Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts

Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Real Root of Reza Aslan's Worldview and book, Zealot



This interview of Reza Aslan by Jennifer Danielle Crumpton reveals the real underlying worldview and presuppositions of Reza and his book, Zealot.  Jennifer Crumpton got her M. Div. from Union Theological Seminary, no surprise there, and is ordained in the "Christian Church" (Disciples of Christ) denomination.   Jennifer is a Pastoral Associate of Park Avenue Christian Church in Manhattan, New York.  This is one of the most liberal of all mainline churches; along with the United Church of Christ and affiliated denominations.  (Hard to say which one is the most liberal.)

She also says she is a blogger and minister to young people, Gen-Xers and Millennials, etc. a "Femmevangelical" (her web-site), and most of what she writes seems to be similar to other post-moderns and Emergent/Emerging church thinking.  She writes for the Huffington Post and other liberal leaning blogs.   If you look further at her web-site and videos on You Tube, it is obviously she is against the complimentarian position of women's roles in the Bible and church and family, and very negative against Patriarchal society in the Bible.  Unfortunately, the past sins of some men against women are being imputed to God and the Bible itself. (Nothing new there either.)

The scholars who have criticized Reza Aslan's book, Zealot, have focused on the fact that his theory that Jesus was a revolutionary against Rome is not new, but not many of them talk about the roots of his worldview in the book, and the separation of "the Jesus of history" vs. "the Christ of Faith".

A roundup of significant reviews of Zealot:

John Dickson - this one seems to me to be the most devastating to Aslan.  (per Denny Burk's blog)
seems like Denny Burk's blog is being hacked, or having problems sometimes, so below is the direct link:

John Dickson

Justin Taylor at The Gospel Coalition. 



Larry Hurtado  (by way of Ben Witherington III) 



Warning - this link shows Reza Aslan's frequent cursing, dirty language, and bullying on twitter and media outlets, with anyone whom he doesn't agree with. (on the second page)

Aslan is classic liberalism that has come back with a vengence in our society through the Emerging/Emergent church movement and their spokespeople like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Rachel Held Evans.

It is the same classic Rudolph Bultmann type stuff I heard in the liberal United Methodist Church that I grew up, in the 1960s and 1970s.   But the ministers never admitted it until the Lord saved me in 1977 as a teenager, and then, later, in 79-81, when I went and asked them specific questions, I learned where they were coming from.  


The biggest problem is that in sound bite media and Reza Aslan's interviews (like on PBS programs and the Daily Show and Huffington Post type blog/video interviews, and this one above; is his views are "baptized" in the general idea that "The Jesus of History" is separate from "The Christ of Faith", and that seems to be overall worldview of most liberal and modern scholars today - John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, etc. - they don't allow truth of theology and miracles to be brought into history or historical research. Doubt and skepticism toward the gospels and Bible are the takeaway message in our sound-bite culture.
Most people seeing these things (interviews, media videos and blogs) don't care about Reimarus or S. G. F. Brandon, (Though it is good for thoughtful readers to know about that and that those theories have already been dealt with in earlier times); but what dumbs everything down and the basic message that gets spread, is that Jesus existed and was crucified, but beyond that, we cannot trust anything else, because it is suppossedly out of the realm of the canons of historical research to allow miracles or theology into it.

I am still reading the book Zealot, I have probably read 3/4 of it; but to be honest, it is boring!!  Liberalism is boring to me; and before I cull together specific quotes and specific problems, I thought I would give an overview of the basic worldview first.

See also my earlier post about "Understanding John Dominic Crossan". 


Saturday, July 20, 2013

"Need ASAP help on Luther Info"

"Need ASAP help on Luther Info" is the title of a discussion I recently came across on the Catholic Answers Non-Christian Religions forum. A participant asked for "an unbiased, historically accurate web-site account of the Reformation." I was pleasantly surprised to find the following two responses:
"I think James Swan does a good job as far as the historical Luther goes."
"He's certainly a great resource for rooting out unfair catholic biases and myths about Luther. But I'd not remotely call him unbiased. He's polite and tries to be fair, but he's as biased against the catholic viewpoint on Luther issues as the catholic apologists he critiques.
In the end, there ARE no unbiased humans. It's part of being fallen. If you read Swan's stuff, be sure to read some catholic stuff to offset his bias. Belloc's "How the Reformation Happened" is far from 'unbiased' but still does a great job of revealing some the big picture cultural issues that made Luther and Calvin's peculiar ideas resonate when they would otherwise probably have been ignored by most of history. Belloc is at least as biased as Swan. Perhaps less polite, but about the same amount of hubris!"
It's certainly true that each of us has "bias." The way though that I would put is that each of us has a worldview as the result of our presuppositions. It's the template we use to make sense of the world. It's my contention that Roman Catholic presuppositions that inform a Roman Catholic worldview do not make sense of the basic facts of reality.

This is why, for instance, when a Roman Catholic says something like, "Luther added a word to Romans 3:28 and invented sola fide" my response to this charge has been so popular. There I demonstrated that the basic historical facts as interpreted popularly by Roman Catholicism don't describe reality accurately.  On another level than the basic historical facts, one comes face to face with an even deeper question: a Roman Catholic may say Luther simply was an innovator and invented sola fide to soothe his delicate conscience. But, who is the real innovator? Luther said it was Rome that had added unbiblical elements to the Christian faith. If one accepts Rome's development of doctrine, one has a ready explanation for Rome's alleged innovations. Then we're off discussing whether Rome's version of development corresponds to reality. Ultimately, it will come down to the issue of authority: a Roman Catholic begins with a presupposition that Rome is the true church (and has the power of infallibility), and a Protestant denies this. Bias? No, it's basic presuppositions and worldview at play.

Addendum 7/21/13
My reign of terror over at Catholic Answers continues:
As to the mention of Mr. Swan - he is perhaps one of the more charitable bloggers that has problems with Catholic theology. He does visit here from time to time as well. However, I would caution accepting anything he says about Luther too, based on some of what I have read of his--what comes to mind is an encounter on Luther and Purgatory he, I, CatholicDude, and some others had a while back (see posts 29 and following; my major post is 54). Swan posts as Tertum Quid. That being said, I've found some useful source material from his blog now and then anyway.

If I recall that "encounter", I was basically expected to do all the work and research in order for others to comment and critique. I stand by the bulk of my comments, particularly #68 and #69, and #74. The discussion reiterated to me a valuable lesson- that, if a fruitful historical discussion is to happen in a forum like Catholic Answers, one person should not be expected to do hours of research for everyone else.

See also my blog post here.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The Storm of War and the Battle for Truth

Highlights from Al Mohler’s “Thinking in Public” Podcast.

Audio: This is well worth your listen, and I emailed Al Mohler and I hope it will be reprinted and published widely. (After typos and omissions are corrected in the transcript.)

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/07/the-storm-of-war-and-the-battle-for-truth-a-conversation-with-historian-andrew-roberts/

Andrew Roberts is the author of The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. (And other books also, but this one is the focus of this interview.)

Several things about this interview really struck me.

1. The combination of events and issues that led to the rise of Hitler and World War 2. And, especially noteworthy, is the comparison of the economic troubles of right now with the economic troubles of Germany before World War 2.

2. The statement “a feeling of hatred toward capitalism” - by the Germans in between World War I and World War II. (This is a solemn warning to leftists, marxists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, and the Occupy Wall street crowd.)




click on the picture in order to see all the text in it.
Note: I first saw this picture at Triablogue a few days ago. Brilliant!


3. The comparison between Hitler as a charismatic leader vs. Churchill as an inspiration leader, and that Churchill’s speeches are based on the power of argumentation and reason and truth, rather than Hitler’s emotion and oratory manipulation.

(This should be a solemn warning to people to not be fooled by someone who can sway crowds with oratory, like the Word of Faith heretics, etc. and politicians who are all packaging and externals but no substance.) See more on this issue of the greed and manipulation tactics of the Word of Faith heretics at the end of the article.



Kenneth Copeland, one of the worst heretics of the last 50 years.


4. The implications of the reality of our post 9-11-01 world in Islamic Fascism and Islamic terror; and I would add, the desire of many Muslims for the restoration of the Caliphate. The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the secular founder of the modern state of Turkey, precisely because he saw that the unity of the religion of Islam with the political and military power was a dangerous thing, and proof of that is that the Ottoman Empire joined Germany in World War I and the Caliphate was in power in Sunni Islam at that time; and also the historical facts of the friendly ties of Hitler with Haj Al Amin Housseini, the Mufti if Jerusalem in their hatred of the Jews, during the time of the Holocaust in Germany and World War 2.

If the Islamic Caliphate is restored, then the moderate Muslims would be forced to stand behind any call for Jihad, for even the modern and moderate Muslims admit that a legitimate Caliph can call for Jihad against the west, etc.




Haj Muhammad Effendi Amin Al Hosseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921-1937, meeting with Adolf Hitler.


5. That we must know history well in order to fight revisionists from their propaganda, like Christopher Hitchens and others who have trashed Churchill, and like Pat Buchanan, who thinks that World War II was an un-necessary war for America to get involved in and that the Holocaust was not as bad as it is reported to be. Sounds dangerously close to sentiments expressed by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the President of Iran, and other Muslims associated with Hamas and Al Qaedah and Hezbollah types.

6. Understanding why most of Europe looks at World World II with a very negative feeling; even given the fact that the Allies won; it is still negative to the European psyche because of the sheer number and percentage of loss and carnage; whereas Americans look on it in a very positive light, the classic story of good winning over evil; and that the Allies did it by coming from behind and being the "underdogs". The contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Hitler must not be underestimated.

7. The theme of knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and understanding history from a Christian Worldview and truth is very important. A mind saturated and trained in the truth of the Scriptures will help us battle evil.

Here are some excerpts that really struck me. There are some typos in the written transcript, which I have emailed Al Mohler about; the worst is that the transcriber left out the word “not” in the following:

Al Mohler: Well, as we’ve said, you’ve now made the point once again that it did not have to happen this way; that there could have been incredible alternatives. What could have happened between the wars in Germany, in particular to have prevented this? And in other words, what could have prevented the rise of Nazism? Or to the contrary, why did it happen?

Andrew Roberts: Well, of course actually if one is to look at the true reason for the rise of Nazism you have to look here in New York, where I am at the moment, and Wall Street and the great Wall Street crash, and The Great Depression, and the inflation that hit Germany even harder than it hit your country. And that of course was the dynamic by which Hitler, who until 1923 was really only winning about 2.3% of the German popular vote, but by 1932 he was in a position to grant power, which of course he did, when he became Chancellor in January 1933. So it is very deeply concerned with the unemployment problem, and lots of economic factors, which are pretty rarely and properly, given their due. Many people talk about anti-Semitism, quite rightly of course. Many people talk about the Versailles Treaty, but one has to remember that on their own these would not have brought the Fuhrer to power, really also took this after sense of utter desperation, a feeling of hatred towards capitalism and of course also Bolshevikism in Russia, was much more reason, to make ordinary Germans feel that this fanatic Adolf Hitler was their savior.
. . .
“The moral perspective of history is absolutely indispensable.”
. . .

The embolding in the following was not left out, but I am just emphasizing it here:
Mohler makes some very insightful closing comments:

“I am very thankful for the view of leadership that is illustrated by the men Churchill and Hitler considered by Andrew Roberts in one of his previous works, it is really important to understand that distinction between charismatic leadership and inspirational leadership. A charismatic leader who can evince a personality and use all kinds of manipulative means in order to sculpt a public image and a brand or a persona, that could be lead to manipulate millions of people, versus an inspirational leader who does have undeniable rhetorical talents, as did Winston Churchill and an inflexible and indomitable will. But also the force of argument, and I appreciate what Andrew Roberts makes clear and that is it had to be won on the force of argument. Churchill’s point had to be not only more convincing, it had to be true. And it was upon the truth of that understanding of that world, and that understanding of Hitler, and that understanding of right and wrong, that there were those who were willing to fight a war, and to endure all of its carnage and all of its hardship and all of its terrors in order to defeat something that was even worse than the reality of war.
When we look at the study of history it is very important that we understand that it is not merely an academic discipline, though it is a very important academic discipline. It is an essential mechanism for understanding who we are. We have no idea who we are; we have no idea how to understand ourselves without putting ourselves in an historical context. Thus it is a matter of our very important intellectual stewardship as Christians that we intentionally do our very best to frame an historical understanding that is true and that is meaningful through the lenses of the Christian worldview. We look back at history not only as an event, lest we look back at it not only as a chronicle. We look back at it not only for crying out loud like did Henry Ford as one event after another. We look back in order to say, it could’ve been different. It did happen this way. Moral actors are responsible. Individually and collectively, history has its victors and its victims; and sometimes they are the right victors and sometimes they are the wrong victors. And it really does matter, it is very important that history is not just one thing after another, it is a moral test of human beings. It is indeed a diorama of Genesis 3 in fallen humanity. In reading a book like The Storm of War, and I very much hope that you will read it, will for Christians remind us that when we look at history and we consider the present, with the eyes of the gospel, we are to yearn for the kingdom yet to come. Human history underline as does perhaps no other knowledge the reality of the need for redemption.”
Another major typo:
Also, should have been - "It was not until 1941 that Hitler started believing Goebbels", not "stopped believing Goebbels", etc.

"Only in 1941 did he stop [sic] believing Joseph Goebbels, his propaganda minister’s statements that he was the greatest warlord of all time, and all of these victories came as a result of his willpower, as you mentioned."

Roberts actually said "started", not "stopped".

What is that famous phrase that many of us have learned? “Those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”




Note:
By having pictures of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen, I am not equating them with the evils of Hitler, but they have the emotional and oratory trickery of manipulating many people by mixing in some Scripture verses here and there, and promising people wealth and health (if they just give their money to them); and so the only parallel is the skill in manipulating crowds. It is obvious by the large crowds that Copeland, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, and other Word of Faith teachers generate, that, 1. these people are desperate and will 'accumulate to themselves teachers according to their own desires" ( 2 Timothy 4:3-4) and 2. These people do not read the Bible verses in their context, paragraphs, chapters, and the specific book that the verse is in in order to understand the author's intended meaning. They don't do good hermeneutics.

This makes these false teachers all the more dangerous for the "regular people" who are struggling in life; the masses and crowds who are desperate for jobs and money and healing.