Thursday, January 29, 2015

The China-Taiwan Situation: An Alternate-History American Version

I almost never post on Taiwanese politics, and I'm not going to make a habit of it. Picture the emotional involvement of an issue in the US like abortion, and then apply it to something as deeply felt as your personal and national identity.

As someone who didn't grow up here, increasingly I feel like I want to support my Taiwanese friends but by wading into the fray would only compromise my ability to serve. I also have a lot of friends in Texas who are from China (and a few in China too), and I know they see things differently. That's the tough part. It's not that we see the same thing and argue about it, everyone sees it differently. The argument is that you're seeing it wrong. The best one can hope to do as an outsider is ask questions and try to piece together what the historical and political context actually looks like. One problem is that even the words you use to describe the situation demonstrate how you feel about it. It's hard or impossible to find neutral vocabulary.
 I've noticed people's eyes tend to glaze over when I try to explain the complicated relationship between Taiwan and China, because there's no way to do it without going back and explaining history. I am going to try an analogy which uses a sort of alternate American history, which might help people get a better handle on the situation, if they have any wish to do so. It's long, but the familiar names and geographical nearness might help people picture the relationships better, and take away the associations we make with the actual countries involved. Those familiar with the issue might even find it amusing.

A final note: I am not trying to imply anything by my selection of which country to represent which country, except a very rough geographical parallel if you flip East Asia and rotate it 90 degrees. Also, the Soviet Union represents itself, there wasn't another good choice for the historical/geographic context.

So, then, imagine if...

See how quickly you can guess which country represents which...


...After the forces of the British Monarchy were defeated in America, there were just the Articles of Confederation, and no one got around to a Constitution so quickly. The United States was very much a collection of various states and not so much a unified country, and states and regional alliances scuffled with each other, though order was slowly being established.

Let us then say that Mexico had, previously, decided that rather than be a colony of Spain or anyone else they wanted to be a Power too, and went through a surprisingly rapid period of modernization, reaching WWI levels of technology while the various American States still retained the Jeffersonian ideal of "keeping the factories in Europe" and maintained a traditionally conservative agrarian society. The north/south cultural differences still applied, but did not lead to a north/south Civil War, and America was considered to have two capitols, the southern capitol of Atlanta, and the northern one of New York City.

Now Mexico, on dubious grounds, announced that the newly developing state of Texas could not be considered part of the United States, and occupied it as part of the Mexican Empire, which also spanned across the Caribbean and included French Louisiana, as the result of a previous clash with the British Empire in America. (England lost badly, contributing to its overthrow and the establishment of the new democratic government in America.)

Meanwhile as in real history, labor union activists and crypto-anarchists formed a movement from within which various leaders rose to power. One, we'll call him Boss Moe, was particularly revered and ended up as both the symbolic and real leader of the whole movement. This uprising happened across a wide swath of the country, and the activists were influential in various places and controlled some state and city governments. In the Southern capitol of Atlanta, however, a national constitution was being drafted, and it was decided that the weakly-linked states should become a united country.

The constitution called for a government with a legislature and president. George Washington, being a respected statesman who had fought in the revolutionary war against England was chosen. He was popular both with Constitutionalists and the Labor activists, who called themselves Communists, but with the delay between the revolution and establishing a constitution was quite old. After his passing, the new president -we'll call him Sean Cachét- was a strong supporter of the new constitutional government and also strongly opposed to the Communists. He launched a campaign to bring the states into a stronger union, and also began to lead the Constitutionalists in a fight against the Communists, resulting in a civil war.

It was at this time that the Mexican Empire invaded the United States, using its more advanced army to push from Texas across the South to take the Southern Capitol of Atlanta in a bloody battle, then subjecting the city to widespread pillaging and atrocities. Sean Cachet and Boss Moe signed a temporary truce in order to fight their mutual foe, but both knew their fight would resume if Mexico was ever defeated.

Gradually during this time Europe had been consumed in a massive war, and their various colonies and allies were affected. Brazil, having broken free of Portuguese rule long ago, was an economic powerhouse, and had succeeded in taking over nearly all of the South American continent. Worried that Brazil might try to interfere with its plans in the Caribbean, Mexico launched a surprise attack on a major Brazilian navy base on Trinidad, destroying a good portion of its Caribbean Navy. Brazil declared war on the Mexican Empire, and eventually defeated it totally, having intervened successfully in the European War as well.

It was decided after the war that the areas taken over by the Mexican Empire should be restored to the nations to which they originally belonged. One area of confusion was Cuba, which had previously been part of the British Empire in America but had already been part of the Mexican Empire during the Revolutionary war and subsequent rise of the US government. Though Brazil debated the idea of retaining control of Cuba, as it had Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, it was decided after some discussion that having originally been part of America, giving it to the new constitutionally-established United States of America which currently governed America made the most sense.

Shortly after the war ended, as expected, the fight between the Constitutionally-elected government of the US led by Sean Cachet and the Communist movement under Boss Moe resumed. Eventually, through the leadership of Moe, a lot of grassroots support, and some risky strategic moves that paid off, the Communists got the upper hand. The Constitutional government was pushed back, eventually moving their base of operations from the Capitol in Atlanta off the mainland to Havana, Cuba.

Cuba was now an interesting place. The original inhabitants were fierce Caribbean tribes, many with a tradition of headhunting, who over time had largely been displaced from the coastal areas by early American settlers, mostly from Florida. Those living in the mountains had resisted the Mexican occupiers so strongly that they were mostly annihilated, though their deeds resulted in a change of policy in the Mexican Empire to treat local populations less severely to prevent similar uprisings. Mexico had also built up the first real infrastructure in Cuba, however, establishing roads and bridges and schools and plantations. Many Floridians living in Cuba spoke Mexican Spanish, some thought of themselves as citizens of the Mexican Empire, and most had begun to take the benefits of Mexico's advanced levels of technology and civilization for granted.

Some prominent Cubans had tried to declare independence for Cuba after the war ended, setting up their own local government, but with the arrival of Sean Cachet's troops to establish control of the island, most vanished mysteriously. Many Cubans with roots in Florida and other parts of America were initially excited to be part of America again, but were disappointed by the harshness with which they were treated by the incoming troops, many of whom came from remote parts of the USA and were unfamiliar with the customs and more modernized society to which Cubans had grown accustomed. Cubans were increasingly upset to find they were treated not as long-lost Americans being returned to the fold, but as a colony that was merely another piece in the struggle for the American mainland.

After some violent incidents which led to uprisings among Cubans, martial law was established, as Sean Cachet and the defeated Constitutionalists were forced from the mainland entirely and retreated to Cuba, bringing with them American symbolic artifacts like the Liberty Bell, to preserve the American government and plan their next steps. Boss Moe and the Communists, wishing to finish off their foe entirely, planned to launch an attack from the Florida Keys, but the Constitutionalists fought them off and retained control of several of the Keys. Meanwhile Cubans were treated with suspicion by the USA Government based in Havana, and numerous searches for Communist sympathizers were held. The local Cuban Spanish was banned from public use, and children were taught American history, with Cuban history suppressed or altered. At the same time, economic and land reforms took place which laid the ground for decades of prosperity. Former tenant farmers were given their land, with much extra labor going into industrialization, which was modernized with the help of the basic infrastructure Mexico had already put in, and considerable post-war aid from Brazil.

As time went on, though the USA maintained for years that an offensive would be launched from Cuba to retake the American mainland, it became obvious this was not possible. Moe consolidated Communist control of America, moved the new Red Capitol up to the old northern capitol of New York City, and declared the foundation of the PUSA, the People's United States of America. Moe continued to rule until he died, exalted by Americans as the father of the New America, despite having initiated flawed economic reforms based on communist ideology that caused a massive famine and the deaths of tens of millions of Americans. His successors, praising him as their spiritual example, nevertheless pursued a more pragmatic course, and America's economy soon began to develop.

Brazil, staunchly anti-Communist, still recognized the USA as the legitimate government of America and provided some level of support, though this was made more difficult by the fact that USA rule in Cuba was not democratic, and the government continued to detain and execute Cubans accused of Communist sympathies. Most non-Communist nations, followed Brazil in continuing to recognize the USA as the legitimate government of America, but as time went on and it became clear that the PUSA was the new permanent government of America, some began to recognize it.

The USA government, permanently exiled in Cuba, berated those who would choose to side with Communists over them, but eventually even Brazil changed over, recognizing the PUSA as the government of America. In doing so, however, it also committed to protect the USA from Communist aggression. With Brazil as the Caribbean Superpower, the PUSA therefore could do nothing against the USA at this point, though it demanded that Cuba be "reunified" with the rest of America, a complex claim considering that while Cuba had been considered part of its American Empire by Britain, it had at no point been part of either the USA or the PUSA. The PUSA's claim was that, being now synonymous with America, the USA must be an illegitimate government, a renegade province, and what had once been considered part of America ought to be returned to it. Hundreds of millions of Americans, having grown up hearing no other opinion and patriotic to their country, said the same.

Brazil's situation was complicated. On the one hand, geopolitical pragmatism dictated that the PUSA -now considered synonymous with America and usually simply referred to as America- Communist or not, with its massive population and rising economy would be a major player on the world stage in the days to come. On the other hand, with the Cold War going on between the Free world and Communism, Brazil's citizens and congress strongly supported the US, as an ally against Communism in the Caribbean and also a nation that was at least nominally a Constitutional and democratic government like itself. This led to Brazil not conducting official nation-to-nation diplomacy but doing quite a bit of nonofficial business on an ongoing basis, including selling advanced Brazilian weapons to the USA to help deter the PUSA from trying a forceful annexation. Meanwhile it assured the PUSA that it considered there to be only one America, not two.

After a ruined Mexico accepted the terms of complete surrender demanded by Brazil, Brazil turned around to rebuild Mexico, where it maintains military bases to this day. Also to this day, Mexico is vilified by the PUSA and hated by many in America, for the memory of the destruction wrought in the invasion and the cruelty of the occupation and atrocities committed in places like Atlanta. This stands in noticeable contrast to Cubans, who have a more ambivalent view as they mostly don't consider the Mexican occupation to have been any more damaging to their island than the American one that followed, and Mexican media and culture remain influential and popular in Cuba.

In Cuba, Sean Cachet had passed away and his son who succeeded him as president-for-life had eventually allowed increased liberties among Cubans. When his son in turned passed away, the first free election in Cuba was held, and the first native-born USA president of Cuba, Lee Dunway, began his term. It was then that the idea of a nation of Cuba began to be revived, decades after having been crushed with the arrival of the USA after the defeat of Mexico. At the time, the USA government recognized no such idea, as it regarded Cuba as merely one of the provincial territories of America to which circumstances had restricted it. This claim extended to all former parts of America, including even Alaska which had since become its own nation, nestled uneasily between the powers of the PUSA and Soviet Russia.

USA citizens were divided on the question of their identity as well. Asking someone who lived in Cuba whether they were American, some, especially those who came to Cuba with the US relocation, would say "of course, we're all American." Others, especially those who traced their lineage back to the Floridians who came before the Mexican colonization, would likely reply. "Of course not, my family have lived in Cuba for ages, I know nothing of America, I am Cuban," and might even react to being called American with anger, thinking of the USA treatment of native Cubans. But with Lee Dunway as US president, Cuba entered a new era, and something like a Cuban identity began to emerge. Slowly people began to use the terms USA and Cuba interchangeably.

On the American mainland, the lure of America's vast market had attracted much foreign investment, and a modernizing economy allowed America to strengthen and modernize its armed forces as well. "Returning Cuba to America" remained a major military goal. The Florida Straits had always been a barrier to this, since the USA's Brazilian and domestic weapons advantage made invading across the strait a very difficult and costly exercise. But in the years that followed, as following the fall of the Soviet Union Brazil enjoyed sole world superpower status, America began to close the gap.

A gap still remained, however, as proven when America launched missiles into the Florida strait to convey its displeasure of Lee Dunway's pro-Cuba policy as he sought reelection (an election they sought to influence even as they didn't recognize it). In response, Brazil, who had previously not permitted Dunway to enter the country, sent aircraft carriers to the Florida Strait, a clear message that they intended to enforce their policy of preserving the status quo. As a result America pulled back, but made a strong bid to increase its power in the Florida Strait so that foreign intervention in its own coastal waters would be impossible in the future. It also continued to buy off the few nations which still recognized the USA as the government of America, providing economic incentives for them to swap to recognizing the PUSA instead. It also used its growing influence and seat on the permanent UN security council to ban the USA from participating in various global organizations and pressured other nations not to having dealings with them.

The internal debate in Cuba raged, with many people claiming the USA had no choice but to join with the PUSA, called it "rejoining America." "After all," they said "we are Americans too. It's better for Americans to be united than divided against each other in this way. And our economy can never recover apart from America, America is too big and too close. Eventual unification is inevitable." Other hotly protested. "Cuba is Cuba. It may have been part of the British Empire in America but it was never really part of America, and we are not Americans anyway, we are Cubans. Joining America would only mean we would lose both our freedom and our identity." Some sought to find a third way, claiming that they would be willing to join the PUSA as a "reunited" "America" but only if the PUSA would reform and become a democratic government more similar to the USA.

The debate among Cubans continues to this day, with an increasing number of USA citizens identifying themselves as Cuban, and considering the USA government to simply be the government of a country called Cuba. This country of Cuba, however, is recognized officially by no one, not even itself, though a few small nations still recognize the USA government as that of America. Recently there was a push for the USA to join the United Nations as "Cuba," reflecting a shift on the part of people the USA government as well. However not everyone agrees.

(And now I think we can wrap up our little game for a conclusion on where things stand now:)

Ironically, as Taiwanese have increasingly seen themselves not as Chinese people living in Taiwan but as having a unique Taiwan-based identity (an identity perceived by many Taiwanese people with older and deeper roots here all along), the current Republic of China administration has worked to improve relations with the People's Republic of China, trying to walk what seems an impossible path, but one in which clarification in any direction could theoretically mean World War 3. Direct flights between Taiwan and Mainland China have already been established for a while now, and various economic and investment agreements have been made. It is unknown how all this will look in the future, with the Taiwanese populace increasingly seeing itself as "Taiwanese," the ROC and PROC both seeking closer ties between Taiwan and China while neither acknowledges claiming the existence of any country called Taiwan and both claim to be the sole rightful government of China. Massive protests occurred last year, partly because of the increasingly wide gap between this growing sense of Taiwanese identity among the citizenry and the government's insistence on staying on the pragmatic path to nowhere. Yet, as I said, any attempt to rectify the situation has the potential to produce dire outcomes, which is why the US opposes any unilateral attempts to change the situation. (The current administration seems to be trying to therefore proceed very slowly in a bilateral way, which some officials in China seem amenable to, but it does so to a great extent against the wishes and self-determination of the Taiwanese people)

The US, much less able to interfere in the Taiwan Strait than during the days of Lee Teng-hui but still the greatest power in the Pacific, has claimed it opposes a unilateral move from either side to change the situation, either by the Republic of China government to claim it is not the (non)government of China but of something called Taiwan, or by China to attack Taiwan and take control of the island.

Meanwhile, Beijing has made moves to adjust the borders and sphere of control of China, especially in the East and South China Seas, to the alarm of various surrounding nations. Japan, at first forcibly disarmed and then voluntarily limited to self-defense forces since the end of the War, has begun to rebuild its army again.

As an outsider, what I hear my Taiwanese friends wanting to say is: 
We are Taiwan! Taiwan is our home and we love it, and we want the world to know about it too. The government should hear our voice, remember that the future of Taiwan is not China but us the people of Taiwan, and stop ignoring us to act on its own. We are watching.

And what I hear the current administration of Taiwan wanting to say is:
We are the Republic of China! Young people should remember everything they enjoy is because of our hard work. We are walking on a tightrope, and China is waiting at the other end. If we don't move, we fall, but we don't want to run either, and we don't dare cut the rope and trust the safety nets. So we are trying to walk very, very slowly. Stop shaking the rope.


The two sides both make some valid points but there doesn't seem to be any way to reconcile them, since one's future relies on changes that seem likely to make the future look untenable to those who have to make those changes. So, there are lots of arguments... pray for Taiwan!

Sunday, January 25, 2015

3 Things I Wish Christians would Stop Doing

In this post I want to talk about 3 things I've noticed a lot of Christians doing (and of which I've certainly been guilty at times as well) which I submit aren't doing us any favors. I believe noticing them and trying to reign them in would strengthen the Church and our witness.

1. Being Careless with the Truth in our "Edifying Anecdotes"


Many of you have doubtless heard the story about the church in a persecuted part of the world where one day masked men broke in brandishing guns and demanded that anyone who wasn't a true believer and ready to meet their God should leave. Once a large portion of the worshippers had fled in panic, the leader removed his mask and said to the preacher something along the lines of "Ok, all the fakers are gone, you can keep going," and he and his team of not-actual-terrorists then joined the worship service.

This very well may be based on an original true story. (If you know the source, feel free to share) The problem is that I've heard it told as a true story many times, and the location seems to wander around. Africa, China, Russia, etc. Did anyone bother to verify the origins of the story before sharing it as true? "Oh, don't be such a stickler," you might think. "the important thing is that it's making a point."
But the same thing happens with miraculous stories...

Recently it has been in the news that a boy who told an amazing story about a trip to heaven while in a coma, having grown up a bit, recanted the story and chided Christians for believing his account which does not adhere to scripture. Lifeway has since pulled the book from its shelves. But these "trip to heaven," "trip to hell" stories which so many people marvel over and find edifying can usually be dismissed offhand early on, not because heaven or hell aren't real places, but because the stories in question describe a creative take on the pop culture version of heaven or hell. That's usually quite different from what we find in scripture, which is that upon dying one goes either into the presence of God or away from His presence to Sheol (Hebrew, "the grave"), and that the fiery place of torment of Matt 25 and pearl-gated golden city of Rev 21 are both descriptions of post-final-judgment destinations, not the immediate destinations of the departed.

(Another common mistake: while we don't know much about Sheol -the waiting place until judgment for those who die without Christ- from scripture, we do know the lake of fire was created for the punishment of satan and his fallen angelic allies (Matt 25:41), and they will suffer there too. Satan is not the ruler of hell, hell was created as his punishment. According to the book of Job, he is not enthroned in some fiery realm like Surt in the Muspelheim of Norse mythology, but apparently roams around the earth itself, which I find in some ways to be a more unnerving image.)

And speaking of angels, fallen or otherwise, there are innumerable stories about angels out there. Some are doubtless true. I've seen a weird thing or two myself. But note that the Bible is not very talkative about angels, at least not in the systematic way that would satisfy our curiosity (and lead to idolatry...). Angels are not the point- God is, and they are God's messengers. Scripture also describes angels as guarding us, though not to the extent that the "guardian angel" idea has been developed in popular thinking. (Psalm 91:11 is very general, Matt 18:10 is very interesting statement by Jesus but leaves us with more questions than answers, and it is unclear whether Hebrews 13:2's "some" is talking about people among his readership or referring to Old Testament accounts like Lot's angelic guests) 

How angels feel when you share questionable anecdotes about them...
("DespondentAngelMetCemHead" by Infrogmation -
Own work. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.)
I like the story about the guy in the jungle being protected by angels from the people who were going to attack him, who said he was surrounded by armed guards (who were invisible to him), but it turns out that may not be true either.


I say "may not" because the writers at Snopes dot com (urban legend debunking site) are quite obviously antagonistic towards Christianity (even for faith-inspired stories they had to verify as true due to factual evidence, they feel necessary to interject that they don't think anything supernatural occurred). At the bottom of that article, for example, they include stories of missionaries receiving help just as someone far away felt led to pray for them as supposedly obvious fabrications. I don't know about those particular incidents, but I happen to know that does sometimes happen, because it's happened to me before. On the other hand, they raise some reasonable doubts about the details of the story as presented in print, based on multiple printed versions. My guess would be that the earlier Billy Graham book account is closer to whatever true event inspired the story. Of course it's possible the story is entirely made up, but these things definitely do happen on the mission field, and my guess would be it was in someone's prayer letter and unfortunately things proceeded loosely from there.

However, just because "these things happen" doesn't mean that particular story is true, or should be repeated as a true story, details being altered as time goes on. The snopes article itself ends like this:

Moreover, it's sadly ironic that so many tales contrived to display a particular belief system as The One True Way include fabrications tossed in to better carry the message.

While their sarcasm is unwarranted, there is an important point we can take from it- our willingness to accept and pass along any story because we live in a world where supernatural events can occur is not a good witness, making faith seem like mere credulity. And it's dangerous for us too, a little like building our faith not on the solid rock of God's faithfulness and work in our lives but on the shifting sand of anecdotes that "seem likely."

So should we be finding inspiration in unverifiable stories just because the content is beautiful or motivational? Should we be scared to share any story at all? At least, let's treat them as just that: inspirational but unverifiable stories, and be very, very careful what we pass along as "true." Truth should hold special value to those who believe in the Truth of God's word.

Supernatural events do occur in this world (I have fun stories), and we have real evidence for what we take on faith, but assuming every story, whether miracles, angels, trips to heaven, etc., you hear is true (or not bothering to consider whether it is or not) and passing it along, slowly but surely weakens our habit of testing what we hear. We have to be neither cynical nor naive, like the Bereans who were praised by Paul for not taking his words for granted, but searching the scriptures before accepting them.


2. Confusing Apologetics with Evangelism

(Yes, I know apologetics can be used in an evangelistic way, first hear me out:)

A. Evangelism is not arguing until the other side admits you're right

I think we all know this already, and I'm reminding myself as much as any of you reading this, but we can't debate anyone into the kingdom. So as a method of evangelism, a good debate, beloved by so many educated believers in the Western tradition (me too), serves at best either as a transition for sharing the gospel directly/sharing one's testimony, or to remove the false facades which people claim prevent them from believing, which are really smokescreens and excuses. Having removed those, someone will typically say something like "well I still just don't think God exists." Now they're being honest- all that other stuff was not the basis for their unbelief, it was the other way around. The assumption is "no God," and all the other stuff proceeds from that assumption. Which is why...

B. It is typically not helpful to argue with scientists about evolution

It pains me to say that, having been raised in the proud homeschooled evangelical tradition of "creationism vs. evolution" debates, and have years of experience doing so online and occasionally in person. Sometimes I've "won" the discussion and sometimes I've "lost" (at least, I did my best to learn from each discussion, so they were profitable in that sense), but what I would say is that unless you have a pretty good grasp of the scientific principles involved and some basic understanding of what the modern set of theories collectively described as evolution are in 2015, you may actually do more harm than good in trying to jump into the fray. One thing you have to realize is that the average non-believing scientist (or worse, 'science groupie') considers questioning evolution to be about as viable as proposing the earth really is flat. It doesn't matter if that's an unfair comparison, that's what it's going to sound like to them.

You may quickly discover you are at a home field disadvantage, because for decades most scientists have taken evolution as a given and worked from that basis. So if you do something like claim there is no evidence for evolution, they can just laugh and bury you under decades of scientific papers that all assume evolution. No one not coming from a religious background is going to question evolution at this point except real experts in those fields where it becomes obvious that evolution lacks some basic mechanisms to explain very specific phenomena they are qualified to speak up about.

In short, if you really can't help yourself, realize that you're going both against popular trends and against more or less the entire scientific community. Also recognize this is typically someone who has "there is no God" as their premise. You'd better have a pretty airtight logical case, be familiar with the normal counterarguments (the Socratic method of asking more and more difficult questions is a good way to learn these, and doesn't put you in the position of being the antagonist) and be prepared to explain exactly why you feel you can challenge the underlying theoretical assumptions of entire fields of research. And hopefully, you are praying for them and that the conversation will be edifying, not a triumph of your finely honed reasoning skills. As an INTP I face a frequent temptation to bring the logical smackdown on those who are clearly out of their league, forgetting that we are called first to be evangelists of Christ, not knights of reason.

Most actual arguments for evolution go like this: [In the chart above, let's say that "Some birds can't fly" = "God did it." Therefore, since "that's crazy" or "highly unlikely" (claims entirely outside the realm of science) all birds -must- be able to fly. Therefore, since Science can demonstrate with total confidence that penguins are birds, penguins -must- be able to fly, and you are just another naive believer in outdated superstitions who doesn't understand logic.] Ignoring the insults and countering this valid structure but invalid premise means you have to show them that their underlying assumption of "no God" is baseless. Therefore the rigorous science which demonstrates that penguins are birds is great and no problem for us either, but it has no bearing on the assumption that there are no birds that can't fly. But we believe, and have quite a bit of evidence that points to the fact that there are birds that can't fly. (That "God did it")
The argument then rests on whether you can demonstrate that convincingly.


Note: You can challenge their premises, with the method I outlined in the picture caption there. But I pick that kind of battle carefully these days. Only a few will be fruitful, and a good conversation about the gospel is so much better than lots of arguing which half the time ends up being over how you're using the same word in two different ways. I usually try to get the discussion over to my testimony, if I can.

A sad excuse for preparation:

(I rarely rant on this blog, so please excuse me while I do so for just a moment.) Back when I was in high school, we were taught as Christian students to challenge future college professors with "unanswerable questions" that would stump them. Personally I studied engineering which didn't require biology at my school, so topics like evolution only came up once or twice in chemistry class, and I didn't have any of those antagonistic sort of professors I read about.

But I submit that part of the reason so many students raised in the church get disillusioned and their faith shaken while in college is that some people are doing them the disservice of sending them into college thinking a) they will encounter Richard Dawkins-like antagonists who rant against God and use logical-fallacy-riddled arguments to promote evolution and other anti-scriptural ideas, and b) that their duty was to publicly call out these educated, experienced authority figures who could wipe the floor with them rhetorically, with the idea that this is "defending the faith" and their responsibility.

Instead they find that a) often their professors are of the shrugging agnostic or "I grew up in church but decided religion wasn't for me" variety, are sometimes even charismatic and dignified, and can make a student feel not that the gospel is false, but simply that they've lived their entire life in a broom closet, and the gospel might apply in there, but this is the big, wide world, and they're being invited to grow up and join it. Or, b) they do run into one of those antagonistic atheist professors, and trying to be a good witness, stand up to him/her in class, are then subjected to a good drubbing and public humiliation by the professor who has years of education and life experience to his advantage, and has perhaps polished his craft on the few unfortunate students who do this from time to time. At that point a crisis in confidence is almost certain, and without the right support a student will start to question what seemed so certain and straightforward "back in church."

And that "back in church" is where a lot of the trouble starts anyway. Getting plugged in both to a good local church and to a Christian fellowship at school can go very far to mitigate both of these dangers. Far from being bowled over and questioning their faith, students can come out of college strengthened in their faith and with some valuable ministry experience if they are active in a (good) Christian campus fellowship of some kind. (Be aware that there are one or two cult-ish groups that operate under this disguise)


So hopefully we can avoid the problem of setting students up for possible failure by making sure they'll have good spiritual fellowship and growth opportunities during their time at school, and not teaching them a vastly oversimplified version of what they're likely to encounter out in the world. Which leads me to my third plea, which is to please stop...

3. Simplistically Stereotyping other Belief Systems


I sometimes wondered, as a young Christian, how anyone could not be a Christian. It made so much sense, and none of the other religions I'd heard of seemed to make any sense at all. How could those people keep believing something so weird and nonsensical and obviously false?

But I found, around the time I started doing mission trips, that the beliefs of people I encountered overseas seemed fully developed too. Of course, many adherents of Chinese religion here in Taiwan don't even claim to believe the various major and minor gods to be real in the way we believe God to be real (more like "they might be out there, and if so it's better to be on their good side"), but developed in the sense that they had a worldview which explained things around them to a degree they found to be satisfactory. If a gap does occur, if a time comes when their religious system becomes unsatisfactory to them or their worldview can no longer adequately explain the reality they live in, then there is an increasing openness to new worldviews and metanarratives (which are something I'll discuss in my next post), and often a special spiritual hunger and the potential for gospel movements as well, like what happened in China during the turbulent years of communism when it was closed to outside missionaries and is happening in some other places as we speak.

But when reading about those other religions, in non-academic Christian materials, I have often found a strictly polemic attitude. That is to say, the main purpose was not to explain what other people believe, but to demonstrate the flaws and weaknesses in those belief systems, and perhaps reassure readers/listeners that only our own faith makes any sense at all. On the other hand, some explanations are not antagonistic but are simply such a watered-down, simplified version of those beliefs that one is left wondering how any adult could really believe that. Yes, some localized religions have degraded to more or less that point, and any contact with outside religions results in the locals hastening to drop their "old ways" and embrace what is clearly a more impressive belief system. But any major world religion has survived long enough that it's got to have some qualities which people find attractive, especially if it's spreading, like Buddhism or Islam. Prior to encountering the Perspectives course materials and then attending seminary with some great books on the required reading lists, the resources regarding other religions never mentioned what those might be.

Let me be blunt. That's bowling with the lane guards up. If we truly have faith, and if we are grown-ups, or even teenagers bumping into classmates with other belief systems, we need to recognize that people have reasons for what they believe, and if they're going to stop believing that and accept Christ, they're going to need reasons for doing that. That could be as simple as someone having grown up in a non-religious family and being curious about what you believe and asking you to explain, or as challenging as a need for deliverance from demonic oppression which only the power of Christ can effect through the prayer and fasting of His saints. But either way, if we're afraid that merely reading or hearing accurate depictions of earthly religions is going to tempt us away from the Living God, the effects of whose Incarnation changed not only our lives and the destiny of our souls but all of modern world history, then the problem lies not in those descriptions but in our own lack of faith.

Now obviously, I'm not suggesting you send a bunch of grade schoolers to Buddhist summer camp. And in the States, when teaching younger students about world religions I have always pointed out the differences between those and God's revelation to us. Anyone who feels their faith is weakened by exposure to other beliefs should pray for their faith to be strengthened, and take heart from the evidence that abounds, showing that though not seeing, we have believed, yet our faith is not blind.
But students who are mature enough, and certainly adults who are mature in their faith, should have a basic understanding of what other people in this world believe, especially if they intend to witness to them.

 For example: Paul was upset by all the idols in Athens, but he observed them carefully and when sharing the gospel before the Areopagus he used the example of one idol dedicated to an unknown god, and also quoted a Greek poet. He was not respectful of their beliefs (he got very quickly to attacking the idea of idolatry itself), but he made careful observations and tried to share the gospel in a way that had some connections to their worldview. He wanted to share the gospel in a way that would make sense, and used what he knew about Greek culture and had observed about their religion to do so.

A Taiwanese altar to an unknown god






Why does it matter?

It matters not only because if you don't understand what someone else believes, you will have more difficult sharing the gospel with them, but because when we are always surrounded by other believers it's easy to fall into the idea that the gospel is inherently reasonable or self-evidently true. Don't forget what Paul said:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
The gospel is not going to sound inherently reasonable either to people of other religions, or to people who think that a modern education puts them above "organized religion." But understanding that following another religion or belief system doesn't make them stupid or naive, but merely in need of the gospel that will sound a little strange to them, we can speak God's truth into their own context in an effective way. Some will never accept it, but "to those who are called," of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages, it will be the saving message of Christ, the power and wisdom of God.

That's it for today. I hope by understanding these issues a little better, we can be a stronger Church and more effective disciples of Christ.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

The Hard Grace of Failure

1. What Failure is Not


Who likes failing?

These days, maybe some people would be clever and say they do. But what they mean is not really failure in the sense I'm talking about. I'm not talking about delayed success.

Now I know in the past few decades, piles of profound motivational statements have been made about failure and how important it is. I don't have to recount a list, you've seen many of them I'm sure. Edison failed how many times before he hit on a successful design for the incandescent bulb? (It seems no one knows... I saw 700, 1000, 2000, and 10,000)


Speaking of fails... Edison begs to differ

Uh-oh, an escalation of inspiration. Someone call Oprah.


That is not the kind of failure I'm talking about. Those are not really fails, those are attempts, experiments. "Cross that one off the list and get the next one" is not failure, it's a kind of confirmation.

2. Failure of a Sort


Not winning the presidential election is getting closer to actual failure. Half the country is angry and disappointed, maybe more at the other side, but still many will be angry at you. The best you could probably do is try again and succeed in four years, but even then it's not the same. However, you'll probably still do ok. You can leverage your now-massive name recognition somehow. That's also not really failure, it's more like what used to be called a "pivot" in business-speak. (Maybe it still is. Maybe I'm also using the term incorrectly... I'm an engineer by trade, pivots are things that require memorizing force equations)

Taiwanese students know about failure. There's an national university entrance exam at the end of high school, and how you perform on it has a profound impact on the rest of your life. Doing poorly on that test (there are a few limited options for retesting, but it's not like the SAT where you can take it multiple times and use your best score) means a low-tier college, a low-tier job, and fewer alternate paths to success than in America (even America circa 2015). In the US, even with bad grades or a degree from a lower-tier school, if you hustle*, you can nearly always be successful. In Taiwan, you have to do that anyway to keep your job.

(*- Apparently the positive connotation of this word is not universal. I use it in the sense of getting out there and working harder and with more focus than the average person, not selling drugs or deceiving people)

There is also heroic failure. This is the kind of failure that is irreversible, but where the importance lay mostly not on success but on being willing to try. The firefighter that does not succeed in getting the last person out of a burning building may be haunted by his failure, but we do not blame him for it, we praise him for the attempt, for his courage, even for his grief over not having succeeded. (We wouldn't praise him nearly so much if he shrugged it off as one of life's inevitable tragedies)

Failure is not lead that can be alchemied into gold. In reading for this entry I stumbled across this quote from Elizabeth Hardwick, and felt it strikes a chord:

"Failure is not funny. It is cockroaches on the service elevator, old men in carpet slippers waiting anxiously by the mail slots in the lobby, neighborhood walks where the shops, graphs of consumption, show only a clutter of broken vases, strings of cracked beads, dirty feathers, an old vaudevillian’s memorable dinner jacket and decades of cast-off books—the dust of ambition from which the eye turns away in misery." (from Grub Street: New York)

So how about real failure? What about the firefighter who not only fails to find the trapped child, but fails to find the courage to go look at all? What about the child of brilliant parents who just can't manage to ever do well in school, year after year, regardless of her effort? What about the man who fails to get help for his addiction and drags his family down with him?

Even those stories could end in redemption. You can probably imagine movies where the low point is any of those situations, but somehow manages to end triumphantly.

Failure of the kind I'm talking about is irredeemable. It's not noble, it's not "failing upwards," it's not one small step in the long road to victory, it's not even the nadir, the lowest point, at which one begins to climb back up from the pit again. It's an unrecoverable loss. It is coming to the end and there being no road ahead, no further options. Final failure. We don't even like to contemplate it.

It's also absolutely necessary to understand ourselves and our salvation.

3. Failure to the Point of Surrender


Its necessity doesn't make it any more pleasant- the real, visceral recognition that one cannot be good, that one cannot bring anything good to God in exchange for salvation, that attempting to do so will always end, finally, in failure. Discovering that Pelagius was so very wrong, though we long for him to be right in some little corner of our personalities. Some tiny hook from which to hang our righteousness, some shiny trinket unique to us, expressing our unique value, to trade for some slight reprieve from the terror of total surrender. To finally realize that we have nothing with which to redeem any part of ourselves back from the Redeemer is a devastating kind of experience. Some reach a point and then simply refuse to look further or go deeper; the continued loss of self is too terrifying. But Christ said only by losing our life can we save it.

As believers we think we've grasped this. We can say along with Jonathan Edwards, "you contribute nothing to your salvation but the sin that made it necessary," and acknowledge that it is true, but until we've really tried and failed, we don't get it. We are like addicts in that state of denial who still believe they can quit if they just put their mind to it. Next time, for sure.

Truly recognizing your failure before God is an extremely unpleasant experience. If you have not had such an experience, it's possible you haven't tried to fully surrender to God. When you do, He will show you something you were holding on to, and you will try to argue you should get to keep it. And you are quite likely to base that argument on some goodness or good behavior on your part that justifies a trade. Finally realizing you have nothing to offer, that you are merely a recipient of grace upon grace, you may surrender, until you are called to surrender again in the future, more deeply. And on it goes.

So when Paul says in Philippians 3 that what he once counted as gain he now counts as σκύβαλον (dung, rubbish), he is speaking as someone who has emotionally grasped how utterly comprehensive is human failure. His credentials didn't matter, his zeal wasn't "a valiant if misguided effort," he had nothing, no ground to stand on. That's what he's saying in the passage: if anyone should have had a standing with God, a bit of a starting point from which to barter, any confidence in the flesh whatsoever, it would have been he, and he could see that it was all rubbish. Paul had nothing- except Christ, who is everything.


That recognition of our total failure to have, do, or be good -to bring anything at all to the bargaining table with God- is like a kind of death. Although we recognize it when we repent and believe in Christ, it's something we experience repeatedly in the sanctification process, part of maturing in Christ, as God burns away the dross. We believed truly then that we could not save ourselves; now we experience the fact more and more fully with each painful recognition and admission of our failure. 

If you want a god you can barter with, come to Taiwan. That's religion here.

This is yet another reason the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Without failure, without falling on our knees in recognition of our abject spiritual poverty, we do not learn to grow more deeply into God. God's blessings are but one way to experience Him. If we love God and not merely His blessings, we must continue down the path of self-abnegation that sometimes comes only with pain and brokenness. There is no promise to name and claim which skips over the valley of the shadow of death.


But the joy grows, if we are willing to surrender. When in the deep darkness of our new awareness of utter failure the door of grace opens, leading further up and further in, we become more and more willing to grasp the offered hand.To reject it either in pride or despair leads only to bitterness and fruitlessness in the Christian life; yet more fully and painfully aware of our failure, yet refusing to let His grace heal us that much more deeply. Instead we must be recklessly humble, casting aside the reasonable-sounding temptation to reject the gracious consolation of the one who allowed the pain. Bow and worship instead, for it was His pain which earned our grace.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Eisegesis - Bad for Science, Wrong for Scripture

A concise definition

 

1. We Assume, Rightly and Wrongly


Every human enterprise involves working from already-held assumptions and making judgment calls.

Something as simple as acknowledging that 1 + 1 = 2 is a correct equivalence requires one to have confidence in one's ability to understand what + and = mean, to be sufficiently convinced that there's no way one can reinterpret the statement to mean something else, etc.

For example: If I wrote instead that 一 + 一 = 八, you might be "pretty sure" it's the same statement, but if I asked whether you'd bet $1000 dollars on it, you'd probably not be willing to (you'd be smart not to, as 一 is indeed 1 but 八 is not 2, it's 8).

And if I wrote 一加一是二, unless you are familiar with Chinese, you might be willing to guess what it means, but not venture anything more than a guess. (Turns out it's the same statement, one plus one is two)

So even basic things we take for granted involve making judgement calls. We make decisions based on how much we assume we know, and if it's something we feel familiar with, we might not even realize we're doing it.

But sometimes our assumptions are wrong, especially when moving into territory that seems familiar, but isn't. There are cultures where a nod means no. There are cultures where laughter means someone is uneasy or embarrassed (sometimes true in Taiwan). Sometimes in different contexts, what looks familiar has an unfamiliar meaning, and assuming we know it, we misinterpret it.

In history, many wars were fought that could probably have been prevented if the leaders involved knew (or cared) that the other party was not so much hostile toward them specifically as working from different assumptions and wanting different things. I'm reading Diplomacy by Kissinger right now (a New Year's present to myself), and it's interesting to see how many times the Axis and Allied powers saw negotiations fail not necessarily because they didn't want a settlement (Hitler only did early on, to stall while he prepared for war, but Stalin pushed for advantageous ones with both Hitler and the Allies), but because they wrongfully assumed the other party was thinking in ways opposed but equivalent to them. Stalin couldn't figure out why America put so much importance on autonomy for Eastern European states because he assumed, like himself, that the US was thinking pragmatically in terms of balance between the great powers' spheres of influence, against which the smaller nations that lay between the Western powers and the Soviet Union were inconsequential except as bargaining chips. On the other hand, the US tried hard to convince Stalin to see the importance of those states' sovereignty and self-determination from an idealistic/moral standpoint, a mindset the man intentionally responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people might have found laughable at best.

So in the end the various parties often gained nothing but false understandings from their negotiations, because their assumptions about how the world worked and what the other side wanted were too different to reconcile. It seems as though they never even recognized this problem or tried to address it.

These days the concept of a "worldview" is fairly well known: the framework of ideas and beliefs through which we view and interpret the world. So the problems experienced by those leaders at the negotiating table we can now recognize as at least partly a clash of conflicting worldviews, and regret that steps were not taken to understand what their allies and opponents were truly seeking from the negotiations. (Though even now, I notice US foreign policy often has a blind spot with regards to non-western worldviews, like in the confusion over the motives of ISIS)

2. Eisegesis: Tinted shades are bad for making color charts


In seminary, a professor explained to us in our introduction to theology class that worldview also plays an important role in how we approach Scripture. We all bring assumptions with us that we sometimes read into the text, thinking that we're getting truth from God's word when we're actually unconsciously or consciously borrowing the authority of scripture to reaffirm existing biases, or imputing very modern ways of thinking to ancient authors who would have viewed the world quite differently.

Even the simple belief that through consistent and careful study we can distill theological truths from investigation of the scriptures is itself a product of our worldview. That is not to say it is a wrong view! It just means that we believe this about scripture because we first believe it about reality in general, then apply that belief to scripture. (I recall that one student could not wrap his mind around that concept. He protested that sufficiently careful study and proper methodology could eliminate our preconceptions and worldview from our study of the scriptures, not realizing that this conviction on his part was coming out of his worldview as well.) So one can't get "outside of" or "beyond" one's worldview, but that's ok, as explained below.

Now what I am saying is not that we cannot hope to find "untainted" truth in scripture, that we comprehensively distort everything we observe, but merely that we all bring our own assumptions to scripture, like anything else, and being aware of that can help us avoid problems of eisegesis. (Eisegesis means reading our own understanding into scripture, the opposite of exegesis which is deriving our own understanding from scripture. The Eisegesis wikipedia article, though poorly written in places, does a fairly good job of explaining the basic idea)

Granted, there is some level of "reading into" the scriptures that we cannot possibly avoid; we have all been born into the 20th/21st centuries, not the 1st century with Paul, let alone the time of the Patriarchs. We will bring our 21st century understandings with us to scripture, even if we've studied some about the cultural backgrounds and contexts of the human authors. But unlike the leaders of the World War 2 powers, we can recognize that our assumptions are there, that our worldviews are vastly different from the authors of scripture, and try let our worldview and ways of thinking be informed and transformed by scriptural truth. Many assumptions are so deep that they're invisible to us and thus we can't set them aside (although I've found living in another culture has helped bring many of mine to light), but guess what- God knows this, and He planned for us to be born now and not thousands of years ago, so it's ok.

Scripture has spoken to ancient Jewish kings, to Oxford dons, and to cannibalistic tribes; the Word of God is living and active, and not confined by your culture. The question is whether you may be confining yourself by not freeing your study of scripture from your limiting cultural assumptions. (Like those people who feel shaken to discover the events of Jesus' life are not all written in chronological order in the gospels, not realizing that thinking a linear time sequence is the most important way to arrange something is definitely a fairly modern and western concept! Even much of the 21st century world does not view time as linear.)

Therefore, since everyone approaches scripture from the place and time in which God has located them, our goal is not to be "contextless," which would be impossible, but to glorify God from the context in which He's placed us and move towards an ever-increasing understanding of the scriptures, and we have the Holy Spirit to help us in this process.

So our worldview is not like colored glasses we can take off; it's like the lenses and rod and cone cells inside our own eyes. Many of our assumptions, however, can be like those glasses, and we can take at least some of them off; to not do so increases the risk of unintentional eisegesis.


Take your eisegesis too far and you'll have Santa slapping you next...

3.1 Secular "Eisegesis" - Ex: Global Warming


With these things in mind, we can see why elevating "science" to a position of infallible authority is not only wrong given the existence of divine revelation, but also misguided even from a secular standpoint, because it implies the impersonal, self-correcting nature of the system can sufficiently overcome the human fallibility and mixed motives of those using it, and that the impartiality of the scientific method means a given conscious human being employing it in a non-theoretical world would also be impartial and not bringing their own assumptions to the process, which is itself really a pretty silly assumption.(Though less so if one believes humans are inherently good or at least neutral. The doctrine of human sin nature deeply affects the Christian worldview on a wide range of topics, often putting us at odds with the secular world where it is considered morally good to maintain a faith in the inherent goodness of humanity)

One can see this with the ever-convoluted issue of Global Warming. Bringing up the topic in the presence of True Believers tends to immediately provoke angry responses of disqualification- "are you a scientist?" (As if all historians and only historians could have valid input regarding Southern culture during the Civil War, regardless of whether their specialty is something like Ancient Egypt and you are actually from an old family in the South) Being "a scientist" does not magically give one qualifications beyond one's specific field of expertise, and not one scientist, or even team of scientists, can study a significant chunk of the global climate metasystem (systems of systems) in all its complexity, let alone the whole thing. One has to focus on or specialize in certain narrow aspects of it.

So when I question Global Warming I'm not suggesting that Climatologist A doesn't know lots of information about how the monsoon cycle over East Asia changed over the past decade, nor that Atmospheric aerosol modeller B is using the wrong equations to calculate the level of carbon dioxide in a certain context. The problem for me is not so much whether a bit of data here or there is accurate, but the vast, vast amounts of it, and that deciding what it's all suggesting involves a lot of judgment calls. Judgment calls that are not made by an impartial system, that is not conscious and so can't evaluate anything, but by actual humans who at best have their own biases and assumptions, and all too often ulterior motives, prioritized career goals, or a belief that any means are justified by their ideological end.

That can lead to a feedback problem. Once a scientist has been convinced that global warming is happening, and that demonstrating this is something like a moral necessity (for the good of mankind and future generations, etc), their research will reflect that belief. Note that in this case I am neither accusing them of illicit motives or of dishonesty. I think many do it because as members of the scientific establishment they have faith in the ability of the system in which they all participate to filter out human error or bias and thus accept "the weight of scientific opinion" as an extension of the rigidity of their own scientific endeavor. Then, feeling it important to do their part to contribute, they can publish their research which demonstrates conclusions which provide more evidence that global warming is occurring, and dismiss findings which demonstrate otherwise as random flukes or data that needs further research to explain why it doesn't fit the global warming model. This is where the eisegesis-like behavior comes in: they are no longer building a theory based on observed data, but analyzing observed data based on a theory they have already accepted as a given. Like eisegetes, they come to the table with assumptions, and it's all too easy for the data to seem to be fitting patterns it's supposed to, even without any fudging or special selecting.

Humorously, "Science defenders" will sometimes respond to this kind of assertion of systematic problems with links to scientific papers (or worse, scientific journalism articles) which argue that this problem does not exist, exactly like Christians who respond to accusations regarding Biblical inerrancy by quoting verses from it regarding its truth. (I certainly believe in Biblical inerrancy too, but responding in that way is like trying to refute the claim that all rulers are the wrong length by measuring one with your own ruler to show they're the same. An argument that assumes the authority/reliability of a source won't work for someone questioning the authority/reliability of that source.)

Note that this is business as usual for scientific research; of course one builds on accepted theories to develop new ones, that is how a field progresses, and one can't constantly question the underlying theory or little progress can be made. We all do the same thing in our daily lives. Unfortunately, that is also the way systematic bias creeps in. Choosing this or that accepted theory to begin a new chain of hypotheses leads to differing "schools of thought" in a particular field, very much like what one sees in theology, and then what should have been settled with rigorous scientific investigation (or rigorous scriptural investigation, respectively) starts becoming a matter of politics, as "schools of thought" gain or lose influence by means we are all more familiar with: depending on the name-recognition of its proponents, who has better PR, etc. Some people get prickly when you point this out, but it's the case in any realm of academia.


3.2 Scriptural Eisegesis - Ex: Prohibition


I have noted above the parallels between the scientific community and the theological community. It's important to recognize that just as the scientific community comprises those who practice science and is distinct from the reliable body of data science has helped gather about our universe, the theological community comprises those who study theology and is distinct from orthodox Christian theology that the careful study of scripture and the teachings of Christ and the apostles and the early Church councils helped assemble. So when I say "theologians do this too," I don't mean that basic doctrine is also suspect, but that at any given time there are droves of theologians saying all kinds of things about the Bible, and just because what they do is called theology we are not obliged to believe it any more than we must believe all the things said by all scientists just because they have that title.

So in that spirit, let's look at how eisegesis can creep into what we believe about scripture and how we can work to avoid it. I don't want to pick on anyone in particular, but I think the concept of alcohol as inherently sinful provides a good example of how this occurs.

Note: I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who choose to abstain from alcohol, and I believe they are right to follow their conscience in this matter and glorify God by doing so, and I do not and would never criticize their decision. In various times and situations I abstain from drinking alcohol as well, and did so for my years at seminary because of a pledge we signed. So I am not suggesting for any believer to drink or not to drink, but to follow their own conscience regarding this matter, as Paul is very clear about. I must take issue, however, with anyone who takes personal convictions and proceeds to preach them as scripture, as sadly often still happens in the US with regards to this particular issue.

For starters, we can easily establish that drunkenness is clearly and repeatedly described as foolish and sinful in Scripture both as an activity and a lifestyle. It follows that those who feel that to avoid drunkenness, or to avoid causing those close to them to stumble, it is better to abstain from alcohol altogether therefore have a scriptural basis for doing so. On the other hand, given the verses which portray drinking alcohol as a neutral (uncondemned) activity, sanction it (Deuteronomy 14, The Wedding in Cana. Amos 9:14), or even recommend it in specific cases (Ecclesiastes 9:7, 1 Timothy 5:23), it seems equally impossible to construct an argument from scripture that the consumption of alcohol is itself a sin.*

Yet in many American churches, this is indeed preached. One argument I have heard regarding Jesus changing water into wine is that the Greek word used for wine is the same as that for grape juice. "So," the argument went, "since we already know alcohol is sinful, we know Jesus must have turned the water into grape juice and not wine; the Lord would never provide an occasion to sin." I can join in with an amen for that last part, as scripture testifies clearly that God never tempts us to sin. But notice that the interpretation of the scriptural passage and even the chosen definition of the Greek word rides on an assumption which is not itself based on scripture- that the consumption of alcohol is sinful.

From where has this assumption come? Personal conviction, family tragedy, inherited from older believers held in respect by the one preaching or teaching... there are many ways people can become convinced that something is right or wrong besides direct attestation of scripture. That in itself is not a problem, of course- smoking is not found in the Bible, but one does not need an "anti-smoking verse" in order to see that it is at best a risky and inadvisable habit, anymore than one needs a "don't play in traffic" verse. The temptation comes when one is so passionate about endorsing or condemning something that one seeks to add the weight of scriptural authority to the endorsement or condemnation, knowing that this might convince those who otherwise wouldn't feel obliged to care or alter their behavior accordingly.

In an earlier post I wrote about folk theology and how it can creep in when we consider the origins of the symbolism surrounding holidays like Christmas. Sometimes similar can happen in a church or even a denomination over time, where something held as a strong conviction can slowly (or quickly, in churches where doctrinal issues are subordinated to popular social ones) assume a place alongside Biblical truth without being subjected to its authority.

Sometimes when this practice or teaching is found to be contrary to scripture, an eisegetical type process can be used to try to justify it, trying to "find" the practice or teaching in scripture to eliminate the perceived conflict. This often leads to "proof-texting," where verses which appear to favor the desired interpretation are selected and gathered out of context to provide the illusion of scriptural justification for the practice.

Now, did you notice anything about the little argument I ended with a * above? My methodology there was dangerously similar to proof-texting! I gathered a list of verses which demonstrate that the assertion that scripture considers drinking alcohol inherently sinful is not true. But what would be a better way? I can say for myself that my position on drinking alcohol for Christians was not determined merely by a list of verses but from finding that, after reading through the whole Bible from beginning to end multiple times, I could not come away believing that scripture taught the inherent sinfulness of alcohol based on anything in scripture itself. Rather, after reading verses about all the vineyards in Israel (and how this seemed to be a good thing) and various references to rejoicing with wine, and all the rest, I concluded the scriptural treatment of alcohol was as an earthly pleasure, and therefore a blessing from God as are all pleasures not misused or idolized, common in Israel, easily abused and thus the subject of many warnings, both abstained from and employed for religious ceremonial purposes (notably abstained from for a Nazirite vow, but used by Christ in establishing the ordinance of communion). I believe the look at specific verses should only come within an understanding of the entire Biblical perspective on an issue. (This is also useful for specific topics the Bible does not mention, like abortion, which makes proof-texting impossible anyway, but to which one can clearly still apply Biblical principles)

Of course that doesn't mean going back to check scripture regarding a practice or teaching is wrong; Paul praises the Bereans for searching the scriptures to confirm what he preached to them. But there is a difference between weighing an interpretation of scripture against the whole of scripture, and trying to find a verse here and a verse there out of context, or push for a creatively acrobatic interpretation of scripture, in order to justify something originally coming from outside scripture.

3.3 Conclusion



It's easy to bring out the charge of eisegesis against people with whom we disagree. For example, in the process of finding that batman picture I came across more than one graphic accusing anyone who said "Yom" in the Genesis account could be more than a 24-hour day as knowingly practicing eisegesis. I'm definitely not going off into arguments about what are and aren't valid interpretations of Genesis here, but remember what I said about the prioritizing of chronological-order, linear time descriptions being a relatively recent Western phenomenon? At very least, those making that accusation should be careful they're not ascribing their own modern, western sensibilities regarding time to ancient authors to whom the idea would sound foreign, which would be unintentional eisegesis on their own part.

It's clear that we should always be careful in our treatment of scripture, spending sufficient time in it ourselves to know it well, and not merely trusting the interpretations we receive from others (especially not developing the habit of mindlessly trusting the interpretations of one or two people), but weighing what we are taught against the whole of scripture as the Bereans did. We must also be careful to avoid injecting (active) or reading (passive) our own ideas into scripture, but seeking to understand what the Spirit is communicating from scripture through each author to us. If our attitude in approaching the Bible is to shape our thinking by God's word, we are already on the right track and will be less likely to unconsciously or consciously seek to confirm our own assumptions and biases that we bring to it.