My guess is that the majority of people who are bothered by warfare langauge in religion use warfare language is other arenas of their life (family, marriage, sports, work, etc.) without thinking about it. I wonder how much worldwide militant Islam and the idea of jihad is spoiling the legitimate use of such language in the religious realm. People no longer want to talk about their faith in militaristic terms because it makes them look and feel too much like radical Muslims.

Tom

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

 

Here's what I think.  What is there to truly lose by using the paradigm of "struggle" instead of "warfare"?  Inherent within the idea of "freedom struggle" is the goal of ELIMINATION of tyrannical, oppressive structures and realities.  One could still have the ability to talk meaningfully about the reign of darkness being no more...but not have to worry about some of the baggage of warfare language.

 

PLUS...it significantly removes any room for "us/them" language.  We are ALL bound in some way in this fallen world.  We ALL have the issue.   Whether "saved" or "unsaved."  We can truly see that, without Christ, we are trapped by sin and, insofar as we are, we are separated infinitely from God's holiness and we are in NO DIFFERENT a state than Satan himself!  I think this is very helpful to kill the "judger" in any of us.

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 6/14/2006 9:20:50 PM (GMT-5)

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

 

Corey: I've been soaking on this since yesterday. I agree with your intuitions generally, and am all for dumping excess language baggage. However, my reaction thus far is that "struggle" language doesn't adequately convey the nature of what's going on cosmically. It does away with not only the language, but also the very notion of 'enemy', which is important to the biblical narrative. It doesn't convey the reality that we walk around with targets painted on our chests; there is an intentional being so aligned with evil that he roams about, seeking to kill and destroy. I would prefer language that can better convey the two-kingdom motif. We've all got an either/or choice of where to align our allegiance. 'Struggle' language, in my mind anyway, makes the thing we struggle against too passive, like one would struggle to clear some land of underbrush so they could build something new. The underbrush doesn't fight back.

Post Edited (Corey) : 6/15/2006 12:55:21 PM (GMT-5)

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

The newest mantra:

 

"Hmm.  Why not?  What the hell.  Let's try it."
                                            --God

 

 

Starkman

---

My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?"  Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?

Meph Man said

 

In other words, is it not possible to speak of the "wars" that happen in the Bible as a SUBSET of the overall "struggle" that God is in to redeem and free Creation?

 

And

 

What I'm saying, Brandon, is that the "facts" of the testimony concerning warfare are interpretable within a different framework that 1) doesn't deny or minimize the reality of warfare in salvation history, but 2) doesn't presume to say that warfare is the only framework in which the "facts" can be (or even SHOULD be) interpreted.

 

And

 

In like manner, I am saying that the "freedom struggle" ENCOMPASSES the "facts" of the warfare that we see. This makes room for perfectly loving means whereas the traditionally accepted understanding of warfare (if made the ultimate metanarrative of this whole thing) causes PROBLEMS for perfectly loving means.

 

OK.  Meph Man.  I understand that the “facts of the testimony” are interpretable within a different framework.  Yeah, I understand all that.  What I’m saying is that by doing so, what I’m wondering is if there is any potential loss of meaning or possibly a partially or totally NEW definition that is incorporated into the facts thus making the new framework “something different” to such an extent as to not give an accurate portrayal of the “main frame” in the first place.  Let me give an example.

 

I remember one time I mentioned to you Pinnock’s and Brow’s book, “Unbounded Love.”  You said that you really liked that book.  In there, Pinnock and Brow speak of the many different metaphors to describe God i.e. King, Shepherd, Judge.  Now God IS these, but God is also a loving Father, Mother and so forth.  Now, in terms of God being Judge (and we must remember that Judge in the Old Testament was not how we normally think of judges in our day—as some guy bringing down his verdict with gavel in hand and with a lot of angry vengeance.  In the O.T. they were concerned and cared for the oppressed and setting things right) God still had to make decisions that were pretty “vengeful.”  He did this in an angry way, but his anger did not last.  Now, the idea is not that we totally get rid of “judge” in our contemporary setting and highlight only the Fatherhood and Motherhood.  That would be an over emphasis on one and not the other.  But the other issue is the REDEFINING of “Judge” altogether.  And it is THAT that I think Corey has some concern with.  You SEEM to be saying, “Let’s change the language of “Judge” to say this and make it more contemporaneous with society.”  When in fact, we should leave that alone (?) and emphasize the other metaphors.  Once you start messing with the definition, then you start messing with the “main frame.”  In other words, part of the definition is in the expression. Mess with the expression, you mess with the definition and thus you mess with the “main frame.”  See what I’m saying?  All one needs to do is emphasize one of the other metaphors for it to be more contemporaneous and relevant with society.  I don’t have a problem with that.  By the way, did you know that in other parts of the world, NOT USING a warfare worldview with the warfare expressions and language is considered to expound a “weak God?”  I believe Simon Chan spoke about this in “Spiritual Theology.”

 

Meph Man said:

 

How about this...

The main metanarrative for the Christus Victor idea does NOT have to be solely described in warfare terms. It can be described in terms of God, through Christ, doing what it takes to free God's creation from the power and thrall of sin and evil. Christ's overpowering the powers and principalities is the major MEANS of doing that. Destroying the works of the devil. Destoying the POWER of sin.

I'm not seeing the problem here. Help me out.

 

Right.  I agree with you.  But originally you said that WHATEVER warfare worldview could be described?  We should probably ditch the warfare language and expressions and say something like “Freedom Struggle” which could turn out to mischaracterize or “mis-define” or “redefine” the warfare (really, even here, I can’t say that we totally get away from the negative implications of this i.e we HAVE ENEMIES or principalities and powers in antithesis to God, even you use the terms “DESTROYING the works of the Devil).  Now think about this in terms of the atonement.  How should we describe the atonement and salvation?  Let’s think about this.

 

Of recent, especially with Greg’s stuff, we have the Christus Victor view.  God is in a struggle with the forces of evil.  Those of the Christus Victor view have complained that it has been “lost to” or “replaced” by the Latin or juridical construct or “satisfaction” as the key concept view.  The fact is that it was preached for centuries that salvation was wrought by Christ being PUNISHED on our behalf.  Now, are these two views exclusive or can they be MAINTAINED JOINTLY (as I proposed with regard to what I’m saying above about metaphors about God and in the warfare scheme) and if we do? Do we put “power” first or are we to subordinate the scheme to “penal substitution?” Packer says that Christ’s death had an effect on God who was PROPITIATED and because it had this effect did become an overthrowing of the powers of darkness.

 

The fact is that the Christus Victor plea is set with “polemical language.”  You can’t speak about Christ being Victor without speaking about HOW he became victorious (the Beast WAGES WAR against the Lamb and the Lamb DEFEATS him) and WHO he is victorious over (after all the agents are real).

 

Also, it has been said that the Christus Victor (or dramatic) view is “unbroken” while the Latin view is “broken.”  By that, it is meant that the legal order is broken when the atonement takes place, whereas in the dramatic view this doesn’t occur.  Related to this is the fact that this puts the law among the harmful powers which must be broken.  All of this is antinomianism and results from the ARRANGEMENT OF THE DATA which inevitably distorts them.

 

Though the dramatic view is one among several views of the atonement, VICTORY OVER THE DEVIL would INCLUDE God upholding and not breaking the standards of justice and that the language of judicial substitution of legal debt was PAID by the blood of Christ. 

 

So there needs to be this working out of the two metaphors and I’ll explain that more fully later when I get home from work.

 

Let me quickly relate this to the current thread asking about the androgynous nature of God. I think there are similar intuitions at work in that discussion. Since the metaphor of male doesn't fully convey the reality of God, and neither does the metaphor of female, should we just think of God as more of a "it". (I'm not sure I'm representing the views accurately, but this is how I'm framing the question in my mind.) I think this is the wrong answer. Rather, it seems that we need to 'sum' these metaphors rather than let them cancel each other out (again, that's just how the term 'androgynous' strikes ME.) God is both more masculine than the most manly man, and more feminine than the most girly girl. These two metaphors are distinct and cover different territory; we shouldn't limit our understanding to what they have in common. Just as we shouldn't do away with the masculine (or feminine) language about God, neither should we do away with the warfare language about God. It's an important piece of the puzzle.

 

Pre-emptively, let me just say again that I understand that this warfare language or this masculine language may be easily misunderstood, especially in our particular culture. We DO need to carefully deconstruct those misconceptions and carefully re-construct a more accurate understanding in it's place.

Post Edited (Corey) : 6/17/2006 10:19:53 AM (GMT-5)

The Pastor I had growing up would constantly speak about the “mining the Bible for spiritual nuggets.”  He spoke as if there was no end to it!  I am simply amazed at what we can come up with when we take metaphors, teachings, doctrine, etc and just “dig a little deeper” as the southern gospels song says.

 

Having said that, I can go for what Meph Man is saying per se.  I say that because even within a given metaphor, or teaching or doctrine, there is any number of nuances that we could derive from them.  So, I don’t think I would say that I would be against at least entertaining the idea of say, for example, a “Freedom struggle” derivative of a warfare worldview.  However, I would suggest we should recognize that there comes a point in which we are distorting the metaphor, teaching, doctrine by way of stretching it so far beyond recognition such that it no longer “fits” whatever category we are working in.  THAT’S when we “lose” something.  So this is a matter of working this stuff out. 

 

Thus, I don’t think a given metaphor misrepresents God (they are there).  However, I do think what we “draw from” that metaphor can be given over to distortion of whatever “main frame” we are working in.  Or say we have a “worldview” of some sort i.e. the warfare worldview, we could “draw out” a “Freedom Struggle” and see if it “passes the test” in terms of distorting the warfare worldview itself or the biblical worldview in general.

 

By way, check out Peter Kreeft's book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898705797/sr=8-1/qid=1150594403/ref=sr_1_1/103-9920645-6197428?%5Fencoding=UTF8