Burning Straw Men

In the spirit of Fall, a house nearby has erected three scarecrow. Dressed in the typical flannel outfits reminiscent of Al Borland on Home Improvement and topped with the traditional pumpkin head eliciting images of Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, these straw men do their duty: scare unwanted visitors away. Similarly, in both political discourses and theological discussions, straw men are constructed to portray a particular position in a manner that people will be repulsed by its appearance. In these venues, straw men (or man) can be defined as: an improper interpretation of an opposing view for the purpose of destroying an opponents argument. For propaganda purposes this action is quite successful, but for those in the pursuit of truth these lifeless tools can be nothing short of infuriating.

As I muse, a couple of examples of straw men come to mind. First, the political debate between the two presidential candidates this past Friday night displayed a significant amount of effort from both sides in trying to construct and burn straw men. McCain defiantly opposed his accusation of being "just another Bush" by showing his maverick tendencies in challenging President Bush on multiple issues. Similarly, Obama hammered passionately on the drum of military savvy and support for the troops to shuck the persona of democrats being anti-military pansies that just want to tuck their tail and run from military opposition. Both sides, whether the audience acknowledged their attempts or not, were set on burning the "straw men" constructed by their opponents.

Straw men are infuriating to the person being accused of holding a position or supporting a view that they simply do not believe. While in the political realm these "straw men" are constructed intentionally to deter voters from a particular candidate, most of the time, extending the benefit of the doubt, straw men in the church are constructed through good intentions that are led by ignorance of a particular issue or idea.

I will never forget walking through the halls of first floor Boatman Hall at Ozark Christian College talking with a fellow tenant. This well intentioned fellow began belligerently talking about Calvinists--all but calling for a new crusade against them (which he did quip about later). In that moment I remember thinking two things:

1. First of all, this is a complete misrepresentation of the Calvinist perspective.
   
2. 2. Second, if John Calvin makes you this mad, I have to read all of the stuff about him that I can.

So, the following year I read hundreds of pages about John Calvin and from John Calvin that not only confirmed my disagreement with my friend's perspective, but also confirmed my suspicion -- a straw had been erected by the "anti-Calvinist" movement (To be clear: while I do not adhere to the five points of Calvinism, the position was not constructed by bumbling idiots but extremely intelligent and devote men, and the position simply has more biblical evidence than people give it credit for).

The danger in ignorantly villifying another position is simple: it is unfair to the opposing position and it simply makes the one with the false accusations look like a fool. Furthermore, in the body of Christ, we need to consistently function off of a "benefit of the doubt" principle that gives grace before the death sentence for any person or position.

It is for this exact reason why I felt convicted this past summer to read all of the Left Behind series. I had some of my theological friends saying things to me like, "How can you read through that junk?"; "I just can't get myself to read through those things--I simply would get too frustrated."; "I can find other things I would rather spend my time reading than that trash." While I understand their heart, I cannot get my mind around this mentality. For it is precisely because of the reason that I disagree with the Left Behind series that I am compelled to read them. If I think that I do not agree with something or someone, I can at least offer the courtesy of knowing their position (I would even suggest knowing your opponents position correctly better than they know it themselves). Why? There are a couple of reasons:

1. What if you are wrong about the opposing position? What if you spend so much time arguing, destroying, and humiliating a position that is being unjustifiably misconstrued by the straw man character you have portrayed them to be? What an unfortunate thing to have unnecessary quibbles within the body of Christ that could have been avoided with a little more effort and study.
2. Whether they are true or not, straw men caricatures hurt positions on some level. The politicians will attest to this fact. It is simply not true that all PR is good PR; sometimes, it can destroy someone's image or integrity. In the body of Christ, there is no room for people to sling mud before they can clearly see the target, because they may find that the target they were aiming at simply does not exist or is actually an innocent bystander.
3. Oftentimes, we can learn more about our own position through thorough investigation of the opposing position. While we may not always dispel the concerns about the opposing position, we can at least learn more about the validity of our own--and that is a worthy pursuit in and of itself.
4. In addition, if I truly believe that my position is correct, then what do I have to fear by reading the opposing point of view?

In conclusion, I want to simply call all Christians to a straw man burning extravaganza. Do not submit in ignorance to a negative perspective of an opposing view, but have the decency to study it in-depth before offering criticism that may be unguided, untrue, and unchristian. We have a responsibility as voices for the body of Christ to not only proclaim the good news with integrity and boldness but also to combat false news with wisdom and precision.

New Essay!

For those of you interested, I have just completed an essay entitled "Reading the Book of Revelation as Story - A Literary Analysis of the Apocalypse of John." You can view and download it at my website: www.shanejwood.com under the title "essays." Enjoy!

Making Him Famous,

Shane J. Wood

Who Writes History?

I have been disturbed by a thought that is not new to me, but one that has hit me afresh. I have been reading the book The Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe -- and I have simply been astounded by the documented events that happened in the formation of the nation of Israel in 1948 that I simply was not told. Ilan Pappe is actually an Israeli historian who simply could not stand to have the truth not be told about the atrocities that have happened to the Palestinian people during these years of "destiny." By all measures, Ilan Pappe documents through transcripts of meetings, military orders, diaries, and other resources the atrocities committed by the Israeli people toward the Palestinian people who owned 94% of the land that was taken away from them, by force, and given to the nation of Israel (England played a major role in all of this happening until 1936 when they decided to let the UN make the decision about Palestine -- which after 9 months of looking at the issues ignored the pleads of the Palestinians [the natives of the land] and the other Arab nations ruling in favor of the Jewish people because of the recent Holocaust).

The methods planned out by the Israeli people in what is known as "Operation Dalet" (the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) include: village raids, key individual executions in front of entire villages held at gun point, burning down of houses, planting of land mines in rubble to keep people away, rapes, and other atrocities (I am starting to understand more and more why the Middle Eastern countries do not favor the Western nations supporting Israel). By the end, over 800,000 Palestinians were forcefully displaced from their homes. While I was totally sickened by these truths that do not surface in any of my history books -- it struck me like lightening once again -- history is often written by those that are victorious in battle.

While it sometimes does occur, we often ignore, if not silence, the victims of empires expanding their spoils of war. For example, do we hear of the modern histories of the American Indians that lost their land in the war? Or more close to home, if we did not have the Bible, where would we hear in the annals of Roman history about the atrocities done to Christians? Very little information (outside of the antics of Nero) are found about the way in which Christians were constantly persecuted as atheistic, incestuous, treasonous, anarchists that were probably even cannibals -- at least that's the rumor.

I do not think, however, that this means that we should be suspicious of all history, but I do think this should make us think more critically about "the way things are." For example, I know the history books will write about the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and the "War on Terrorism," but who is going to write about the perspective of the impoverished Iraqi who is trying to stay away from the crosshairs of each side? Who is writing about the women in Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war of the east trying to keep them hidden in traditional Islam and the west trying to "free" them by exposing them to shameful situations from their culture's perspective? Who will write the history of the generation of children experiencing genocide on the losing side of the chaos in Darfur?

All in all, I hope we are careful in our devotion to an idea of innocence toward a nation as written by history, because terrorism is simply a matter of perspective -- I pray we are constantly keeping God's call to a pure and faultless religion in the forefront of our minds. I pray we are caring after the one's lost in the cracks of our history books: the orphans and the widows.

Rules of Life: How to Close a Telephone Conversation

If you are anything like me, ending a telephone conversation can be extraordinarily awkward and even confusing. With both people racing to the end of the phone call, either party suddenly can experience an incredible "stalling" effect. Sometimes this manifests itself in multiple "goodbyes" or even variations of it (i.e., "see you later," "talk to you soon," etc.). In order to clarify this consistent debacle, I thought it would be helpful to set up a few ground rules so that everyone can be on the same page when ending a conversation on the phone:

1. When a person gives a Conversation Ending Indicator [CEI] (i.e., "Well it's been good talking to you," "Alright, well I'd better get going," -- or the circumspective "Well, I'd better let you get going,", etc.), it is the responsibility of both parties to adhere to their respective roles to end the conversation. The CEI cannot be ignored by either party so as to extend a conversation beyond its comfortable limit for selfish reasons. Ignoring the CEI is disrespectful and could effect levels of communication (frequency, length, etc.) in the future.
   
2. The person who issues the CEI (henceforth referred to as CEI-1) must wait for the CEI to be acknowledged by the other party with a verbal cue like: "Alright, it's been talking to you," "Yeah, I'd better get going too," etc.
3. The recipient of the CEI (henceforth referred to as Hector), must verbally acknowledge the CEI and then wait for the Goodbye Precursor Interlude [GPI] or the Circumlocutive Precursor Goodbye [CPG]. The reason for the "or" is because the GPI is optional - if not, negotiable - while CPG is a necessary component for an appropriate conclusion. Let me explain. The GPI is the optional insertion of a term of endearment or complimentary statement as a precursor for the final goodbye statements, which include: "Well, its been good talking to you," "I can't wait to see you," "It is always a pleasure," "I love you," etc. The GPI, then, is included only if the proverbial Hector is worthy of such a statement. If they are not worthy of such a statement, the GPI can be ignored all together and replaced with the inevitable CPG, which says goodbye but just in a roundabout way (i.e., "I'll talk to you later," "Have a good one," etc.). If they are worthy of such a statement, this is the place to insert it.
   
4. After the CEI-1 offers the GPI or the CPG (see previous step for explanation), they are to wait for a response from Hector, which both the GPI and the CPG assume.
   
5. After the response from Hector is delivered, it is the CEI-1's responsibility to offer the first "goodbye" or the colloquial "bye". Why is this the case? Since it was the CEI-1's idea to end the conversation (indicated by the CEI), it is their responsibility to conclude it with the first goodbye. The CEI is the one that is leading in this dance, and it would be inappropriate to assume that Hector would not be the woman in the dance (or you can insert a metaphor that makes more since at this point).
6. Hector should then respond to the "goodbye" of CEI-1 with a "goodbye" of their own (variations welcome: see ya, peace out, adios, etc.).
7. CEI-1 is the first to press the "end call" button or to hand up the touch-tone phone on its receiver.

As a result, the whole conclusion of the telephone conversation should take this form:

CEI-1: "Well, I really should be going, but it has been great talking to you." (CEI)
Hector: "Yeah, I probably should go and do something productive as well."
CEI-1: "It was so delightful to hear your voice." (GPI)
Hector: "Same here bro...I always like talking with you."
CEI-1: "Alright, I'll talk to you later." (CPG)
Hector: "Sure thing man, I'll look forward to it."
CEI-1: "Okay...bye."
Hector: "Bye."
CEI-1 - Disconnects
Hector - is disconnected

With this model in place, I am confident our telephone conversations can conclude with the grace and dignity that all of you emulate as you walk in a room.

A Summer Left Behind

Over this past summer, I have dedicated countless hours reading all thirteen books in the Left Behind series by Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (excluding the three pre-quels). I decided to take on this reading list for a couple of reasons:

1. These books have sold over 60 million copies worldwide. With this broad of a distribution and influence, it is only fair to critique such a phenomenon to determine both the good and the bad elements it offers for the life of the church. Assuming the best or ignoring the series altogether is only a remedy for disaster in the body of Christ. A fair critique should be offered and welcomed by the body seeking truth in God's Word.
2. Whether preachers, teachers, and writers want to admit it or not, the common person in the church pew is getting more of their theology (specifically, eschatology) from fictional novels than they are from sermons, Sunday School classes or commentaries. As a result, I feel a responsibility as a servant of God dedicated to equipping His church with the truth to read and examine what they are reading and examining.
3. I have dedicated my life to countering the particular view perpetuated in these books (Dispensational Premillennialism), and therefore I thought it only fair that I should read their books and have an educated opinion about their content when critiquing it. While I already had studied their theological position at great length, I had not yet engaged in this fictional representation as such.

Since I have finished the thirteenth book of the series (The Kingdom Come), I am now compiling my over 30 pages of notes into a thorough critique of the series focusing on three perspectives: [1] Literary critique, [2] Theological Critique, and [3] Exegetical Critique. This critique will be completed and posted on my website by September 15th.

So, why post this thread? Simple...I want your perspective. This discussion is for two groups in particular:

1. Those who have not read the Left Behind series, but have had interaction with Dispensational Premillennialism - BOTH GOOD AND BAD! I want to hear your stories, your studies, your thoughts, your concerns, your feelings, your testimonies -- everything related to this particular "end times" position espoused in the Left Behind series (the position offered by: John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, John Walvoord, Pat Robertson, etc.).
2. Those who have read the Left Behind series. While I want the same information from you listed above in the first group, I would also like for you to add your particular perspective about the series of books themselves. What did you like? What did you dislike? What did you think about the characters? What was your favorite part? What could have been improved? Which was your favorite book? etc.

The purpose of this post would be to simply open conversations and questions about this book over the next four weeks, which I will incorporate into the final critique. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and receiving your questions.

Making Him Famous,

Shane J. Wood