So I encountered this today:

And all of a sudden, I can't get enough Bulgarian choral music.

Things have been kinda crazy lately. I'm not sure what it is, but my house feels like it's on edge. Thankfully, activity has died down on most of my social media things, and I don't have any video games that I'm terribly interested in. I'm becoming more able to focus on my work at the office lately, and although I still find myself reluctant to start any given task, and frustratingly resilient to new information, I think I'm progressing here at a barely tolerable pace. My prior direct report talked well about me, and so the people here have expressed very high expectations for me, and I'm crushing myself with hopes that I won't disappoint them.

I haven't been interested in reading the theological tomes on my shelf at all recently... I still enjoy a good Bible study, but rather than reading my old textbooks, I have been taking comfort in written fictions, as they're (I suppose) a form of escape from reality which doesn't seem to get me into trouble. Right now I'm reading "Remote Control", by Nnedi Okorafor, and I find it to be immensely engaging. Attraction to the ethos of classical western science fiction is a vice of mine, though, and so I intend to pick up some Asimov, Wells, Orwell, Vonnegut, or Lewis next... and I hope that struggling through their Shakespearian excellence doesn't crush my spirit entirely. I've thought of picking up Animal Farm next, because I haven't finished it yet -- last time I started that book, it stressed me out so much that I started hallucinating and couldn't sleep well, so I stopped reading it. I was pretty young at the time, and I can't imagine that the political themes in it will be worse or more stressful to me now than the godlessnesses all around us, which constantly threaten me with the necessity of deciding whether I should lose myself in opposition to them or lose my soul by feigning ignorance of them -- and how may I regard myself when I so willingly own that I procrastinate in such an important decision, when every moment of procrastination places me in complicity with them. What can I do except wait and hope to encounter in place that community of theonomic brethren, and expend all my tears to teach my son about God's good law, in hopeless hopes that the church will soon realize it with him and establish right freedom and justice in our land.

...in any case, I hope that I can use these fictions to re-establish in myself a firm habit of reading each night. Having that in place, I intend to transition myself back to more difficult literature, like my old friends, Augustine and Calvin.

Moreover, I'm less convinced that I will return to my theonomic wiki project. I started that project in hopes of making a reference whereby people could easily withdraw all verses relevant to a topic, with commentary, so that an uninitiated person could inquire easily as to the Biblical response to a certain crime. However, having seen the breadth of disagreements concerning Biblical interpretation, and their implications, and having learned more the incredible efficiency of God's written law, I am less convinced that the commentary I originally intended to provide is valuable, and more convinced that it should deliver nothing more than a list of relevant verse references per category.

You see, occasionally I am confronted with persons who espouse communism and respond to examples of failing communist countries by informing me that it's never been properly implemented. I think that the response is silly. Also, occasionally, I confront non-theonomists, and when they give me examples of failing religiously motivated governments, I respond by informing them that theonomy has never been properly tried. 

In order for me to distinguish myself from the former, I must be able to give a clear practical illustration of the difference between theonomy and all other religious nations, and in a way which accounts also for the failures of puritanism. And, whenever I undertake to research those countries and find fault with them, the obvious conclusion which presents itself to me is this: they made additional laws. They didn't just take the Bible as-is and say "this is our law book". In the case of the puritans, it appears to me (and I know that many will contest this) that their additions were originally motivated by specification; some Biblical issues are unclear or controversial, and so legal uniformity in a society requires some kind of tangible agreement on certain interpretive issues -- just how tall should my parapet be, anyway? Well, now we've added to scripture, a law not just requiring parapets, but requiring parapets of certain height, and thereby we've made the rule relevant to a specific use-case, and potentially removed its relevance from other use cases, which will later demand further specification, "this high under these circumstances; that high under other circumstances". Iterate that a few hundred thousand times, and you might find yourself sitting in congress. Or, if your additions suck, then maybe your nation will simply fail.

But the Bible does not directly address issues which we know that Biblical law does cover; Biblical law is delivered primarily in the form of case law, and so these cases are intended to be applied to a broad range of moral issues with some measure of abstraction. Furthermore, there are occasionally situations where the Bible does not say that a thing is illegal, but we know that it *must be* illegal because of the context of the passage; the spirit of the law. For example: notice that Deuteronomy 22:22-30 does not say anything directly about raping a married woman, or else on a strictly literal reading of verse 22, one might say that the victim in such a case should be killed as well, but we know from verse 25-26 that a betrothed victim is spared. So then, the first three cases (22, 23-24, and 25-27) are read as "thus, and also thus" (as opposed to "thus, but in another case thus"), but most translations of verse 28 use phrasing which strongly suggests, or directly states, that the unmarried woman in that case was raped and the man does not get killed. Well, it seems that the Hebrew does not directly say rape, but uses words which could imply it in the same way that "seizes her and lies with her" should imply it in English. So, while the unstated items here seem to imply that the married woman is killed with her rapist, and the unmarried woman is forced to marry her rapist, the notion that only a betrothed woman receives the highest protection under the law is entirely nonsensical, and so to justify the most popular reading of the fourth case (verses 28-29), an interpreter should also be able to explain contextually why that case is linked to the others by "thus, but in another case thus" instead of "thus, and also thus", whereas all prior cases were "thus, and also thus", and the four cases are very plainly given in a connected sequence (from married, to betrothed, to not betrothed). 

It's this kind of thing which brings about a certain dilemma: the Bible demands specification by not giving absolutely plain instruction all the time. However, the Bible defies specification by explicitly commanding against addition.

The more I think about it, I find myself being dragged quite unwillingly to the conclusion that there should be no specification or canonical commentary at all in the theonomic nation, and that the law can only be properly interpreted by persons who are guided by the Holy Spirit, and who devote themselves whole-heartedly to conforming their minds to the mind of Christ -- that is, to cultivating in themselves (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and by frequent interaction with Him toward developing a relationship) a firm understanding of the "Spirit of the Law". And so legal interpretation becomes a deeply relational endeavor. I hesitate to say that it exists "between you and God", because our relationship with God is cultivated in large part by relationship with other believers; iron sharpening iron. The judge in a theonomic state can only rightly persist as such if the community there is committed to encouraging, loving, edifying, sometimes confronting, and building one another up in the knowledge of God.

All that to say, it seems to me that the judges in a theonomic nation should just hang out with one another really often and meditate on scripture all day, and that's how the theonomic nation should be run. Proper judgement shouldn't depend on whether a judge has read some specific commentary, or else we've made scripture insufficient for instruction in righteousness. And the ability of citizens to understand the law shouldn't depend on some terribly difficult hermeneutic (for example, by saying that all the laws concerning metaphorical "seed" are abrogated -- how terribly convoluted, to rest a criminal sanction on decisions about whether something fits in with that metaphor!), but should be intuitive, and grounded in a right relationship with God. I can sit and dissect Deut 22 all day, but really, it's not hard to reach the same conclusions just by sitting and reading the passage, and intuiting, "this plainly doesn't mean that the married victim of rape should be executed along with the aggressor."

So, with that in mind, I might still revisit the theonomy wiki idea later, but with a very different approach in mind. I think I'm just going to do verse references and topic names only. It'll be "show me verses pertaining to the office of judge", and then it pulls up a list of relevant passages. This kind of thing has been done many times before, and I am sure that the product will be less popular, but I think I can do it a little better than the others before me, and I have some ideas in mind for how.

"Dive, thoughts, down to my soul"

Lots to write about today. 

So first of all, I've moved to Connecticut, and I'm set up in my new place. It's beautiful. The apartment complex is very quiet; there are some woods with paths going out into them, and a nice pond, right behind our unit. We're not too far from all the stores we need, and my commute isn't too too bad (although my wife prefers me to be home as soon and as much as possible to help with Isaac.) Chowon is adjusting really well to the rural lifestyle; it's really not that different from living in Phoenix, except that all our drive times are a little longer. 

Oh my goodness, I just remembered I have a list of things I need to accomplish!

Bleh; Memorial Day Weekend was too good. I almost forgot all my worries.

Here are some things that keep happening to me in debates, which drive me nuts:

- Appeals to authority

- Appeals to common opinion

- Utilizing emotionally charged examples to gain the high ground

- Saying that since a word means X in one place in the Bible, it must mean X in every place.

- Saying that a word means X in one place of the Bible, even though it never is used to mean that in any other place.

Anyway, I've been plugging away at some theoretical stuff for a while now, and I want to get it down in my blog. I'll start by summarizing several ideas which I've covered before, and the end of this will be to tie it together into explanations which I think are satisfactory. Topics to be addressed include: Euthyphro, God as the author of evil, the problem of evil, predestination and moral responsibility, and my most recent trouble: the nature and relevance of duty.

Alright, so to start off (I think I've covered this a number of times before): Euthyphro. What makes a thing good or evil? Is it good because God said to do it, or did God say to do it because it's good? If it's good because God said it, then it's arbitrary; God can say conflicting things and there will be true contradictions about goodness (ftr, true contradictions are not allowable). If God said it because it's good, then goodness is a standard outside of God, and God is not ultimate in morality.

The answer to this one is easy: It's good because it aligns with God's character. God says it because it aligns with God's character. God's character is unchanging, so the standard won't change. God's character is not arbitrary, but rather all things are dependent upon His character, (which also defines his creative will), and so morality is not arbitrary.

That comes up terribly often for a problem with such a simple answer. Some rebuttals have included things like, "doesn't that make 'God is good' a tautology?" which is also a really easy one to rebut. "God is good" isn't a tautology because "good" in that statement lacks a definition and is presently subject to query, whereas "God" is known by his many deeds and words recorded in scripture. Furthermore, "good" describes a characteristic of God; whereas "goodness simpliciter" does not have the capacity to act, it can be a "good thing" for one described by "goodness" to act. So, "God is good" does not teach us about God, but it rather teaches us about "good". Goodness is conformity to God's character.

That leads us into the issue of God authoring evil. God predestined everything; didn't he decide that evil deeds would happen? If so, isn't God evil?  To answer this, remember: goodness is conformity to God's character. Inversely, evil actions are actions which are not consistent with God's character. That is, ask the question: "if God were in my circumstance and station, with my abilities and limitations, and my authorities and relations, would he do X?". If the answer is "no", then it's evil. If the answer is "yes", then it's good. (this is a bit of a simplification, but I think it is sufficient to build upon). 

Now, we know God's character because of his actions. It is not outside of God's character to create something capable of deviating from God's character. It is not evil to do so. It is not outside of God's character to plan on someone deviating from God's character. It is not evil to do so. 

So, did God author deeds which deviate from his character? Yes. Does that make God evil? No. An analogy I like for this: the author of a book may write in characters who do things that the author would never do. The author of the book does not deviate from his own character in doing so. God is like this author. (A witty person will now deduce, "so you're saying that God is the author of evil", and with the above qualifications, yes I am. Note that I didn't say anything about God tempting us or whatever. This is about God's sovereignty)

So now for the problem of evil. Why did God make a world where people do evil things?  Another easy one: God did it for his glory. Just read Romans 9:22-23 -- we're the pot and he's the potter. 

Someone will ask, "Couldn't God have glorified himself without all the suffering?" And the answer is easy: no. God is no fool; he invariably chooses the best possible way to glorify himself, (and he apparently revels in surprises hence our inability to know the future). God does not waste meaning; consider that he has summed up all instruction sufficient for training in righteousness in a book that fits in your pocket; yet human law has spent so much paper just on minute interests, such as taxation, that it could stack all the way to the moon and back several times.

Then the chorus returns with, "It's very bad for God to glorify himself through our suffering."  Well, first of all, remember the definitions for "good" and "evil". Everything God does is good by definition -- so, no. Secondly, a person who says this has proved that they are unregenerate -- they have overvalued human feelings and sensations (human suffering) and undervalued the glory of God. Christians under the influence of the Holy Spirit know better (see Acts 5:41). Furthermore, consider that suffering itself isn't evil; suffering is rather a consequence of evil. 

Up next, a common objection from Arminians: predestination and moral responsibility. if we are predestined to an activity, then how can we be held morally responsible? This one is also not difficult if we firm up our commitments to the prior answers. Moral responsibility is not a function of some transcendent code outside of God. It's a function of God's unchanging character. Since it is unchanging, it is also predictable -- cause and effect. This is no affront to God; God's actions are surely predictable to himself, and he commands us to count on his promises, because they are sure and will predictably come to pass. Certainly we cannot predict all of his actions -- he's infinite and we are finite; we can't comprehend enough of him to generate informed predictions about anything other than those things which he has expressed to us (his promises, his creation, etc). Consider that this is the same character from which all of nature sprang, including the cause and effect relationships upon which all of it hinges. Morality and nature are both expressions of the same God's character. 

Now, if you are predestined to sip some coffee, would you argue that it should not go into your stomach because it was predestined? That would be absurd. Moral culpability is likewise a function of cause and effect; if you steal, predestined or not, then you incur guilt by virtue of the action. Does God ever punish the innocent or acquit the guilty? No, his character, his nature, forbids it -- this is why a sacrifice was needed for our forgiveness; justice had to be done.

And finally, the chorus again: "but I didn't choose to do it if I was predestined." Well, firstly, yes you did. A "predestined choice" is still a "choice". Secondly, it doesn't matter. Just like the coffee entering your stomach as a result of your actions, moral culpability is a result of what you willed and did, and is not abdicated simply because you are predestined to will or do it.

This is where many Arminians will accidentally quote Romans 9:19b to me, or circle back to the prior point under "problem of evil" with a question like "but why did God do that?" (to glorify himself), and then "isn't God very bad to glorify himself through my sin?" (it is not wrong for God design you to deviate from his character -- see the section on God Authoring Evil), and then "isn't God very bad to be glorified by our suffering?" (you have undervalued God's glory and overvalued suffering).

Basically, moral responsibility is a function of cause and effect, along rules defined by God's character. I contest that we have zero scriptural grounds for thinking otherwise.

This leads me to my last point: the nature of duty. This has been bothering me for quite some time. I was thinking about it, and about the issue of moral responsibility, and it struck me that duty is perhaps another function of nature, like morality. Duty is clearly evidenced in scripture by statements like "husbands, love your wives", "children, honor your father and mother", and "slaves obey your masters". Duty also appears to weigh heavily into the attitude which we are required to have toward God -- "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength". God also says, "If I am a father, where is my honor? If I am a master, where is my respect?". These relationships appear to hinge on a mechanism quite similar to morality, and it seems to me that duty is simply a facet of that same morality.

This seems like an accurate description of duty, and I believe it represents much progress toward an answer for the questions I have about duty. But if we stop with only the above, I still have some lingering dissatisfaction. I'm quite content with the discussion about what motivates morality, but duty has a unique characteristic which is not like what I think of when I consider the rest of morality, in that it is entirely dependent on relationships. That is, a lone person in an empty universe might perfectly contain, without expressing, exclusive capacity for certain kinds of non-relational righteousness (if there exists any such thing), and thereby have perfect conformance with all other parts of morality. But a lone person could not contain duty, because duty is always an obligation toward someone else. How then could God produce duty as an expression of a singular character? (That is, all things are expressions of God's character. If God's character is singular, how can the requirement for duty be an expression of that character?) I suppose he could not, and would not, except it is rather the case that God exemplifies duty by being three in one, and dutiful one to another within himself. He has true and real interpersonal relationships with the other persons of himself.

And this leads also to a question about whether there is any moral rule which is not also an expression of duty. If not, then the above relation -- duty's dependence on the trinity -- may be said to be applicable to all of morality, and the distinction between duty and morality eliminated. This last clue, I suppose, might eventually lead to a more thoroughgoing argument for Christian morality. It kinda makes me want to go buy some books by Van Till..

"Oh, how life imitates art."