the middle eastern conflict
At Tangent tonight we attempted to work through what we knew about the conflict in the middle east. In some ways it was a sharing of ignorance and in other ways it was surprising how effective the media is at explaining what is going on. Of course it is another matter whether the presentation by the Australian media is balanced or not.
I was reminded again of a former mentor of mine Phillip Hunt who was told me that at the heart of the conflicts in the middle east is not territory, religion or any other factor but rather at the heart is scape goating. Phillip is a former Eastern Europe director of World Vision so knew the area politics fairly well and had spent a great deal of time reflecting on the issue.
Back when signposts was just starting in 2003, I wrote a post about some of Phillip’s thoughts on scapegoating in regard to the Iraq war. Re-reading the words today they also seem apt for this conflict.
As most of you didn’t read signposts back in 2003. In fact I think I knew the three people that did, you can read the post here.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
[i shouldn’t be buying into this conversation… i’m about to leave the country… but i love this topic. i’m not an academic, though, and i get lost in intelligent arguments… ]
Abtruth, you’re trying to prove something by argument, which is exactly the thing that postmodernity says is problematic. the words used in this conversation - “suspicion”, “belief”, “truth” - are layered with multiple definitions. you believe you know what you mean by them… when i use them i have a hunch i mean something very different.
i’m bemused by the concept of there being a single christian worldview… i suspect there are dozens of them just on signposts… and then imagine if we looked at the worldview of a young christian single mother living below the poverty line in guatemala. a christian worldview would be very different for her … the great problem of missionaries in the past is that they assumed it wouldn’t be. we’re learning very differently now.
> this implies that suspicion or cynacism is only available in the realm of PM and that everyone else is gullible…
suspicion and cynicism are poles apart.
what being suspicious of metanarratives means for me, in essence, is that all i know of God is not enough, and much of what i know may be wrong… and i make that statement within a position of committed faith.
have you read Pete Rollins’ book “How (not) to speak of God”? stunning.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Abtruth, I’m flying o/s today so shouldn’t even be reading this, and def. don’t have time to engage with all of what you’ve said, but I would say this:
When I said, “I would regard PM as incompatible with Christianity if I believed Jesus had commanded us to turn our brains off”, that does not in the SLIGHTEST suggest that anyone who is not PM has “turned their brains off”. I was responding to your statement that PM and Christianity are incompatible. Where on earth does that say that anyone who is not PM has turned their brain off? It only says that, if you accept that Christianity and PM are compatible, ergo, modernism (or anything else) and Christianity are not. And I have never said that. You have, but I haven’t. Please don’t read insults where there are none!!
August 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Abtruth - I’d add this - I have been assuming you don’t mean to be, but I find your use of language pretty insulting, and it makes it difficult to want to stay in the conversation!!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Cheryl
you say
“you’re trying to prove something by argument, which is exactly the thing that postmodernity says is problematic. ”
there are different ways to prove a thing’s existence. If a thing is physical, then some physical test should be able to reveal it, at least in principle. But if a thing is not physical–like a motive, a soul, an idea, or a host of other things–then a person has to infer its existence or its reality by different means… and in this arguement we have no choice but to use deductive reasoning… and did you notice that “you’re trying to prove something by argument, which is exactly the thing that postmodernity says is problematic. ” is an argument in itself!
you say
“the words used in this conversation - “suspicion”, “belief”, “truth” - are layered with multiple definitions. you believe you know what you mean by them… when i use them i have a hunch i mean something very different.”
this can be true and is problematic and endemic in postmodernism… PM is notorious for equivocation and outright redefinition of words like truth so it is important to make sure we are on the same page.
you say
“i’m bemused by the concept of there being a single christian worldview… i suspect there are dozens of them just on signposts…”
no there is only one Christian worldview that i am sure every one on signposts would adhere to… these are considered absolute for all people in all times and cultures… just quickly they include basics like ‘there is a God who created us for his purposes’ and that we have ‘rebelled against this purpose’ (sin) and that Christ has paid the price for that sin in his substitutionary death on the cross for all that call for his mercy’
these are the basics of Christianity and only make sense from within the Christian worldview… from a PM view i would be talking subjective truth claims that are used as ‘totalisers’ or means of control or violence over others, (yes im generalising) yet to a modernist/athiest i would be talking nonsense (there is no God) that have been made up to give purpose where non exists
from here there are thousands of permutations of belief within Christianity, eg; an arminian or calvinist view of salvation, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, baptism of infants, the morality or immorality of homosexuality, should we worship on a sunday or saturday, speaking in tounges, our attitude to money.
they are all important but do not impinge on the core beliefs of Christianity that is why anglicans, baptists, churches of christ, presbyterians, pentecostals etc can see eye to eye on most things and worship at each others services. but we cannot do so at a church that denies the reality of Christ because they have deviated away from fundamental beliefs that we hold as essential and we would describe them as believing heresy.
you say
“and then imagine if we looked at the worldview of a young christian single mother living below the poverty line in guatemala. a christian worldview would be very different for her”
no it wouldn’t. there is still a God for her who is going to hold her to account for her sin… there is still a Christ who has died in her place… its exactly the same… this is a fundamental core belief of Christianity that we have all ‘fallen short of the glory of God’ and that all are lost in their sin and that we need salvation from the eternal consequences of that sin whether they be Queen Elizabeth or ravi from India or mogatu from Kenya… we are all in the same predicament…
you say
” the great problem of missionaries in the past is that they assumed it wouldn’t be. we’re learning very differently now.”
communicating the gospel to different cultures is tricky and some have gotten it wrong but it is the same message that is why (as Bec correctly said) that some of CS Lewis’s apologetics wouldn’t cut it with PM’s as he was speaking to a modernist audience no a PM audience…
this is critical for the Christian church as it moves in the postmodern world… the method of communicating the gospel has to change but the message of the gospel must stay the same .. otherwise naturally it becomes another gospel which is no gospel.
“suspicion and cynicism are poles apart.” i don’t think i said they were the same but its a matter of opinion i think as to ‘poles apart’.
you say
“what being suspicious of metanarratives means for me, in essence, is that all i know of God is not enough, and much of what i know may be wrong… and i make that statement within a position of committed faith.”
do you know enough of God to know that he is there? if not then how could you place any faith in him… i have faith in the brakes of my car because i know they are there… if i had any reason to doubt that they were there do you think i would trust my life in my car? (let alone my eternal destiny)
no i havent read the book by Pete Rollins… give me an short synopsis if you like… i can suggest a myriad of books supporting my exact position if you are interested Cheryl..
Can man live withour God, Jesus among other Gods, Deliver us From Evil … Ravi Zacharias
Relativism - Feet firmly planted in mid air … Koukl and Beckwith
The Gagging of God … D A Carson
The Universe Next Door, Why Should We Believe In Anything At All, Naming the Elephant, Arguements That Fail … all by James Sire
Truth and Consequences, Postmodernising the Faith … Millard Erikson
Total Truth … Nancy Pearcy
The God Who Is There, How Then Shall We Live, He Is There and He Is Not Silent … all by Francis Schaeffer
Does God Exist … Willam Lane Craig/Antony Flew debate
Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be, The Transforming Vision … Middleto and Walsh
Collosions Remixed - subverting the empire … Walsh and Keesmat
Truth Decay… Douglas Groothius
Time for Truth… Os Guiness
and i could literally go on but i am not at home with my bookshelf
August 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Bec .. with regard to your last 2 posts i say this to you with all the good intentions i can convey on a blog and i say this bluntly but without malice of any sort …. toughen up…. your supposed to be a lawyer are you not? you focus on small issues which are prone to blogwriting and add emotion when it is not intended in the slightest, nothing i have said was intended as an ad homenim. How are you going to cope with a frustrated overworked underpaid police prosecuter or a surly magistrate… you can say i am being nasty or undiplomatic or whatever but that adds nothing to your arguement…. you need to score a goal which means having me concede to your logical arguement that something i have said is not true and that yours is the most logical position… from my side bec i have absolutley loved our arguement and have enjoyed every minute…
if i say your an idiot then fine take it personally and have a go, but if i say ‘no you are wrong’ don’t take it personally just make sure i justify my reasoning properly… have a look at the way Lance talks to Homer … now thats a personal attack - very funny - but still a personal attack
btw is there anything i can read into the fact that both you and cheryl are going overseas on the same day?? collegues?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Yes Abtruth, I am a lawyer - and any decent lawyer knows that you’ll do a better job for your client if you don’t p*** people off by being rude.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
oh, and no cheryl and i aren’t colleagues - i’m going to a conference on civil conflict.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
and i’m going to speak at a christian festival…
August 18th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
fantastic for both of you… i’ve picked a fight with worthy adversaries…
can i recommend to both of you Relativism - Feet firmly planted in mid air … by Koukl and Beckwith as worth a read. very concise and not too heavy and so should be despatched by both of you easily and quickly as opposed to the Gagging Of God which will take you a month if your a speed reader (im not and it took me 2!)
August 20th, 2006 at 11:01 am
With French Peace Keepers in Lebanon now, it makes me wonder something. When the fighting starts do they surrender to Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah or Syria. Sorry, but eery now and then the nasty American in me just has to come out.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
thats not just an americal joke akevin.. everyone knows they cave at the sight of a 10 yr old with a pointed stick
August 20th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hezbolah is shaking in their shoes.