennedy, Nixon and everyone since has inexorably exploited and expanded. Gone are the days when it's assumed that presidents don't even have to pretend to listen to Congress and the American people on using American force.

 

Speaking as the father of a US Marine that was deployed in Bush's miserable unjustified wars of choice, I can't thank President Obama enough for trying to restore a little constitutional balance to America's addiction to easy wars that others pay for. Since the sons and daughters of the ruling class rarely contribute skin in the nasty "game" of war, since most Americans go shopping rather to war, this Marine's father is glad that it just got harder to send young men and women in uniform to their deaths.

 

By President Obama shocking the chattering classes with something utterly unexpected he's insulted them. Expect cynical blow back. The talkers and pundits like to think they always see into the future, know more than the president and can outsmart him. They have been proved wrong again and again, on the economy - its back - on health care - it is working and on "Obamacare" - it will outlast the crazies in the Republican Party, and now on this stunning action. They will say he's weak, vacillating, trying to blame Congress and so forth.

 

Wrong.

 

What this president's critics don't get - ever - is that President Obama thinks long range. That's why he's remained silent in the face of incessant racist-based Tea Party attacks. He knows he's winning the future by not playing to their angry-black-man stereotype. That is why he's never been the in-your-face lefty the left craves. He's playing for keeps, not short term visceral satisfaction.

 

The pundits mostly are trying to figure out the president's tactics short term on the "next war" or "what this means politically." But Syria isn't the point. Politics isn't either. Our Constitution is. What they don't get is that irrespective of the outcome now in this case, President Obama has injected an old/new note of constitutional restraint into the American war making game that is revolutionary for our times.

 

It's a very big story that the media seems to be missing by concentrating on the short term situation, Syria, and politics. The real story here isn't Syria--it is presidential power. President Obama just put our country's good ahead of his power and handed a little of presidential power back to We The People. Thank you Mr. President.

 

continued -

 

3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking,

Part 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/09/3-christian-perspectives-on-war-just_5.html