It occurred to me that I may have left the impression that I do not agree with you that the Scriptures are open to several interpretations.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. My first book, which records my so-called spiritual and physical ‘journey’, starts from precisely that premise, and a consideration of the Scriptural verses that say exactly that. I am sure you know them well, but here they are again.

Proverbs 1:2 – 7: “To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
“To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
“To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Of course, man’s natural vanity tends to seduce him to cast himself amongst the “wise”, and I have certainly been accused of that. However, I regard myself as falling within the first category, because (as I think this article demonstrates) I “interpret” the Scriptures as providing a set of Principles from which to distinguish between right and wrong – that is, to give “subtilty to the simple”.

In any event, the very next book of the Scriptures (and one of my favorites) has that wonderful warning against being tempted to cast oneself amongst the “wise” – “Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.” [Eccl 8:17]

I hope that clarifies my position on the issue of interpretation.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

I look forward to your Comments of the article I am preparing which provides a ‘genetic’ interpretation of the Scriptures – you have probably noticed that that is where I was headed anyway!

Regards,

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

I have not been called Mr Leigh since I lived in Luxembourg. Leigh would suffice.

I may indeed have the wrong impression. The problem when you try to look at something using different assumptions is that meanings can change dramatically. I have read many different interpretations of verses in the OT from those with “positive” assumptions and from those with “negative” assumptions.

Depending on how you approach the subject you can conclude that there must be a God from one side, or that God is made by man on the other.

Also, I note the very important comment you made early, that there are those you do believe, yet chose to Man as central rather than God – which also leads to different interpretations.

It is a subject that can go on forever. I have seen explanations of just a few simple verses of the OT debated across many articles and books! Although I am not a Christian, I do find them extremely interesting to read since they provide an invaluable insight into how deep study of Bible verses has gone – something which is often overlooked by the more vocal critics who only look at the “surface” and not the meaning within.

I look forward to your later articles.

I simply do not see how the verses you cite support your argument, or undermine my premise (but I shall read them again just in case I’ve missed something).

Perhaps you are laboring under the wrong impression that I am saying that everyone who questions actions, or who abhors combat, is somehow right, and advances the cause of the Law, and civilization?

The verses you quote are actually included in my overall argument (in the book) to demonstrate my point. I note that you had little time to consider your Comment – perhaps with more time you could explain the point you are making.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

To start with, I am using the premise and reason you used, namely that you “cannot embark on this process by claiming that this book is the word of God, or even that it is inspired by God”.

Using this does give a different meaning and interpretation to events shown in the Bible.

Exodus 34, God commands the Jewish people to drive out and destroy the then inhabitants of the promised land – the Amorite, Canaanite, Hittite, Perizzite, etc. Using your assumption that the Bible is NOT the word of God, or inspired by, leads to the conclusion that the writer was aware that the acts were wrong by nature. The actions then had to be justified by claiming it was instructed by a higher power, otherwise they would have been wrong.

It is more explicit in Deuteronomy 7, “thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them”.

If you do assume it is the word of God, and inspired by God, then you will come to a different meaning and interpretation.

Empires and civilizations that have carried out horrendous acts have got people to carry them out by justifying those acts with reference to higher power or the greater good. Again, you mention not the higher power you envisage – namely God of the Scripture – however your premise rules this out.

This perhaps why people can quite easily reach different conclusions after viewing or reading identical things. The assumptions that you use shape everything.

An interesting experiment to test if you can change your assumptions is this. Take two arguments or views that are opposed to each other. Try to argue in support of the one you disagree with in way that you could convince a neutral observer. It is something that not many people can do with conviction.

Why do it? It is a challenge to test yourself. To see if you have looked at something in all possible ways. You have tried to change the premise, however you still hold the underlying assumptions which in turn leads to a different interpretation from someone with truly different assumptions – namely that the Bible is not the word of God, or inspired by God.

I hope what I have written makes sense… unfortunately I do not have the time to proof read it!

What a very astute comment. I’m not sure which verses you are specifically referring to in the OT (there are many that would fit your comment), but your point is well taken.

But would you not agree that the Prophets specifically condemned such actions, and that their refrain was adherence to the Law? Would you not also agree that the Prophets predicted the downfall of ‘empires’ and ‘civilizations’ that sought to impede the establishment of God’s Law on earth?

I’m not sure that I agree with your assertion that empires and civilizations have been built on actions inherently wrong which have been justified by reference to a higher power – or not at least the higher power I envisage as having gifted us the Law (although, granted, His name was used).

My argument is that human civilization is a work in progress, and notwithstanding attempts by people over the centuries to derail that process, the fundamentals of the Law have persevered and provided us with the fundamentals on which to build civilization.

I’d be very interested to consider the OT references you think contradict my interpretation. Specifically, I’d be looking to see whether such verses advanced the purpose the Scriptures proclaim as the purpose of human existence – perpetuating the image God created of Himself on earth, and perfecting that image through providing His creation with the Principles to do so. Perhaps it is a question of focus?

Either we read the Scriptures as putting man central to the entire Scriptural theme, or we put God central to the theme. When we put God central to the theme, everything else makes sense. When we put man central to the theme, we have the hand-wringing of those who constantly ask – ‘how could a God allow this to happen?’

My article previewing the book on the subject (on my website) deals more fully with this aspect of the argument.

I would be very grateful for your further input and comments. If you had the time, perhaps you would consider having a look at the first draft of the book when it is ready and pointing out what I have no doubt will be many gaffs?

Regards,

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

Nice well written article (as usual). A question, or rather a request for clarification. On Part III, “The Tree as proof of God”, you describe early warfare – essential the total annihilation of the opposition and the subjugation of survivors.

You go on to mention how an individual would question the morality of such an action by appealing to a higher power. This is where I get confused, since you conveniently leave Scripture and jump ahead.

Several examples exist in Scripture which allow the total annihilation and subjugation of the opposition. People who questioned it WERE undermining the tribe, WERE cowards, and most importantly WERE against the higher power.

Rather than a higher power being used to judge actions as wrong, the higher power was used to legitimize actions that in your article you implied as being wrong. History, or rather civilization and empires have been built on actions inherently wrong (through the modern looking glass) but always justified by reference to a higher power.

Why chose your interpretation of an OT passage while ignoring explicit examples in the OT which seemingly contradict your interpretation?

Note that I refer to the OT (my knowledge of the NT is rather lacking). Hopefully I have not gone off on a complete tangent.

NC began as a reaction to socialism and the defects of moral-relativism in the late-1960s. It is less ambitious than CC in it does not propose to ‘turn back the clock’ as much as reign in socialism. Reagan’s comment “It is not so much I have left the Democrat Party as the Democrat Party has left me” reflects the general attitude of many NCs regardless how much or how little they identify with conservative fundamentalism. In that sense, K is right NCs are not so much anti-liberal as anti-radical. Many of us recognize our particular brand of ‘conservatism’ has liberal roots; that it is a hijacked and ‘radicalized’ liberalism objected to or un-socialistic liberalism preferred. However, even that is too general a definition of NCs because some are strongly libertarian. Even while disparaging NC liberalism, K omits CC is built on liberal foundations only a couple decades older than NC (1934-1944), and that Burke’s defense was of British Crown-Parliament power-sharing liberalism as against French radical-liberalism, as much removed from modern NC as CC. Core traits I find among all conservatives include: a strong (if not total) aversion to socialism/statism, emphasis on personal liberty and citizen rights, streamlined system of equally applied laws (one even lawyers can navigate), disgust with radicalism and its obsession with ‘change’, cultural preservation and greater (if not total) national homogeneity, sovereignty (i.e., liberalism need not be a suicide pact), tax relief and fiscal accountability, and opposing unnecessary governmental growth (feel free to amend my list). The main contention between NC and PC, then, turns on isolationism: foreign policy, the size of our military, and the uses to which we put it.

However inaccurate my analysis, this tells me PC and NC have more in common than not; and K is nitpicking we did not all arrive by same the ‘true’ path. Okay, we’re not all scholars but managed to come to mostly the same conclusions. K’s formula provides no more guarantee of ideological purity or stasis than does the besmirched ‘reason’. If reason, scholarship and tradition all agree, what’s the big deal and why should we complain of it? To me, that’s just confirmation we’re on the right track and have traced the same path our forbearers worked out before us; and for much the same reasons. K worries it means we’re deviating from the ‘true path’ because we don’t have his x-ray vision, night-goggles or whatever he’s using to navigate by, and are blundering into minefields. However, K’s subtext amounts to: it’s a waste of time working out something PCs or long dead ancestors have already worked out (i.e., re-inventing the wheel); which is tantamount to navigating the minefield only looking at a map (not looking around to see the terrain actually matches!). I don’t know about you, but I want to have a look at the ground too before waltzing a minefield; and will do so with the equipment I have and am most familiar using.

Kerwick proposes to speak for all ‘classical conservatives’ (plus neo-conservatives), yet a perusal of some self-declared CCs shows at least as much deviation there as among liberals, NCs, libertarians and any other supposedly one-size-fits-all grouping (here’s one who differs from K’s CC definition (www.paxamerica.org/classicalc.html) and might be surprised how others see PC/CC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism#A_better_guide_than_reason, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative#Classical_conservatism_as_non-ideological,).

In sum, I don’t so much disagree NCs are inconsistent as point out they are no more inconsistent than Kerwick’s CCs and no less guilty of using government as a vehicle for an agenda. The CC may substitute tradition for reason to argue a point, moral concept, degree of association, or other state-imposed value; but, nonetheless, utilizes the state to advance his negative no less than an NC or liberal his ‘positive’. Otherwise, K would have us believe government is and should be entirely ‘organic’, springing full-grown from the earth without us giving it shape.

For my own part, I value tradition; but do not place it above reason. Tradition is merely the collected knowledge of our past and important because it is more efficient than re-inventing things. Reverence for tradition allows a pygmy to stand on the shoulder of a giant, seeing farther than the giant. It does not mean, however, he cannot gain the same or greater vantage climbing a tree or mound without the aid of giants.

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm
http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/libvscon.html

It would have helped to have a link to Kerwick’s article so as to evaluate his assertions alongside your rebuttal, so I am inserting one here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/23/neo-conservatism-v-classical-conservatism/

It would also help had Kerwick clarified which political objects and ideology he advocates (I believe he’s a paleo-con, but he never really says so). Kerwick’s premise is: “… an examination of the formal assumptions behind each school of thought reveals they [the two conservative schools] are logically incompatible”.

He then states there have been: “… few attempts at anything like a serious definition of neo-conservatism.”, and promises to provide one – but then doesn’t.

What he does is eviscerate neo-conservatism based on its divisions; making neo-con inconsistency his measure of legitimacy, comparing it unfavorably to a [presumed] greater consistency among so-called “classical” conservatives (aka, paleo-conservatives; hereafter CC or PC). Cherry-picking the odd deviant at the periphery of any ideology is an unfair way to characterize its mainstream. Kerwick would have done better looking for the common-denominator neo-con and critiquing that than dwelling on variations on the NC theme (surely a survey of the ranks of ‘classical’ conservatives will find as many who wander off the reservation). K, then, would be more accurate having asserted there is not one neo-conservatism but three; and adding PC makes four.

I contend K’s assertion, however valid as an observation, is a little absurd as a defense of one ideology over another because there is nothing strange in a little inconsistency. People being what we are, no ideology or political group exists quite as monolithic as K would have us; and the same criticism will apply to PCs as NCs. Neither variant existed in any formal sense until the 20th century when political theory began to be questioned as a phenomenon and alternatives to the socialist near-monopoly sought. Thereafter, the labels bred like flies around the proverbial excrement. Up to that time, American politics was a collection of liberalisms with socialism gaining over the rest. Liberalism, not conservatism, was also the general term applied to describe what K references (with minor updates) as “classical conservatism”. Yet, K’s insistence this “pure” variant is isolationist is patently untrue. The early republic was expansionist within the hemisphere, but isolationists with regard to alliances we could ill-afford. Jefferson warned against entangling alliances because the republic was still fragile and the European powers meant we should not outgrow them; Adams concurred. Yet, Adams and Jefferson each entangled us in turn.

Given the evolution of PC and NC are not, in fact, separated by all that much implies if NC is internally inconsistent because of its divisions, then PC is surely just one more such division in the conservative pantheon subject to the same disqualification – i.e., it fails to answer the needs of all conservatives. That makes K’s real complaint his variant is the ‘true’ conservatism to which other conservatisms ought to bow. If so, the internal consistency argument is not the proper one to stake such a claim and another must be found with greater legitimacy. That might require an application of reason K appears unwilling to invoke.

The real difference between PCs and the various NCs seems PC are unwilling to make common cause. Kerwick alludes making common cause is compromising principle. That may be true; but it is foolish to shun common cause whatsoever on that basis alone. The gain should be weighed to determine how adamantly you are willing to spike your own agenda over principle. Assuming we take K’s advice, we must each go our different ways and achieve nothing; leaving the field open to socialism. Isn’t it better we defeat socialism before ripping each other as ideological idiots?

It is only by co-opting Burke and other early anti-radicals K makes his case CC significantly predates NC more than a few decades. Despite this, neo-conservatives have as much claim to a Burke ancestry as PCs (Burke was an ‘Old Whig’), PCs only insisting conservatism stops where Burke left off; whereas NC started from ‘classical’ roots but framed a political philosophy more in keeping with circumstance. Because of this; PC has gotten an unfair reputation as an outdated ideology attracting lost causes.

(cont.)

Like you, I find the Scriptures intriguing. Every time I read a verse, irrespective of the number of times I have read it before, I seem to discover something new.

My article previewing my forthcoming book (The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God) goes into more depth on the Scriptures, if you are interested. It is published on my website.

I also go into these issues in both my books, but especially Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights. If you would like a complimentary copy, please drop me a delivery address and I’ll get a copy sent off to you.

Thank you for your kind words, but I think they are due to the author of the Scriptures, not to me (although I expect we can both agree on that!).

Regards,

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com