Materialism, the Universality of Faith, and the Worth of a Worldview, Part I

There is a widely-held misconception in our culture that Christianity and science are in opposition. On one end of this dichotomy is the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalist Christianity that sees science as a threat to a Bible-based understanding of creation.

On the other end, subject to much less critique, are the materialists with the understanding that reality is limited to the physical world that we perceive, rejecting any and all talk of a metaphysical realm and so operating with the mindset that science is incompatible with religion.

The latter of these two is often seen as more science- and fact-based and so, more reasonable. Materialists are the sophisticated ones, chin-up and aristocratic in their analysis of petty religious tendencies. My purpose here is to pull the rug out from under this Enlightenment arrogance by exposing their dependence on faith. With faith as the common requirement for materialism and Christianity established, the issue becomes which worldview is more worthy of one’s faith. It will be shown that Christianity meets this criterion far better than materialism, as it takes seriously personal experience and speaks to the needs of that experience, while materialism simply reduces that experience to the illusory work of nature. 

Materialism, or what Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford call scientific naturalism, "holds that all that exists is physical and can be reduced to its elemental material composition."(1) Advocates of this position have to take for granted, flippantly dismiss, or attempt to explain away consciousness. Daniel Dennett, in his monumental work Consciousness Explained, suggests that consciousness is simply a product of brain states, and could be given to a machine if the proper scientific advancement is reached.(2) 

The major problem with this, and the particular aspect of consciousness that materialists have to ignore, is that Dennett cannot prove that the material world exists beyond his consciousness. Sure, in the reality he experiences, maybe he can explain consciousness as a by-product of evolution, but he would have to provide evidence that the natural world he perceives actually exists outside of his consciousness. That, he most definitely cannot do.(3) As Keith Ward wonders, "What is the point of being a materialist when we are not sure exactly what matter is?"(4)

Ward makes another excellent point against Dennett’s proposal: "Nobody can observe anyone else’s conscious states, and we cannot really be sure that anyone else has any conscious states at all."(5) Thus, to say that we can give consciousness to a machine because consciousness is purely mechanical, would be impossible to prove, since one cannot actually make claims about any consciousness other than one’s own. 

Furthermore, inherent within materialism is the flaw of starting with the perceived world and moving to the perceiver when determining what reality is. It would be silly for me to say, "The shirt I’m wearing is blue; thus, I am able to perceive the blueness of my shirt." The only reason I can speak of the color of my shirt is that I perceive it. In order to make judgments about the color of my shirt, I have to trust what I perceive (which, in this case, would be mistaken, because of what we have come to learn about our perception of color). Similarly, I think it is mistaken to start with the material world and say that our consciousness is merely a product of it. The only way we can observe the material world is through our consciousness, and we cannot actually prove that it actually exists beyond that conscious state.

For these reasons, I see materialism and Christian theism on a level playing field, because their respective claims about what is beyond consciousness require the same amount of faith. We Christian theists believe in a God who transcends our consciousness. Materialists believe that the material world we perceive makes up reality, and that nothing is beyond it. Can either of these be proven? No. I propose, then, a question: Which belief system is more worthy of our faith? I contend that materialism is bankrupt in addressing this question, and that Christian theism is much more sufficient. 

I have shown that in order to be a materialist, one must accept the world that one perceives as reliable—as truly real. Furthermore, one must believe that nothing is beyond one’s consciousness. These actions, whether materialists like it or not, are actions of faith. By taking these steps, they trust their perceived reality and that nothing goes beyond it—and they do so without any proof. This is faith. But why should we have such faith? Why is it reasonable to believe that there is nothing beyond the reality that we observe? Not only does it lack reason, but it is counter-intuitive. We naturally reach beyond our perceived reality. Why should we believe that there is nothing beyond what we perceive when we have an inherent inclination to try and transcend our perception? As Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan state, "humans are incurably religious . . . by nature a person has an irresistible urge to transcend himself."(6)

This is not the only area in which materialism is counter-intuitive. We experience free will, love, morality, emotion, etc. In materialism, all of these are reduced to nature at work. They are illusions. I find this claim to be ridiculous. Because our subjective consciousness is how we experience reality,(7) we shouldn’t make claims about reality that run completely counter to how we experience it. As Lesslie Newbigin says of free will, "All arguments designed to show that free will is an illusion break down into absurdity . . . [for nothing should be accepted] which simply denies our daily experience."(8) Ward also finds it strange that materialism would accept a belief system that "ignores the all-pervading evidence of personal experience."(9)

Can we honestly say that the choices we will to make, the people we love, the love we receive, the morals we cannot help but adhere to, and the emotions we feel, are all the mere work of nature? We’re just pawns in the game of evolution? Not only does this leave life bereft of meaning, it destroys everything we experience to be true. Charles Pearce once said, “A belief that can’t make any difference on how you act when acting counts is a belief that is devoid of meaning.(10) Materialism is meaningless because it does not ring true in our experience, and it has nothing to contribute to our lives practically.

Continue to part 2 here

Notes:
(1) Steve Wilkens and Mark L. Sanford, "Scientific Naturalism," in Hidden Worldviews (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 100.
(2) Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained (New York: Back Bay Books, 1991).
(3) Dennett (ibid., 455) asks, "why should consciousness be the only thing that can’t be explained?" The answer to this is simply because we cannot go beyond our consciousness to observe and explain it. Any ‘explanation’ would require faith, because we cannot know if whatever explanation we ascribe to it is actually true.
(4) Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008), 15.
(5) Ibid., 16.
(6) Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan, quoted in Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 86.
(7) So, Descartes: “I next considered attentively what I was; and I saw that while I could pretend that I had no body, that there was no world, and no place for me to be in, I could not pretend that I was not; on the contrary, from the mere fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things it evidently and certainly followed that I existed.” Quoted in Dennett, 30.
(8) Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 69.
(9) Keith Ward, More than Matter? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011), 133.
(10) Charles Pearce, quoted by Gregory A. Boyd, "The History and Hope of Open Theism" (lecture, Open Theology & the Church conference, St. Paul, MN, April 4, 2013). This was probably a paraphrase.

Reflections on Coming Out and Walking Away from Christianity

My friend Cory recently came out to his friends and family, something I'm ashamed to say I did not see coming. With this, he announced that he no longer considers himself a Christian, which is something I did see coming. When I asked people recently what makes them doubt Christianity, Cory sent me this, which is posted here with his permission. Cory is a very dear friend of mine, and I am glad I know him a little better now. What follows are his reflections after honestly wrestling with Christianity and with his sexual orientation. His words offer something to all of us.
__________

Let me begin by clarifying the subjectivity of what’s to follow. It seems silly to have to clarify such a thing because the only way we can know and experience anything is subjectively, but I know some of the things I am going to say may sound like semi-sweeping claims that will definitely ruffle some feathers. Therefore, I want you to understand that I am speaking from what I have seen, heard, and experienced up to this point in my life. The fact that you may disagree with some opinions is your right and subjective circumstance, but the fact that you cannot relate (or refuse to) does not make things any less real or important. That being said, here we go.

My life growing up in the church has never been marked by any drastic events or circumstances like some stories you’ve heard. My parents have never wanted anything but the best for me and raised me in the best way they knew possible, and I am deeply grateful for everything they taught me and it is ultimately because of them that I value many of the things I do today. I had a great group of friends and leaders at my church. I also had the privilege of being part of what you might call the “in” crowd of kids whose families I liked to compare to “dynasties” within our church. Suffice to say, most everyone knew me or knew my last name. I played in the high school worship band for 3 years, went to camps, was a leader at camps, and went on one mission trip. I was definitely your typical church kid.

Of course, I had my ups and downs faith-wise during high school, and I went to Mars Hill Church (lead by the notorious Mark Driscoll) for a little over 3 years as well. The music there was (and still is) really good and there’s no denying Driscoll’s oratory talent. Although I never got actively involved at MH, I eagerly attended every Sunday and greatly enjoyed what I understood as strong, unswerving, Biblical teaching. Transitioning into college and still coming out of a sort of religious stupor of not going to church, I decided to leave church out altogether during my freshmen year. I dabbled in partying and the like and generally enjoyed meeting new people and learning new things. However, I chose to start attending church again sophomore year, this time a very small one made up of young couples and college students. The church also happened to be part of the church planting network started by Mars Hill, so the teaching and atmosphere felt very much the same except 1/50 of the size. I began leading worship again and attending weekly small group meetings and found myself back in full church-swing.

But towards the end of sophomore year, I had a sudden, startling realization from reading Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. The controversial theology in his book aside, the thing that got to me was the extreme lack of questioning in the church I was attending and my experience with Christianity in general. Bell’s book, more than anything else, suggests the simple of question of “how do you know?” So many ideas such as inerrancy, predestination, truth, faith, etc, were all taken at face value, and I never met someone at this church or Mars Hill who was willing to ask basic, obvious questions. The real deal breaker for me was the Calvinism, specifically predestination, present in my church and Mars Hill. This piece would be oh so much longer if I wanted to go down the long and twisted path of my deep seated (I’ll admit) hatred and loathing for such doctrine openly espoused by those such as Driscoll and John Piper.

Ultimately though, I had a major problem with what Lutheran theologian and sociologist Peter Berger calls a “lack of epistemological modesty.” For those of you who don’t know, epistemology is the study of knowledge. Basically, how do we know what we know? Christians claim they know from the Bible, but knowing in itself has never been certain. What I came to realize is that what most Christians mean by “I believe” isn’t really a belief at all. It’s a truth claim, which in philosophical and scientific terms, is extremely bold and tricky. I would say that claiming to know the truth itself is impossible in this reality, but that’s a whole other philosophical conversation. The root of the issue for me lies in how the majority of the Christians that I know treat the Bible and so many other doctrines, theologies, morals, etc, as if there is no denying their authenticity.

In reality, as I said at the beginning, subjectivity is at the heart of all these matters. You may believe that objective truth exists, but your belief that it exists and what exactly it is is subjective. The fact that so many different groups within Christianity alone drastically differ in so many ways is proof of the subjectivity that bind people to certain groups and ideologies over others. Within your own group, it’s easy to look out from the inside and wonder how others can’t recognize their faults. I am as guilty of this as the next Christian too. As a result, it’s easy for the organized church and its teachings to treat the world as objective and ignore the literal billions of unique lives out there. It’s easy to view the world over as just masses of sinners needing salvation, but when you start to look at each individual, there is so much history. Good, bad, hurt, tragedy, all kinds of shit. With an objective world-view, you lose the individual, and everything becomes a mass of symbolism and ideology rather than human beings who deserve personal, careful attention.

All these things have been especially true for me. All through high school, I knew in the back of my mind that I was gay. I recognized I had this attraction, but refused to acknowledge or think about it. There was just no way in hell it would work for me to take it seriously or come out when I was still at my old church, a part of an all-guys small group, leading worship, and going to Mars Hill. Of course, back then I still thought the whole thing was wrong, a sin, etc. I almost thought maybe this was just some temporary thing that would go away eventually somehow. Going away to college and distancing myself from all of that made my orientation even more apparent to me, but I still chose to ignore it.

Finally, after graduating in June of 2013, I went home for a week and saw lots of old friends. Being around them and knowing I thought differently about so many things, religious and otherwise, made things so frustrating. With almost every friend I met up with, I wanted to just unload everything I thought now onto them. On top of that, I was becoming more and more uncomfortable basically living a lie any time the question of girlfriends and such was brought up. At the end of my stay at home, I almost told my parents then and there, but decided to wait. A couple weeks later I told my oldest brother first, and then from there I let each of my family members know. It was the most awkward thing I have ever done.

Thankfully, no one responded in anger, as is the case with many stories I’ve heard of people coming from Christian families. My parents were definitely shocked and saddened though. The main thing I want them and all my friends to understand is that I am still the same person. This doesn’t mean that I am going to become flamboyant all of a sudden. Heck, after telling one of my friends, he responded later by saying “you’re one of the manliest people I know!” This is just how I am, and I’m still no different.

Now many Christians, including many I grew up with, would respond to that by saying something along the lines of “but you don’t have to be that way” or “God can help you not live that lifestyle” or whatever. If I believed the same things, I could try to not live the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means), but I’d like the Christians who’d say that to truly consider what that means. It’s easy for straight people to say it, but imagine if you weren’t allowed or encouraged to be with the kind of person you’re naturally attracted to? Is it possible for you to forget ideology for a moment and actually imagine what that would be like? If you wanted to be honest with this idea, you’d be single for the rest of your life and not be allowed something that so many other people gladly celebrate.

In all honesty, I think that is a bullshit answer to something that you don’t understand and will never be able to so don’t put on an air of acting like you understand and know that it’s hard, etc., because you don’t. I used to think that I was destined to be single before when I didn’t find myself attracted to women. I’m a naturally independent person, so this idea didn’t bother me too much at first. But now that I’ve accepted this part of me and am perfectly fine with it, I’m really interested in and excited at the prospect of having such a relationship with someone.

You can argue all day about whether or not people like me can be born this way or develop an orientation.  All I know is that this is how I am. You can say that “well I’m naturally prideful” or “jealous” or “vain” or whatever “and that’s my ‘struggle’ just as being attracted to men is yours,” and I will once again call bullshit. You have these categories and ideologies of right and wrong that you attempt to fit around everything, but carefully consider orientation with me for a second. While I realize that the theology of this idea has some grey area and is not the strict dichotomy that I create here, but I think it still lends greater perspective and complexity to the issue.

If God is the God of strict Calvinism and predestination (aka determining everything we do before we do it), then God predestined me to be gay (this is also assuming that people can be gay from birth in the first place which I realize some people still believe to be an impossibility, but that issue aside because I don’t think there’s even a remotely solid Biblical argument to support that in the first place). I didn’t have a choice in the matter and this is just how I am. Basically, I was screwed from the start. On the other hand, if God is not the God of predestination and does not necessarily control everything, then I am gay just because that’s what happened. God left it up to the random selection of biology, a mutated gene or whatever. But this idea is hardly any less troubling than the predestination option because I am left with the explanation of “welp, this is just how the cards were dealt, sorry!”

Either way, I am left in a Christian society dominated by the idea that homosexuality is wrong and not having a clear theological answer for how I ended up this way. I could try to deny this part of myself and live a life that others and their God think is right, but that would be forcing myself to believe in something (the Bible, doctrines, etc) that I have strong logical and philosophical problems with. It would be forcing myself to believe (putting aside the fact that I do not consider my orientation to be a “belief” or “choice”) that objective, ultimate truth is knowable in this world, and that is something I cannot do. Why? I’ll give you nearly 7 billion reasons why.

If there is one, most important thing that this whole coming out process has taught me it is that you do not know people as well as you think. No one knew that I was gay up until this point in my life, and that is a huge part of someone. It shouldn’t define anyone, never the less it means that many of my friends who find out are going to be shocked because they thought they knew me so well.  As a result, I now try to look at everyone I know as supremely unique individuals with complex histories and events that have made them who they are today, and that is all they know, all they can know. In the same way, I am only what I have experienced and my knowledge is limited to that. This does not mean that people can’t change or don’t need to change, far from it, but it does mean that we, as individuals, are extremely limited in our ability to make objective claims about anything.

Which brings me back around to my biggest problem with the churches I have attended up to this point in my life and the type of Christianity I have encountered, and that is a lack of epistemological modesty and humility. Church leaders like Driscoll and many others insist on the full-proof, Biblical, God-given authority of what they say and act like it is fact. Its historical accuracy aside, there is no way to know if the Bible is actually the word of God. There is no way to know so many things. You may say, “but that’s why you have to have faith!” Have faith? In what? That you’re right and everyone else is wrong? This sounds more like a way of ignoring all the things that could threaten what you currently believe and leave you feeling less sure than you’d prefer. (Granted, everyone, religious or not, chooses to think thousands of different ways about everything, and to do so requires varying levels of arrogance and ignorance.)

For me, I choose to be what you might call an agnostic (but it’s more complicated than that) and accept ambiguity and uncertainty, and not because I am afraid to commit to any particular belief or simply don’t want to, but because I value people too much. I want to respect and understand people too much to label them Christian, non-Christian, atheist, Muslim, gay, straight, whatever. As reality stands now and our ability to understand anything beyond it, others are the most real thing we can know. I still believe God exists, but as to how God thinks everything should be or what should not be, that is ultimately speculation. The person standing in front of you, however, is not speculation. They are real and their issues, interests, needs, joys, etc, are real and all deserve to be understood. I am real and deserve to be understood and not labeled as “gay,” “church drop-out,” or “non-believer.” That is the difference between being subjective and objective.

Words that Explode: More Quotes from Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament

"It is my judgment that complaint addressed to Yahweh can be understood as Israel's moment of 'omnipotence.' Further, it is my judgment that because Christian practice has denied people this dimension of piety, the church inclines to produce 'false selves' who cannot be honest before God and so must 'fake it' with God." (475)

"[E]verything about the future depends on the readiness of human agents to take venturesome action toward Yahweh." (487)

"An ideology of scarcity produces a competitiveness that issues in brutality, justifies policies of wars and aggression, authorizes an acute individualism, and provides endless anxiety about money, sexuality, physical fitness, beauty, work achievements, and finally mortality. It seems to me that, in the end, all of these anxieties are rooted in an ideology that resists a notion of limitless generosity and extravagant abundance." (559)

"Enlightenment rationality, in its popular, uncriticized form, teaches that with enough reason and resources, brokenness can be avoided. . . . In such ideology there are no genuinely broken people. . . . The church, so wrapped in the narrative of denial, tends to collude in this. . . . The outcome for the isolated failure is that there can be no healing, for there has not been enough candor to permit it." (560)

"[P]ower--political, economic, military--cannot survive or give prosperity or security, unless public power is administered according to the requirement of justice, justice being understand as attention to the well-being of all members of the community. In an alternative theory of public power . . . power can sustain itself willy-nilly, even if it practices endless self-aggrandizement and brutalizing self-indulgence. Moreover, those who come to power are, characteristically, convinced (a little at a time) that their own well-being is the key factor in the maintenance of general well-being, prosperity, and security." (615)

"Wisdom teaching is an ongoing, developing process. Therefore, to halt the process by refusing to consider new experience is not 'right,' for it misrepresents Yahweh and Yahweh's reality in the world." (687)

"[T]he Old Testament in the modern world is endlessly vexed by and tempted to historicity; that is, to 'what happened.' . . . It is my judgment that Enlightenment modes of history have almost nothing to do with Israel's sense of Yahweh." (714)

"[T]he Old Testament is powerfully polyphonic in its testimony. . . . Nothing about the theological claims of the Old Testament is obvious or one-dimensional. They remain remarkably open." (731)

"The motivation offered for Yahweh's actions in time of need are of various kinds, some of which are not congruent with 'innocent' Christian piety. That is, in addition to confessions of sin and statements of need and trust, Israel also seeks to motivate Yahweh to act by appealing to Yahweh's honor, vanity, and risk of shame (e.g., Num 14:13-16). I take it that the willingness of Israel to appeal to such risky motivations is a measure of the urgency of the petition. It is not possible or necessary to tone down such motivations to conform to a kind of 'pure faith,' for the Old Testament is not engage in 'pure faith,' and no amount of Christian romanticism can make it so. Israel is engaged in faith that must live honestly in the midst of an unfair and threatening world." (472)

Texts That Linger: Quotes from Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. $30.98. pp.v-777. ISBN 978-0-8006-3765-1. ★★★★☆

I just recently finished Walter Brueggemann's massive 750-page Theology of the Old Testament. While I would love to write a review of it, I wouldn't even know where to begin, and would not be able to recall all the thoughts I had over the course of reading it. Thus, I thought instead I would just post several quotes from the book that I found compelling and/or thought-provoking:

"Israel's speech about Yahweh is characteristcally situated historically. I intend only to rule out questions of positivistic history that seek to limit Israel's imaginative utterance about Yahweh to recoverable happenings. Stated another way, the history to be reckoned with in this project is emic, i.e., as accepted by the Israelite cast of characters, and not etic, i.e., the past recoverable by the reckonings of the rationality of modernity." (118)

"Yahweh is slow to anger ('rk 'ppym). The actual Hebrew idiom translates as "has long nostrils." The usage perhaps indicates that Yahweh's long nose permits divine rage and anger to cool off before they threaten Israel." (216)

Speaking of Hosea 2:2-23: "Yahweh's divorce (abandonment) of Yahweh's wife Israel was, so the poet asserts, due to Israel's fickleness as a spouse . . . [but then] the poet moves beyond divorce to contemplate remarriage, a move unthinkable in the old law of Moses." (223)

"Israel's characteristic adjectival vocabulary about Yahweh is completely lacking in terms that have dominated classical theology, such as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. This sharp contrast suggests that classical theology, insofar as it is dominated by such interpretive categories and such concerns, is engaged in issues that are not crucial for Israel's testimony about Yahweh and are in fact quite remote from Israel's primary utterance." (225)

"Yahweh goes through loss, anguish, rage, and humiliation." (254)

"The term passion [with regard to Yahweh] . . . refers to a propensity to suffer with and suffer for, to be in solidarity with Israel in its suffering, and by such solidarity to sustain a relationship that rightfully could be terminated." (299)

"One may suggest . . . that the move toward incarnation . . . is in some inchoate way already present in Yahweh's radical decision for covenantal solidarity with Israel and more radical decision toward pathos with Israel. . . . [W]hatever may be claimed for the radicality of God in the New Testament is already present in all its radicality in these Jewish witnesses to the character of Yahweh." (302)

"Israel as witness knows that if Yahweh is not endlessly criticized and subverted, Yahweh will also become an absolute, absolutizing idol." (332)

"[I]f we are to identify what is most characteristic and most distinctive in the life and vocation of this partner of Yahweh, it is the remarkable equation of love of God with love of neighbor." (424)

"The human person, like Israel, is invited, expected, and insistently urged to engage in a genuine interaction [with Yahweh] that is variously self-asserting and self-abandoning, yielding and initiative-taking." (458)

"[S]o-called conservatives tend to take careful account of the most rigorous claims of the Bible concerning sexuality, and are indifferent to what the Bible says about economics. Mutatis mutandis, so-called liberals relish what the Bible says in demanding ways about economics, but tread lightly around what the Bible says about sexuality." (458)

Yahweh "in mutality invites challenge. The high classical tradition of Christian interpretation has not paid sufficient attention to this . . . aspect of Yahweh's fidelity, which issues in pathos and vulnerability to the human partner." (459)

"[T]he wisdom traditions make clear that obedience is not simply slavish, fearful conformity to rules and laws. Thus wisdom is a guard against legalism. Obedience, according to the traditions of wisdom, entails the imaginative capacity to take positive initiatives for the enhancement of creation." (466)

Book Review: "Yahweh is a Warrior" by Millard Lind

Lind, Millard C. Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1980. $14.91. pp.11-232. ISBN 978-0-8361-1233-7. ★★★★☆

When I talked to a professor of mine about this book, he emphasized the fact that Millard Lind is a Mennonite and so, a pacifist. As a pacifist, he would only look at the warfare theology in the Old Testament in one specific light. While this might be true, it doesn't shine through completely in Lind's book. For the most part, Yahweh is a Warrior is an academic overview  and does not attempt outright to address the theological problem that the Ancient Israel's war material poses (except maybe in a comment here and there). Here, I will try to outline his overall treatment of the subject, and with that will provide what I think he might be suggesting as far as the theological problem is concerned.

First, Lind contends that the pre-Mosaic period as put forth in Genesis shows that early Israel was pacifistic (see chapter 2). I won't go into the specifics of his argument, but he basically provides that the violent historical events of this period are seen as wicked. Yahweh is not an agent of war or violence here. The exodus marks the drastic change in Israelite theology, where Yahweh becomes warrior and king; it "provides the fundamental paradigm of holy war in the Old Testament" (p.47). Furthermore, he shows throughout the rest of the book that the holy war narratives in the historical books (and probably the rest of Old Testament--he only covered the historical books) refer back to the exodus. The theology of holy war, then, was a theology inspired mainly by the exodus.

That being said, this was not without gradual changes. As Israel went along, more and more emphasis was placed on the human involvement in war; whereas, in the exodus, Yahweh was the sole agent. This shift in thinking comes to a particular fruition in the monarchical period:

The rebellion of Israel in demanding kingship was not that the people wished to take the next logical step in the chain of social development, but rather that the people wished to change their theo-political system of government for one that was 'like all the nations' . . . , towards autonomy from Yahweh. (p.127)

With this, human involvement in war started to overcome the theology of Yahweh as the lone agent of victory in battle:

In the old tradition a military crisis was responded to by a voluntary militia which depended for victory upon the intervention of the divine. Miracle was now [in 2 Samuel] replaced by professional army. The pathetic attempt to preserve the form of the ancient tradition only highlights the fact that this form was emptied of its real content--faith in the decisive act of Yahweh--and replaced by faith in the professional army. The shift is further emphasized by the fact that Yahweh is not mentioned once in the narrative. (p.118)

As an aside, his use of the word 'pathetic' is probably telling of his pacifism; he obviously doesn't approve. This can also be seen in a statement he makes early on: "If one truly believes in the promise of grace that God will give the land, then one has no need to take the way of works by fighting for it" (p.38). To use the word 'pathetic' is to not understand the way ancient Israel operated as a community. While he no doubt did understand this (and better than I do), we see here the pacifist talking and not the biblical scholar. While I agree with his general sentiment, I wouldn't say the attempt was pathetic. The nature of and the nuance present within Israel's cultural development does not support such a claim.

So, then, one could gather from Lind's treatment that Yahweh liberated Israel from Egypt by force, and from this, Israel developed a theology of warfare, in which Yahweh was always on their side fighting for them, looking out for their interests at the cost of the interests of others. Over time, maybe Israel became a little more honest with themselves, acknowledging that they were the ones waging war. Or maybe their priorities changed; they came to honor warriors above prophets, and armies above Yahweh. Whatever it was, we return to the initial pacifism that defined the pre-Mosaic period when we come to Jesus, whom Lind brings up in the very last page, probably to suggest a kind of supersessionism (p.174).

Lind's approach carries with it a few problems. 1) He relies too much on the historicity of many of the narratives he covers, including the exodus. 2) He relies too much on the documentary hypothesis, which, as far as I have come to see, is more ambiguous than he treats it. 3) He is too confident about the dates of events. His whole treatment of the warfare material basically relies on the timeline he has constructed, one that may or may not actually be accurate. 4) He does not address the question of Yahweh's actual involvement in the war stories of Israel. He doesn't seem to object to Yahweh's involvement in the exodus, and certain comments of his suggest that he does not accept Yahweh's participation in other war stories, like the conquest; but why not? If they are as historical as he treats them, why shouldn't we accept Israel's testimony?

Overall, I would not recommend Lind's book for someone casually interested in the topic of war in the Old Testament. Not that it isn't good, but it is very dense and quite technical. However, for the serious student of this material, do not overlook it. It offers a lot, not just for the study of Israel's warfare theology, but for several areas of Old Testament study.

Purchase Yahweh is a Warrior on Amazon (here)

Entrapment, or Yet Another Aspect of Reformed Thinking I Cannot Stand

I've been taking an apologetics course, and I have found a new nemesis: reformed apologetics (Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman's term).(1) Reformed apologetics starts with the foundational premise, "Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false." These apologists make no attempt to objectively approach something; they consciously choose to start with this premise, and they want to instill in Christians ultimate confidence and certainty, not even deeming possible the truth of any other worldview. Thus, reformed apologetics merely consists of revealing to everyone else that their worldviews are wrong.

Furthermore, they do not think the human mind can determine what is true, so they reject all attempts to discover truth by rationally analyzing and evaluating reality, especially the Bible. The Bible, they say, is what we should use to analyze everything else; all facts must conform to Scripture's teaching. Scripture itself should not be subjected to critical analysis.

What we have here is a trap. They establish Christianity as their foundation, and then they wall themselves (and others) in so that they cannot get out. The belief system is perfectly sealed, not subject to any doubt or questioning, but immutable and safe from all adaptation.

If significant questioning or concrete evidence is presented against a reformed apologist, he will appeal to mystery, or to the fallen state of human reason. Take for example predestination and free will. Ask a reformed person how an action can be both predestined by God and a free action for which the human is morally responsible; he will either say, "it's a mystery," or "it doesn't make sense because our reason has been tainted by sin."

Do you see how this is a trap? The system is conveniently set up with the all the necessary provisions to dismiss all questioning and all doubt.

First of all, beginning with the presupposition, "Christianity is true and everything else is false," is absolute intellectual dishonesty. This is not the mindset of someone actually concerned about knowing what is true. It is circular reasoning.

All non-Christian worldviews are false.
How do you know they are false?
Because Christianity is true.
How do you know Christianity is true?
Because of the Bible.
How do you know the Bible is true?
Because of the Holy Spirit.
How do you know the Holy Spirit exists?
Because of the Bible.
...

Or, see two actual examples:

Why should I believe in Jesus?
Cornelius Van Til: Because Jesus is God(2)

Why should I believe in the Bible?
Gordon Clark: Because the Bible is the starting point for all knowledge(3)

(Maybe thinking is just too hard?)

Secondly, responding to all evidence or reasoning against one's beliefs by appealing to mystery, the sinful state of human reason, or some other spin-doctoring, is dangerous. It creates and fuels ignorance, and has no real interest in knowing what actual truth is, but is merely interested in maintaining what one already believes to be true. Except he doesn't acknowledge it as a belief, but embraces it as fact, and rejects everything that suggests otherwise. "This is true. You question it because you're sinful." This attitude is unwise on so many levels.

Such a system of thinking is a step toward insanity. No wonder so many people are leaving the church; they can see this blatant ignorance and will have no part of it. Well, have no part of it! Don't buy into this kind of "reasoning." It is insufficient and often ridiculous. Christian faith should not consist of blind certainty and a refusal to face questions and doubt.

Why would someone willingly put oneself in the cave that Plato spoke of?

Israel as witness knows that if Yahweh is not endlessly criticized and subverted, Yahweh will also become an absolute, absolutizing idol. - Walter Brueggemann

Notes:
(1) The description of reformed apologetics here comes from, "Reformed Apologetics: God Said It," part 4 of Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Jr., Faith Has its Reasons, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005).
(2) See Ibid., 319.
(3) See Ibid., 317.