Phelps v. Rankin
Jonathan Rowe on Jan 31st 2010 10:11 am |
I blogged about this before. The audio of this very amusing debate between the Revs. Fred Phelps and John Rankin has been uploaded to YouTube in clips.
Here are of my favorites:
I find Phelps to be one of the (unintentionally) funniest people on the planet.
Filed in The Belfry, The Boudoir
I find Phelps to be one of the (unintentionally) funniest people on the planet.
That’s one of the most beautiful things about a liberal democracy. Our genuine tyrants don’t tend to be in a position to exert authority. Can you imagine what life under a Phelps dictatorship would be like?
I’ve heard horror stories from estranged family members.
Yeah, I remember when one of the church members (a nephew of Phelps?) posted on this site, and then one of the matrons went ballistic at him and anyone else who cared to comment.
Have you heard from others?
I’ve heard from him personally. And I think there is one other member who is estranged.
The scary thing is his interpretation of the Bible, taken in a literal sense, is as hermeneutically sound as any. He/they just opt for the meanest possible interpretation.
I’m not a Bible basher. But, if believers think they can distance themselves from Phelps, they will have to admit theories that underlie interpretation of the text are of utmost importance. Only THAT, and not the text of the Bible itself, can distance themselves from Phelps.
The scary thing is his interpretation of the Bible, taken in a literal sense, is as hermeneutically sound as any.
I would disagree. If you take the Bible to be a monolithic document untouched by the influence of humanity and transcendent of time and place, then, yes, you might be able to argue that Phelps’ interpretations are hermeneutically sound. But the Bible is a collection of 66 books (or 74 if you’re Catholic, or 77 if you’re Orthodox), each with its own author, its own original audience, and its own historical context. All of these factors should affect the way one interprets the text. Doing so doesn’t assure that scholars will find the one true interpretation, but it certainly narrows the field of what counts as hermeneutically sound.
One can read the first two chapters of Genesis literally, and claim it as a sound interpretation. But that totally ignores the genre of the early chapters of Genesis, as well as the fact that through most of Church history the creation accounts were not read literally. For that matter, one could read the book of revelation absolutely literally, but it’s a pretty poor hermeneutic that leads one to expect seven-headed dragons and a woman who stands on the moon and wears the sun.
Jon, I think that, overall, you’re quite fair to Christians, and fair-minded in general.
But there are two items where that fairness breaks, with repetition, and no answer seems to be helpful correction or clarification. Those issues are Romans 13 and Fred Phelps, where you suggest that the soundest interpretation is one that’s clearly going to be more offensive to libertarians, and even Americans in general.
To compound my concern, you suggest in both instances that the people who disagree must reduce the Bible to some inferior status. They may be right (you’re willing to give them that credit), but only if they DON’T take the Bible to mean what it says. This is hardly a compliment to someone who professes the Christian faith.
It’s also not accurate. In the debates over Romans 13, I demonstrated, amply, that I was taking the passage quite literally, and no more — too literally for Dr. Frazer, for he wants the verse to mean more than it actually says. Yet Frazer is “true to the text,” and I, along with KofI, are not.
And here, in what would come as a shock to nearly every Evangelical in the country, you’re saying that “if believers think they can distance themselves from Phelps, they will have to admit theories that underlie interpretation of the text are of utmost importance. Only THAT, and not the text of the Bible itself, can distance themselves from Phelps.”
AMW has responded well in this case. And it’s interesting that he chooses the first two chapters of Genesis, because Phelp’s debate is with a man, Rankin, who argues, similar to me, that the beginning of Genesis is the key part of the Bible. Fail to understand Genesis, you’ll get the rest wrong (and many do).
I’ve listened to two-thirds of the debate now, and Rankin is clearly winning — even on Biblical grounds. Phelps is a bully, and not a scholar.
Phelps cares not how verses were rendered in the Greek.
Phelps constantly accuses his opponent of the things he’s doing (even as he’s doing them). He calls Rankin names, and ridicules every question he cannot answer. He accuses Rankin of not answering questions, and when Rankin does answer, he accuses him of fillibustering. Rankin never responds in kind. He doesn’t need to.
Yet it gets worse from there. Phelps is as ugly as I would’ve expected him to be.
God self-identifies as LOVE, and Phelps even, almost amusingly, quotes a verse from Timothy about being gentle with those in error (all-time moment of irony), even as he’s being a brute. If you think his arguments are sound because he’s good at proof-texting, so be it. I’m not buying it.
Calvinists might have a hard time running from Phelps, but the rest of the “believers” certainly don’t.
Jim,
I think I can condense your comment to a single sentence:
“Jon Rowe’s fundamental error is mistaking Calvinism for legitimate theology.”
If I’ve got your sentiments right, I concur with them.
AMW, Wow, I wish I’d run my comments past you first. :-)
Well, precisely…
“Legitimate” might be a bit too strong a word. I think the fundamental error is mistaking Calvinism for the most orthodox and definitionally Christian system. I’m pretty sure no such thing exists, but if it did, it wouldn’t be Calvinism.
Quit talking about God like he exists. Cause he doesnt. Sorry… godisimaginary.com
I happen to agree. I also happen to live in a world where many rational people believe in God, and where these people have done good things for the world. Understanding their ideas is part of human decency, whatever my own happen to be.
Jim,
You should blog about your understanding of the Phelps/Rankin debate.
So I get your position straight? You don’t think Calvinism is biblical?
I know you are an Arminian and disagree with Calvinism.
I am trying to approach this as an outsider. If I became a Christian and took a position, then I might say, yes, X position is what the Bible teaches (this is what I see evangelicals do as they argue against one another).
I understand that evangelicals dispute every single letter of TULIP on biblical grounds. And a non-TULIP evangelicalism sounds nicer than TULIP.
My theory is that they are both equally biblical and it’s the hermeneutic that that determines whether you end up with an understanding of the Bible that is quite mean (God hates people) or nicer sounding (God hates the sin but loves the sinner).
My own personal sympathy — a kind of Christianity that I think resonates with the hopes and consciences of most human beings — is where the UNIVERSAL Atonement of Christ leads to universal salvation.
But I admit there are proof texts that seem to cut against this interpretation and I’d have to use the hermeneutic to drive that understanding of the Bible.
Jon,
I won’t presume to speak for Jim, but I get the sense that he and I are, if not on the same page, at least in the same chapter when it comes to Biblical interpretation. At any rate, I consider the notion of “Biblical” theology a bit hazy.
You can come up with a lot of theologies that are internally consistent and base them on the Bible, and we might therefore consider each to be a “Biblical” theology. But each theology comes with its own assumptions, presuppositions and frameworks regarding the Bible and its interpretation (as well as whatever other pillars it leans on, such as Tradition and reason). If those foundational premises are off, then the theology might be Biblical, but it’s still wrong.
That’s about as charitable as I can be to Phelps: possibly Biblical, definitely wrong. I think the same thing about a number of other theologies and their adherents, but with considerably less disdain.
But Phelps is “wrong” in what sense? That his opinions and actions based thereon are some of the meanest, most clownish and ridiculous things you’ve heard? Okay.
But not based on the text of the Bible? I don’t see that.
Or that he makes serious errors in logic? No. He’s actually a pretty good lawyer and arguer. Strangely enough, before he went off the “deep end” he did ground breaking civil rights legal work in Kansas.
Jon, AMW did a pretty good job, once again, of explaining my (apparently, our) position.
Phelps is engaged in proof-texting. That is, he can find useful texts, regardless of context, and then build an apparently logical case.
But notice his debate style. He couldn’t allow Rankin to speak. Rankin could only answer his questions, and only in the manner of alternate choices Phelps had chosen. When Rankin would explain himself, Phelps would insult him for being long-winded. When Rankin would respond with a question, Phelps would accuse him of dodging. And this was despite the fact that Phelps was more long-winded, by far, and more dodgey as well.
Now, that’s not necessarily proof of anything, except that his case is paper-thin and relatively easy to punch through. Frankly, Rankin should’ve held firmer because his “Only Genesis” system is more than adequate to win such a debate.
And with proper preparation (because I’m not fully conversant, off the top of my head ready to respond to him) I could slaughter Phelps in a debate. His case is very weak. This doesn’t mean I’m interested in doing so, because I’m not. There’d be absolutely nothing to be gained from the exchange.
The fact is that proof-texters can “prove” virtually ANYTHING from the Bible. A couple of friends of mine once had as their first Bible preacher who _pressured_ his “flock” to smoke marijuana based on a distorted reading of Matthew 15:11, “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” One of them later died due to the ravages of drug addiction (heroin) and the accompanying lifestyle she’d practiced (can’t say, chosen).
What a teacher says matters, profoundly, both now and for eternity. Yes, I can say that Phelps’ theology is bad.