Scott Munger

I came across this website that posted an email by Dr. Scott Munger of International Bible Society. I am truly astonished that Dr. Munger’s could so misrepresent Poythress and Grudem’s arguments. Nowhere did I find Poythress and Grudem arguing equivalence between gender and sex. It is quite true that grammatical gender and biological sex are two different categories, and they do not always overlap. But sometimes they do, and in those cases the connection needs to be taken into account. Moreover, the thrust of Poythress and Grudem’s argument is that certain words like ’ish and aner do have a male meaning component, that that male meaning component should not be lost in translation wherever possible. By using examples such as the neuterness of paidion or the femininity of ruach or the neuterness of pneuma, Dr. Munger is either showing incredible naïveté or being rather disingenuous.

(UPDATE 2005-06-06): “Linguistic naïveté” (or something similar to it) is a phrase that the gender-neutral crowd use to describe their opponents, as if they had the upper hand in linguistics. Not so. Applying their own reasoning, one can easily see that it is totally unnecessary to avoid the generic “he” since the masculinity of it has to do with gender, not sex. If the reader would misunderstand it or take offense at it, it is the reader’s problem, his linguistic naïveté. The solution, then, is not to dumb down the translation, but to educate the reader to make him smarter.

(UPDATE 2005-06-06): My last statement in the original post, using the phrase “either showing incredible naïveté or being rather disingenuous”, shows that I too am guilty of using contemptuous terms in describing my opponent. But I suppose I could justify it because it is the application of my opponent’s own principle to his arguments. That is to say, if by my opponent’s principle such and such is considered naïve, then his own argument is naïve.

We are all fundamentalists

I’ve always thought to be silly the notion that one cannot “legislate morality”. Every law is based on some moral theory. Edward Feser has written a piece that shows the fallacies of the leftists and the libertarians concerning the legislation of morality.

When we push for certain legislation (be it income redistribution or property rights), we are attempting to force our moral theory on others by way of government. In other words, we are all fundemantalists—we just have different fundamentals.

Intelligent Design

Up until now I have not been particularly interested in the Intelligent Design movement, though I read about it from time to time. I have always thought such debates were somewhat silly, since they (i.e., the evolutionists) rarely address the underlying issues of philosophy of science, and almost never critically examine their own presuppositions. Trite labels such as pseudoscience and religious fanaticism are used as all-purpose summary dismissals.

I have recently read about an organization called the Discovery Institute, which apparently is not affliated with any religion and is not partisan, and read a few of their articles. There is also a simple statement, signed by over 300 scientists, that expresses doubt that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life. Though these scientists may not be advocates of Intelliegent Design themselves, they might be candidates for their opponents’ label of pseudoscientists if all it takes to qualify is to express doubt on Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. And these are conventionally trained (if I may use that phrase) scientists who have advanced degrees. To call one or two renegades pseudoscientists might be credible, but 300 is a pretty big number to dismiss without serious engagement and criticism.

The disingenuousness of the establishment evolutionists is also evident in their refusal to answer questions about why critical thinking on and approaches to Darwinism should not be encouraged in secondary schools. I cannot but help notice the parallels with the critical schools in the study of the Scriptures. Those who opposed biblical criticism were often labeled obscurantists, and engaging in criticism, whatever the results, was supposed to be the mark of the enlighted. (For the record, I think a lot of biblical higher criticism was wrong.) Now, ironically, it is the establishment scientists who are trying to hold on to their orthodoxy and impose it on everyone else (including our children), and critics of the orthodoxy are the heretics.

I guess the imposition of orthodoxy works both ways, but the tendency of man to rebel against God is the same. Whatever arguments can be leveled against belief in God are celebrated, and whatever arguments that compels man to believe are to be shunned or attacked at all costs.

(UPDATE 2005-05-30): I think intelligent design may be a useful starting point (something like John Frame’s proximate starting point) for engaging someone who does not believe in God. But the notion among the ID proponents that one can purely infer from “evidence” ultimately fails from a Van Tilian perspective. Likewise, the evolutionists claim of pure naturalism also fails: it too has preconceived notions about nature, namely, that there is something about nature that can be studied and understood. That preconceived notion belongs to the realm of epistemology proper, not science. Vern Poythress’s recent article is a good analysis of why scientists, regardless of their explicit claim, must “believe” in God.

Judas and the Leftists

Yes, I do mean Judas Iscariot, the guy who betrayed the Lord. John 12:3–6 (ESV) says,

3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

As I read through this, I could not help but note how those tax-loving Leftists are like Judas. Their rhetoric is always about helping the poor, and yet they are in reality thieves who help themselves to the money in the public treasury. One helps others by means of voluntarily and cheerfully giving away what is rightfully one’s, not by forcing others (i.e., through taxation) to do it—even whether it is actually done is questionable—and profiting from the act in the mean time, as many of our politicians have done.

Those Incompetent Republicans

Much ink has been spilled over the compromise that 14 senators have reached to avert the (idiotically named) nuclear option. The conservative commentators’ reactions are split, though from all indications a majority seemed dissatisfied with the compromise at least.

Given the reactions from the left side of the aisle, it is by no means clear who was the winner here. It may well be that the Republicans might be able to get an advantage out of this. But still this event showed how incompetent the Republicans were. They have a 55-45 majority in the Senate, and yet they cannot govern like a majority. They may perhaps try go project an image of meekness. But what do they get? Little respect. In fact, Sen. Bill Frist (for whom I have in fact much respect) was called a loser. And at the same time, the Demos continue to call the Republicans mean.

It’s time for the Republicans to govern more confidently. The voters have cast their votes for you, so do what we want you to do!

An atheist minister in the Lutheran church?

Kierkegaard must be laughing at (and weeping for) his beloved Danish Lutheran church.

Newsweek lied and people died

Thanks to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit for pointing out this article.