Historical / critical method in 8 rules

April DeConick over at The Forbidden Gospels Blog is establishing 8 rules for historical study in these two posts:
Creating Jesus Ground Rules
We must say "no" to the miraculous

Essentially she is trying to answer the question of how did the early Christians come to believe Jesus was God. While the series isn't finished I suspect she is going in the direction of the typical mainstream scholarship: Jesus died, the apostles were bummed they try and make sense of it so they attach importance to his death as a center piece of their theology it gets tied to savior god myths.... I'll keep reading because Dr. DeConick is sharp.

But I thought the rules pretty good. So I'm going to repeat them here in my own words

1. No apologetics. Study this history the way you would any other.
2. No miracles or supernatural events.
   
3. No heresy. We treat all ancient authors equally, not giving weight to the eventual winners.
4. Religions develop in religious communities they don't fall out of the sky.
5. All sources have human authorship.
6. The sources were written by people in the midst of events, the authors don't understand how events will turn out.
7. The authors are not neutral. They are writing apology and polemic and propaganda, and they need to be deconstructed as those.
8. Our sources are dependent on the human being: physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, socially.
   

Review of called to communion

Adventism is a general group of denominations that came out of William Miller's groups like the Seventh Day Adventist (16million), Jehovah's witnesses (7m), and another 2 dozen smaller sects that are around another million people.

In many ways you can create a continuum from more less catholic:
Catholicism -> Episcopalian -> Presbyterian -> Congregationalist -> Baptist -> Adventist
they are sort of the opposite extreme when it comes to creeds and the traditions of the church.

To pick an example Presbyterians hold on to most church teachings, most evangelicals believe in the first 7 ecumenical councels. Adventists deny the legitimacy of every one directly deriving their interpretation from scripture and the second largest group (Jehovah's Witnesses are explicitly Arian) openly disagreeing with the first ecumenical council. William Miller had rejected the Catholic dates for various holidays and went back and used a Karaite Jewish calendar and many of the groups today won't use catholic dating for various Christian holidays. His followers called themselves "the Remnant" believing that the vast majority of the church has fallen into apostasy; that mainstream Christianity was a hindrance not a help to salvation. Through the last 150 years the Adventist heritage has included some pretty sharp language towards the Catholic church even after it went out of fashion among the rest of evangelical Christianity. Adventism has always held that the biblical prophecies regarding "Rome" aren't about the Roman state but the Roman church (as in Roman Catholic Church). They deny any connection other than a negative one to Rome. I'll link off here to the article from Catholic answers on Adventism since I think its right and gives the theme.

So another way of looking at this is these groups are not just less Catholic in practice but less Catholic in ideology. Across the board they reject key principles of the Catholic faith. It is my contention that the history of Protestantism is moving further and further away from Catholicism, seeing Catholicism as an ancient and defective form of Christianity to be replaced with a modern and more and more seeing it as a historical artifact, a form of hard supersessionism taken one step further. They have in the last 20 years also been very effective in moving out of the United States. For example the Seventh Day Adventist is roughly 80% international and growing at over 10% annually.

If one looks at Baptist theology in the last 300 years they also have had similar ideas, identifying themselves in spirit with groups like Bogomils, Albigensians, Montanist, etc.... (see History of the Baptists for a sample). "Baptists are not Protestants" was a common theme a hundred years ago. In the last hundred years with the rise of "evangelical Christianity" Protestants more and more have become baptists often in all but name and the vast majority of evangelical Christianity agrees with the baptists on every major doctrine. And the baptists themselves have moved closer to the Adventists, it is not at all unusual to hear a evangelical degraded "traditions of men", or talk of Jesus not religion. So the movement is towards denying any kind of meaningful belief in "One holy Catholic and Apostolic church". Moreover while the ties to these earlier groups from Christianson in principle are denied in practice the theology has been edging ever closer, as has been commented on multiple times (see Against the Protestant Gnostics for a good book on the convergence).

So we have a Protestant ecumenical movement that looks to make the Catholic church just another denomination. Conversely, Catholic ecumenicism seeks to reunify the churches, that is convert everyone back to Catholicism. The Protestant movement is quite popular and the view of the catholic church that is friendly while denying all of its particular claims, is popular. I was curious about how this would work in practice given these countervailing trends.

So I thought I would engage in discussion at a Catholic ecumenicalism blog entitled "Called to communion", that I had assumed would represent a good sample of the ecumenical group. Perhaps, they do, but what I found was this blog combines pride in hillbilly know nothingness with insane level of arrogance and hold that up as the grace of the infallible church. By the end of a few days on it I felt like making a donation to Jack Chick in their honor. It put me in a "Who would ever want to unify with that?" frame as far as the church. This blog is an anti-apologetic if ever I saw one. So my review is short and sweet. Stay away. This is an ecumenical blog with no interest in discussion, no intent at dialog where the people are to put it bluntly assholes.

On issue after issue after issue they were simply dead wrong on the fact. On issue after issue after issue they projected a view of the Catholic church as inherently and obviously superior. Further they actually believed themselves to be personally superior, a "we are the catholic elite". I literally had somebody tell me on the blog I had to earn the right to discuss stuff, "prove myself". Oh like the thousand plus pages I've written on church doctrine, law and history aren't proof?

Specifically their argument of the canon fell apart on dates multiple times, they had things dependent on other things that happened after; their argument on translation fell apart; and at the end their was absolute assertion that virginity pledges were part of the Jewish faith. In other words, simply factual lies defend with personal insults and attacks. A disgrace to their church. Mind you I wasn't the only one, the other protestant was having similar problems getting them to actual engage with material. There is a definite belief that a poor apologetic presented rudely becomes a better apologetic. But ultimately the specifics weren't the real problem; the real problem is that after 500 years conservative Catholics aren't willing to admit that there were structural problems that led to the reformation. A complete failure to understand that Protestants in general are happy with the outcome of the reformation, and that reunification is going to require addressing reform.

Which is interesting because the last time I was exposed to Catholic apologetics, while I thought that blog was perfectly polite my respect for the Catholic church also went down. This was due to exposure to their apologetics which I find weaker than Protestant apologetics when examined. Interestingly, one of the posters was the same on both blogs, on his own site he was capable of acting like a normal human being, but not on Called to Communion. Which ties this back to the current topic, we are discussing the negative effects of small groups with similar ideology in the previous post and I think this blog may provide an example of how this plays out. While each of these people on their own may be arrogant, limited in their breadth of theology and coming from a similar background I suspect normally they are capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. By constructing a group composed of all people with the same frame they actually enhanced these negatives. From their own perspective they are "supporting one another" but the net effect is to make their group entirely dysfunctional for its supposed goal, which is outreach not support. So as a case study in the current topic, how small cohesive groups become abusive and oblivious to their failings, the Called to Communion blog might be of value.

___________

See also

• For thus unfamiliar with apocalyptic style of literature directed at the Roman Catholic Church, Uriah Smith's Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is available in comic book form online.

The pluses and minus of cohesion in church groups

Icy mountain posted an article on group dynamics that he wanted to discuss. It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of making groups cohesive.

Essentially increase cohesion and:

1. Members enjoy the group more
2. Output per individual is higher
3. The group has an easier time achieving goals

On the other hand you also get much more group think including higher levels of self censorship and scapegoating of deviants.

Needless to say this is a good fit for the blog in terms of how discipline operates. This thread is mainly an open forum on what level of cohesion is desirable. So I'll throw it open how cohesive do you think churches should be and what about small church groups?

Bultmann's order for John

As I mentioned in my 10 really good bibles you may not know about post, I've been recently reading Price's Pre-Nicene New Testament. This is a "new testament" that makes heavy use of both lower and higher criticism. One area that has bothered readers for thousands of years have been the discontinuities in John. For example Jesus leaving a place and then later in the gospel arriving there. Rudolf Bultmann in Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941) reconstructs the Signs Gospel (which is an theoretical older form of John that got redacted into a longer work). After having done this he is able to reconstruct what likely happened, the pages of the pre-redacted dropped, got scrambled and the redactor put them together incorrectly. Seeing continuity breaks he smoothed over the transitions and still today Canonical John is out of order. When I read the argument in Bultmann (English translation I don't speak German) it made a lot of sense to me, and wondered what John would read like in the correct order. In fact I wished that Bultmann's Gospel had been written more like a commentary with a correct John with Signs highlighted rather than an argument for these various changes. The Bultmann book when you read it, is taken up by the actual reconstruction and argument.

One thing that is very nice about Price's book is that John is in Bultmann's order. Having now tried it, wow does it make a difference! So since people aren't going to buy Price based on my recommendation I figured I would presents the corrected order to read John in, seriously give it a try. Because it is hard to follow visually for those trying to see how chapters break up, I've color coded each of the divided chapters.

1, 2:1-13a, 5, 7:15-24, 3:22-30, 4, 6, 7:1-14, 7:25-29, 7:40-43:, 7:30-32, 7:44-52, 7:37-39, 9, 8:12-20, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30-42, 11, 12:1-19, 7:53, 8:1-11, 2:13b-25, 8:31-59, 3:1-13, 3:31-36, 12:20-33, 7:33-36, 8:21-30, 12:34-36a, 3:14-21, 12:44-50, 12:36b-43, 13:1-35, 15:9-17, 14:15-24, 15:1-8, 15:18-27, 16:1-23a, 14:1-14, 16:23b-33, 14:25-30, 13:36-38, 17-21

As an aside Price writes a great introduction speculating on a Mandaeist origin with Cerinthus as a possible author. For Bultmann's Ecclesiastical redactor he thinks Huller's guess of Polycarp of Smyrna. Who knows, but if anyone wants to discuss those guesses I'm game.


_____

Using the online bible browser you can read it in order here, except for the half verse issues

John 1, John 2:1-13a, John 5, John 7:15-24, John 3:22-30, John 4, John 6, John 7:1-14, John 7:25-29, John 7:40-43:, John 7:30-32, John 7:44-52, John 7:37-39, John 9, John 8:12-20, John 10:19-29, John 10:1-18, John 10:30-42, John 11, John 12:1-19, John 7:53, John 8:1-11, John 2:13-25 (13b-25), John 8:31-59, John 3:1-13, John 3:31-36, John 12:20-33, John 7:33-36, John 8:21-30, John 12:34-36 (36a), John 3:14-21, John 12:44-50, John 12:36-43 (36b-42), John 13:1-35, John 15:9-17, John 14:15-24, John 15:1-8, John 15:18-27, John 16:1-23a, John 14:1-14, John 16:23-33 (23b-33), John 14:25-30, John 13:36-38, John 17, John 18, John 19, John 20, John 21

See also:

2 of Bultmann's books are available online: Jesus and the Word, Kerygma and Myth

The counter argument to the Christ Myth

____

See also:

• "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?" by Earl Doherty
• "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" by Richard Carrier
• Debunking the Historical Jesus by Dan Barker, Freedom from Religion Foundation
• Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ by R. G. Price, rationalrevolution.net
• Jesus Never Existed.com
• Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth by Greg Kane

Wayne Grudem and heresy

So I was just wrapping up a great conversation on New Leaven. At the end of the conversation Suzanne McCarthy (of Suzanne's Bookshelf -- translation, Abecedaria -- foreign language keyboarding, silence is the ornament -- personal) and I were dialoguing. Suzanne frequently writes on egalitarianism vs. complementarianism. Complementarianism is just a smidge to the left of patriarchy, on a left right axis, there are complementarians that would not qualify as supporters of patriarchy and there are patriarchal doctrines that many complementarians would reject. So for example, complementarians will quote Dabney's materials without appealing to his authority while patriarchs openly embrace Dabney.

Anyway if we cut through the details the complementarian argument is basically women should be oppressed politically and especially in the church because the bible teaches that girls have cooties. So again cutting through the details Suzanne is is a top notch amateur linguist who spends a great deal of her time proving that the bible does not in fact teach that girls have cooties. Which is similiar to my defense series where I disproved the historical claim that the girls & cooties theology has been a constant through Christian history.

What was interesting about the thread was that Suzanne raised a point which shows a fairly clear cut heresy in complementarian writing, which means looking at the details. First, you may want to read the notion of the economic trinity, "ontological equality but economic subordination" directly from Grudem himself in his Systematic Theology (p251). Bruce Ware in his 2006, Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission Among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead argued:

The Father and Son are fully equal in their deity as each possesses the identically same divine nature, yet the eternal and inner-Trinitarian Father-Son relationship is marked, among other things by an authority and submission structure in which the Father is eternally in authority over the Son and the Son eternally in submission to the Father. There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son

Normally trinity stuff bores me, but what is important here is to show that subordination does not imply inequality. Unlike the patriarchs the complementarians don't want to actually assert that women are less then men, just that they ontologically equal while being functionally subordinate. Scripture isn't clear on this at all with regard to men and women but they assert it is clear on this with regard to the Godhead. Further they argue that marriage is meant to teach us mystically about the nature of God's relationship. A perfect example of this argument is from the opening statement of my debate with Frank Turk of TeamPyro.

So to summarize so far what we have is a triad:

1. The son is subordinate in authority to the father
2. The church is likewise subordinate to Christ
3. Wives are likewise subordinate to their husbands

Attack point (1) and the whole argument falls apart. The counter attack is that point 1 is a clear cut violation of the creeds. Now this is tricky. The words "authority" and "power" have diverged in English language meaning. The word that is getting translated to authority (or right) is the greek word (ἐξουσίαν, exousia). In the Latin Vulgate this is getting translated to the word potestas.

So for example 1Cor 11:10:
ESV: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Greek: διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους
Vulgate: deo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput propter angelos

The problem of course is that for 1700 years Christians have asserted the equality with respect to potestas. Now in the creeds potestas gets translated as power:

latin: In Deitatis unitate personæ tres sunt unius ejusdemque essentiæ, potential ac æternitatis; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanctus.” (Westminster Confession Latin)

English: “In the unity of the Godhead head there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. (Westminster Confession English)

or to pick another example (again from Suzanne):

non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio

For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.

1. The creeds assert there is no difference in potestas between father and son
2. If you believe the creeds are biblical then there is no difference in exousia between father and son
3. Thus if you believe the creeds you must hold that the doctrine that the bible teaches that the son and father are equal only in dunamis but that the son is subordinate in exousia is false.
4. Hence the argument the son is subordinate in authority (in English) is false.
5. Hence the little triad arguing for the subordination of women is false.

Or to put it simply if you buy Grudam / Ware position you are advocating Arianism. This argument has actually been responded to be the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood though (IMHO) they fail to address the key point (link). As an aside Arian Christians have a long history of treating women well, I'm sure they don't like their beliefs being co-opted by the girls have cooties crowd.

-----

See also:

• A sample document where Bruce Ware argues that it was impossible for God to have sent a female savior because of eternal submission (Could Our Savior Have Been a Woman? The Relevance of Jesus' Gender for His Incarnational Mission)
• The original article at Suzanne's site:
• Summary of the trinity debate part1, part2, part3.
• An amusing video on cooties.
• John Piper and Wayne Grudem directly address this point in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood
  

Xenos, Akron

This is right now a placeholder thread to allow for discussion of Xenos of Stow (blog) near Akron. I don't see a church discipline issue here so it is somewhat off topic but this blog has a Xenos following of sorts.

I'll replace this text with a real introduction to the church once I have a chance.


The news item that caused this activity is a newspaper article Ties that Bind (reposted here), (reader comments at newspaper) in a newspaper called the Akron Business Journal which repeated allegations by a woman about cult like activity with no attempt at meaningful verification. They also seem to be conflating a religious dispute, a personal dispute and a disorderly conduct arrest, to this is not quality journalism.

The woman from the article, an Anne Marie Smith maintains a blog: Parents against Xenos. I've read through the posts on it. It is difficult to piece together the story but what I believe happened was that she is a Catholic and allowed her son to join a Xenos youth group with a friend. At age 17 the son (Tom) decided he wanted a believers baptism, the parents were strongly opposed as for them this is a major sin (CCC 1121, 698) and the relationship deteriorated badly. At 18 Tom moves out into Xenos youth housing and she starts a protest movement. Tom is embarrassed and upset and the family is now estranged. She uses some rather extreme language, "devil" "cult" "brainwashing"... but so far everything she describes seems like mainstream evangelical Christianity. The son maintains his own blog as well.

There also according to the article is some related issue Jon and Brenda Roszkowski filing a police report about harrasement that was Xenos related but so far I can't find details.

____________

There are two threads about Xenos, Columbus (a sister megachurch), primarily dealing with discipline procedures. The discussion on breaking away has to do with social pressure issues.

Breaking away
Interview with Dennis

Keith McCallum wrote a response on his blog: cult thing part1, part2 and I'm dialoguing there regarding tone related issues.