Tag-teaming with Phil Johnson on futile, Jew-tile silliness about God's name(s)

I am so delighted to see the irascible Phil Johnson tear into this ostentatious practice of writing "G-d" instead of "God."

For the uninitiated, this is an affectation often adopted by both Jews and Gentile Christians who are trying to get all cool and "Messianic" and Jewishistic, indulging in a Goyed-up version of that Pharisaical obscuring of "Yahweh" which has cursed Christian translations with the "Lord / LORD / LORD God / Lord GOD" absurdity for centuries. (Not that I have strong feelings about that issue, mind you.) It is done, we're told, out of supposed reverence for God's name and care for Jewish sentiments. So these poor souls write "G-d," elliding the "o." Sometimes they even efface other Divine titles the same way. (Phil's correspondent even ellides the vowels to "Creator," thus birthing the deformed "Cr--t-r" -- I kid you not.)

Phil has excellent responses, as one would expect, some of which I'd not considered before. I now make bold to add some of my own.

1. If these folks were to be consistent about their practice, shouldn't my name be written "Dani-l," instead of "Daniel," to omit the offensive theophoric element? Similarly, shouldn't Isaiah be "Isai-h," and Zechariah "Zechari-h," and Israel "Isra-l"? Shouldn't Joel be J--l? Shouldn't Timothy be "Timoth-"? And since they'd not want to name pagan deities, shouldn't Saturday be "S-t-rday," and Wednesday "W-dn-sday"?
2. How does it honor God to substitute a well-known American-language blasphemy for His name? Ask any man on the street what "Geedee" (G-d) signifies. I guarantee he won't reply, "Oh, that's a reverential way of avoiding making God's name common, in violation of the third commandment!" No, he'll tell you it's an abbreviation for a common blasphemy. And this is more God-honoring than simply writing God's name?
3. As far as we know, none of the NT writers— NONE! — observed this practice. Paul (apostle to the Gentiles) did not write th--s instead of theos, nor did Peter (apostle to the Jews) write k-r--s instead of kurios. Certainly he did not write any church instructing that this be done. Of course, the Hebrew OT contains "Yahweh" nearly 7000 times, not counting the names with theophoric elements. The practice is without Biblical precedent.
4. Not only is it without Biblical precedent, it is against explicit Biblical commands and precedent. Biblical writers used God's name constantly; the sacrosanct Yahweh appears some 6,823 times in the OT. Esther is remarkable in being the only book our of 66 not explicity to use one of God's names. Moreover, how can one call on God's name, swear by God's name, glory in God's name, or do any of these other worshipful, Biblical practices, if one plays games with God's name?
5. The argument collapses in silliness. It is argued that ink (or bits and bytes) are too ephemeral to contain God's name, or that written copies may be thrown into the trash, thus defiling it. But what is more ephemeral than breath? And into what horrid places might breath be blown? Yet are we further to disobey Scripture, by not even saying God's names? Are we to grunt out "Guh-duh," or worse, "Gee-dee," instead of simply saying "God"?
6. If we are to write "G-d" so as not to offend the Jews, why is it OK to write "Y'shua"? If we believe that Christ is God, shouldn't we write "Y-sh-"? But wait -- that will offend the unbelieving Jews, too, since they deny Christ's Deity! If our summum bonum in life is to order our practices by the strictures of those who have rejected their Messiah, mustn't we do the same? Quite the dilemma... for the sacro-silly, anyway.
7. And while I'm on that, I'm sure these poor souls feel themselves to be special and hardcore and all for writing "Y'shua" and "Sha'ul," instead of Jesus and Paul. But our Lord is never once in the Bible called "Y'shua." Ever. Nor is Paul ever called "Sha'ul." Why not? Because those are Hebrew (mis-)transliterations, and the New Testament is entirely in Greek. If this is their idea of being hardcore, shouldn't they write Iesous, and Paulos? Of course, then, they'll have to explain to everybody what the heck -- pardon me, what the Gehenna -- they're talking about. Which leads me finally to this:
8. It really isn't about God anyway, is it? It's about the person. It's about being different and special. It's all about "Hey! Hey, look at me! I'm so different and extra-cool! Look at me, me me!" As I recall, C. S. Lewis referred to this sort of thing as "trying to be holier than God." Since God Himself, in moving the writers to inscripturate His Word, felt no such compunction and issued no such commands, that is indeed all this is. It is "improving" on His Word. It is "helping" God, filling in all those nasty blanks He inadvertently left, but would have filled in Himself had He our foresight and insight. (I speak as a fool.) And if this is not the heart and soul of Christ-killing traditionalism, what is?
   
   By contrast, it's my observation that the sort of "different-ness" that glorifies God is believing and obeying His word as sufficient, and thus not needing our helpful supplements. That in itself makes us just as "different" as God wants us to be.
   
   And isn't that really what being a Christian is supposed to be all about?

Then there is the problem that some of these "Jew-tiles" head off for the heresy of modalism. (Though adumbrations of the truth of the Trinity appear literally all over the OT from Genesis to Malachi [pardon the Gentile canon-order], the concept is offensive and confusing to unbelieving Jews, so... out it goes!)

But perhaps more on that, another day.

Rebel with a Book

Think of all the miserable behavior troubles facing school officials today. Violence, drugs, theft, profanity, pregnancy, Bible reading....

Whoa. "Bible reading"?

Yep. Officials at a Knoxville, Tennessee elementary school had to swing into action to stop a ten-year-old from -- ladies, hide your babies! -- reading his Bible!

Agape Press reports that "The district claims the Bible reading jeopardizes student safety and that, because recess is not 'free time,' they can prohibit Bible reading during that time." Yessir, there goes another kid, jeopardizing student safety by reading his Bible!

(And this at an age where many parents would pay their kids to read their Bibles more!)

The parents are seeking legal relief, and rightly so.

"We're here, we're clueless -- and we demand a say!"

If there is no immutable, transcendent God, then values are transitory, hollow, subjective, and ultimately determined by sheer force.

So no big surprise to learn that the Secular Coalition for America is trying to leverage some power in the Capital.

This always kind of cracks me up. Folks like this have absolutely no basis to say anything about anything of substance, but stridently insist that they be heeded, and demand that those who do have an objective basis shush up. It's never about what should be done, it's about what should not be done.

Scott Ott targets this for his usual, deadly satire.

Not a proud moment to be a Republican

Of the two relevant political parties in America, only one shows even occasional interest in protecting the smallest and most helpless. That is one reason why I am a Republican.

But I am not always a happy Republican.

I had one are of my unhappy moments Tuesday, watching Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioning prospective Chief Justice John Roberts.

So here is Arlen Specter, by any estimation at the end of his life. He is in his eighties, and is being treated for cancer. What legacy does be want to leave? Evidently Specter wants to be remembered as the great protector of Roe vs. Wade.

That's right. Arlen Specter's great concer in life is protecting a wretched, wrongheaded ruling that has resulted in the violent deaths of millions upon millions of children. A ruling that even its defenders acknowledge as, to be charitable, "flawed."

I just can't get my brain around that concept. One could argue -- could try to argue -- that 32 years ago there was reason to be ambivalent about the effects Roe would have. If so, any such reason has since been decimated, and replaced by unassailable counter-arguments. But word of all this evidently has not reached the planet Senator Spector lives on.

But the most astonishing thing that I know of Specter saying (so far) has to be this. It is a stunning admission. Here it is, as reported by LifeNews:

"People have ordered their thinking and living around Roe," Specter said. "For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships in reliance on the availability of abortion."

Read that again. Think of the big argument that's been often tried against making killing all babies (not just the perfect and convenient ones) against the law. It's been argued that such laws would have no real effect. It's a stupid argument, and a a desperate argument -- and even the morally-dense Senator Specter evidently knows better.

Yes, of course people who sleep around like dogs might have to think twice if they couldn't just have any inconvenient results butchered for a price. And Specter thinks that would be a bad thing.

The blackness of such moral darkness can only be penetrated by the light of God's grace in the face of Jesus Christ. Pray that Senator Specter know that light while he still has time.

Died Funk as a fool dieth?

It's always sad when someone dies, who gives every evidence of being uprepared for it.

In the case of some, there is no reason to believe that they gave any particular thought to God, Jesus, ultimate issues. They just played and played like there would be no tomorrow, and then tomorrow came, as it always has. This was the lot of the fool our Lord so memorably depicted in Luke 12:15-21.

In the case of others, they obviously focused a lot of energy on Jesus -- or on something they called "Jesus." Robert Funk would fit into this category. He was one of the perpetrators of that body of cutting-edge 18th century radical German scholarship repackaged for the 2oth century euphemistically (and misleadingly) called "The Jesus Seminar."

These are the credentialled geniuses who voted on the sayings of Jesus with colored beads and, 1900+ years after the fact, decided which parts of the first-century documents were and were not accurate representations of what Jesus said. Turns out He didn't actually say some 80% of what His contemporaries recorded Him as saying.

This was nothing more nor less than a philosophical grudge match, where the perps imposed their worldviews on perfectly innocent historical documents that had never done them any harm. Or had they? Generally, when one finds this much vitriol and rage, there is a moral issue or two lurking under the surface.

Take a look at Funk's The Coming Radical Reformation. This is nothing other than an angry, hamfisted, arrogant rant masquerading as a statement of detached, glacial scholarship. That same description pretty well fits the work of the Jesus Seminar itself as well. The collaborators proceeded as if the last 150 years of NT studies had never happened; it was a nightmare. (I did a send-up on its work titled How to Make Your Very Own Jesus.)

This whole academic pose is perpetuated in the late Dr. Funk's obituaries. Again and again we read that Funk was "a divinity scholar whose institute questioned New Testament miracle stories," or "called into question New Testament miracle stories and the authenticity of many of the statements attributed to Jesus." No, as a matter of fact, he didn't "question" the miracle stories. He adopted an a priori assumption that such things could never happen and then, with that premise in place, turned to the New Testament histories. The results can hardly surprise. Since Funk had decided that such things could not happen, he further ruled that such things did not happen. Neat little circle.

Nothing in academics, scholarship, nor the evidence called for this conclusion. The last century-plus in particular has shown the NT documents to be accurate, reliable, remarkable and remarkably well-attested literature. Such wholesale slaughter comes from sheer prejudice and personal issues -- not from scholarship, nor the evidence.

And so, having whistled past the graveyard his whole academic career, Robert Funk now finds himself in one. Having ruled out any possibility of Jesus being God incarnate, only mediator between God and man, and sole Savior and Judge of all men, he now finds himself before Him in all those offices.

Perhaps Dr. Funk found repentance in his last days, hours, minutes. I sincerely hope so. Because whether it comes from a gradeschool dropout or a highly-respected academic, "There is no wisdom and no understanding And no counsel against the LORD" (Proverbs 21:30).

Robert Funk knows that now.

Are "Evangelicals" okay with polytheist Mitt Romney for President? (And what is an "Evangelical," anyway?)

Months ago, I discussed the question Is America Ready for a Mormon President? Should we be? Since then, Mitt Romney has apparently continued his preparations to run for the presidency on the GOP ticket in 2008... and I'm back, with another two-question title.

Amy Sullivan delivers a pretty good article titled Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem. Her point is that Romney will have a rough time, at best, gaining enough Evangelical support to win the GOP primary, which would place the general election far out of reach.

Her reporting is, as I say, "pretty good." What irritates me is the semantic erosion of the previously-useful word "Evangelical." The writer never defines it, and (wrongly) assumes her readers know what it means. (This, in a day when journalists still use "evangelical" as a synonym for both "evangelist" and "evangelistic.")

But to be honest, anymore -- I'm not even sure what it means! And I am one! Or I was, until the word's meaning shifted away from me.

For instance, Ms. Sullivan identifies Fuller Theological Seminary as an "evangelical theological seminary." Is it, anymore? It was; but is it?

And consider this:

“Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult,” Cizik explained. “That will shape, I'd imagine, their reactions to Romney as a candidate for the White House.”

So, who is this Cizik person? Richard Cizik is the Vice President for Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). And listen again to what he says: "Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult."

Now, I won't overload the "still," and assume that Mr. Cizik finds this a backwards belief. Maybe it simply is durative, like "I still believe in America," or "I still love my wife."

But it's hard to get around the "most." I can't think of any way to take it that doesn't end up indicating that Mr. Cizik believes that some real-live, card-carrying, legitimate Evangelicals do not "regard Mormonism as a cult."

So here I am wondering again, "What is an Evangelical?" If you can be an "Evangelical" and, at the same time, embrace a religion that (for starters) adds books to the Bible, affirms the existence of many genuine gods, holds out the possibility of becoming a God, and preaches a "gospel" of faith-plus-works...then what does it mean to be an Evangelical? If God, the Gospel, and the Bible are not sine qua nons, if they are not utterly essential cornerstones, then what is? (Phil Johnson provides a characteristically useful discussion today of the cavernous nature of the distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity in Peddling Mormonism as mainstream Christianity.)

But if I'm not an Evangelical, then what am I? If I say "Reformed," then folks will assume rightly about my theology and soteriology and a host of other things, but probably wrongly about aspects of my ecclesiology and eschatology. If I say "Fundamentalist," nobody can be counted on to know what that means, either -- its historical meaning (one who affirms the fundamental doctrines of the Bible) would be accurate, but they might assume things about my taste in clothes and entertainment that have nothing to do with me.

I suppose it's wisest to stick with "Biblical Christian," and just explain further to anyone who wants to know more.

Asay nails the HDE (Holy Darwin Empire)

I've thought exactly this, but leave it to The Colorado Springs Gazette's deadeye cartoonist Chuck Asay to nail it in a cartoon.

Hysterical review of an appalling Bible (per)version

How can a review go wrong with it starts like this?

The dungheap of really bad literature is one book higher these days.

Well, I suppose it could -- but in this case, it doesn't! If you're not already hooked, let me complete the first paragraph, because it gets even better:

Seems somebody out there obviously believes we needed yet another translation of the Bible, though I fail to understand why. This is of no consequence, because neither did they, apparrently. And as our vernacular, colloquials, and sentence composites continue their ridiculous trek to oblivion in the dim light of political correctness, they might as well keep the printing presses warm and ready for continual amendment by people who think Camus, Sartre, Marx, and Stalin are all just post-Biblical versions of the Apostle Paul.

The whole review is just that good, right up to the end. Read The Therapist's A totally objective look at The New Testament and Psalms-An Inclusive Version.

(Gosh, if I ever get published, and he reads my book... I hope he likes it! HT to La Shawn Barber.)

The impact of Hurricane Katrina: did I tell you so?

I had wondered whether anyone would connect my essay What really worries me about the War on Terror, written several weeks before Hurricane Katrina's devastating blow, with that disaster. Particularly re-read the last several paragraphs. Reflect on what the removal of the veneer of law and order revealed about the citizenry. Think about the grandstanding and blameshifting that have followed these events.

I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I'll say this: recent news has not served to make me less worried.

The one disaster, engineered and carried out by men, did not serve to wake us up, and I expressed concern about what it would take. Now a "natural" disaster has hit us, and hit us hard. What is the general reaction? To blame men for not preventing it, to blame the government for not being big enough to deal with it, to blame President Bush for not exercising Godlike powers. (Read this spluttering, hate-soaked screed from the NYT's Frank Rich as an example.) All still man-centered and strictly horizontal thinking -- while the removal of the restraint of law almost instantly shows what lurks just under the surface in our society.

But there's more.

President Bush and the GOP leadership did not succeed in slapping down Dem obstructionism in the matter of appointing justices. The hearings on Roberts' appointment to the Supreme Court have been delayed until September, and even so one of the Dems' Chief Obstructionists, Ted Kennedy -- a man who knows his water-related disasters -- predictably wants to delay them further. Now Chief Justice Rehnquist has died, presenting President Bush and the GOP (and America) with a real opportunity to shift the court towards sanity, or further away from it.

And amid all this, irrational attacks on the President's failure to be God are going unrefuted in the Mainstream Media arm of the Democratic party and (as usual) unanswered by the President himself and the GOP. They still seem to think that if they're just nice and genteel, everyone will sort things out for himself. Because everybody's basically good at heart.

Given that this latest disaster shows no sign of generally waking anyone up, but rather of further bringing out the depth of our spiritual and (thus) rational declension, it is easy to project a few more events bringing us to dire straits indeed.

All this to say that we should pray. But, as I've said, I think we dare not pray for God simply to "bless" America. We must pray that He chasten us, humble us, and bring us to repentance -- which would involve disabusing the President and others like him of their muzzy and anti-Biblical notions of the fundamental goodness of all men.

Now that would be a blessing.

UPDATE: Ben Stein offers some good, contextualizing thoughts about the Bash-Bush-apalooza that the MSM is trying to perpetuate. By contrast, the always-wrong Paul Krugman must be slipping, though; he actually takes three paragraphs before first explicitly blaming President Bush for the death and destruction.

UPDATE II: FReeper NewJerseyJoe produces an on-target satire of the MSM's subtext in How the libs wanted Bush to act: A Katrina Fairy Tale.

UPDATE III: Powerline's Rocket-man John Hinderaker dissassembles foam-flecked Paul Krugman piece by piece. It isn't a pretty sight, and not much is left when the dust clears.

Great, overlooked World War II movie

Have you ever heard of Saints and Soldiers? I hadn't either, and am not really sure what moved me to put it in my Netflix queue.

My son Matthew and I saw it last night, and we recommend it. Just about everything works: the actors are terrific, the plot is involving and layered, and it moves right along. There are laughs, jumps, chills; there is sadness and joy. It is about a group of soldiers who survive a massacre in WWII, and what they do. It is based on an actual occurrence.

I gather it was made by Mormons, and it appears that a major character is Mormon -- because he doesn't drink coffee and was on a mission. (And I agree -- anyone who doesn't drink coffee is probably a cultist.) (Just kidding.) (Mostly.)

But absolutely nothing is made of Mormonism particularly; the word isn't even mentioned. That he is a devout person is a major plot point, but one would have to try pretty hard to be offended by this whisper of an echo of the hint of possible Mormonism.

There is war violence, vivid, but not excessive, and I wouldn't recommend it for young children. On the other hand, to quote Roger Ebert, "Unlike the characters in modern war movies, they don't use four-letter words, and we don't miss them."

If you enjoy war movies at all, see this one. You'll not regret it.

Semi-random Hurricane Katrina thoughts

Read my sister La Shawn Barber's characteristically no-nonsense, bottom-line, Biblical thoughts about the rioting and looting. The problem is that most of the people in the disaster area probably do not have, and many have never even heard, La Shawn's Biblical perspective. And we are seeing in the news every day the truth of Proverbs 29:18 -- "Where there is no prophetic vision [i.e. the Word of God, known and heeded] the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he [i.e. the people, the nation] who keeps the law."

Hugh Hewitt keeps up on some of the best blogging on the hurricane; visit him frequently. He is part of the organized blogging effort to encourage giving for this disaster. I am particularly struck by the truth Col. Austen Bay's words: "There's no America out there except America to respond to it. We've got to do it ourselves."

For our part, we will give through my wife's work, which will add their funds to employees' donations. LaShawn recommends the Salvation Army, Hugh recommends Feed the Children. Then there is Samaritan's Purse. Do pick one at least, and give.