Viola Lessons

Thursday June 9, 2011 • 9 Comments 

By John Immel

Somehow I ended up on a Frank Viola e-mailing list. Someone was very kind to add me. I suspect that the motive was either counterargument by proxy or they assumed that I would agree with what Mr. Viola is teaching. Whatever the reason and whoever put me there, thanks. I now have more fodder for my Spiritual Tyranny grist mill. Of course, I know some of you are Frank Viola fans, so this could get interesting. My fans are most affirming and vocal when I’m taking on the Sovereign Grace Ministries phenomena. I’ve said repeatedly that they are not my obsession, only a stepping off point. Anyone making a bid towards Spiritual Tyranny is fair game. To that end, let the frolic begin.

It must have been a divine appointment that I actually read the e-mail. As a rule, I delete what looks like spam. But I happened to notice that Frank weighed in on the Harold Camping End of the World deal. It was then that I knew I had another article to write. Actually, that is not quite right. I had an offline conversation with a long time reader first. They related a shift in their thinking after having read Camping Lessons. Here is a condensed excerpt from our conversation:

Reader: “I tend to treat the Harold Campings of the world as crazy and just dismiss their rambling. But after reading Camping Lessons, I realized that the issue is people’s fear. (…) their willingness to abandon themselves to any authority declaring an alternative reality. I’m laughing but it is scary.”

John Immel: “I was thinking about this a lot today. The issue is the ability to create a justification for ignoring reality. Camping’s problem is he has made a prediction that CANNOT be reconciled with reality, so he loses credibility almost immediately and therefore loses the stronger of his followers because they have sufficient personal identity to resist the moral judgment that compels rational compliance.”

Reader: “Well, reality proved Camping wrong. He has to discredit himself.”

John Immel: “But here is the real issue. What if an ‘authority’ can create a moral justification that CANNOT be challenged? In other words, what if the “authority” can create a rational environment where he can NEVER be disqualified?”

Reader: “Exactly. They appeal to our fears so that we will abandon CRITICAL REVIEW. Tsk. So any time someone appeals to your feelings instead of reason, that should be a red flag.”

John Immel: “It is more insidious than that. The issue is not reason vs. feeling. Feeling is as much a part of reality as any other human aspect. What tyrants succeed in doing is creating a “reason” to evaluate reality contrary to the cause and effect. They appeal to a transcendent ‘reality,’ a claim that dare not be evaluated or measured. They assert a morality that condemns all self-appointment. They do this to undercut how man knows what he knows.”

This conversation was in my mind when I caught Frank’s e-mail. As always, I have no interest in cherry picking content, so I have provided the full context here.

Let’s start in the middle and work our way out.

Frank Viola’s E-mail:

Lessons We Can Learn from Harold Camping’s Failed Prediction

Here’s are some of the more important lessons we can learn from the failed May 21st “end of the world” prediction . . . I think.

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

2. God will never contradict His Word. Jesus made clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming. A simple statement, yes? But some have complicated it. Or ignored it.

3. Christians don’t know their history. Camping is part of a long trail of date-setters who set dates for Christ’s return. All were epic fails. They’ve always ended up the same way. Recall the book “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988.” I watched the author as he was interviewed several times before 1988. He was so sure he was right. All his math added up. But his prediction failed. 1988 came and went. The same has happened with every date-setter for Christ’s return before and after him.

 

My Comments:

Point 3 is the most innocuous. Frank is right about Christians not knowing history, of which he is equally guilty. (More on this in a moment) I’ve already addressed why people get sucked into all things Rapture NOW. This is the ultimate Christian Hail Mary into the end zone of life. When people feel the intense pressures of their existence, the get-out-of-Tribulation free card looks like a great idea. Camping won’t be the last man to offer a date and time. And it won’t be the last time that a bunch of people embrace such predictions. And it won’t be the last time that everyone else sniffs and snorts, treating all guilty parties like the family dog that just piddled on the carpet.

So, big whoop.

I’m working backwards. Therefore, the next point of focus is number 2: “God will never contradict His Word. Jesus made clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming. A simple statement, yes? But some have complicated it. Or ignored it.”

For those of you who haven’t yet, read the previous article titled Camping Lessons.

See that I enumerated five observations about Bible interpretation. The first observation was: Everyone assumes they read the bible correctly. To be sure Frank Viola thinks that he reads the Bible correctly. He is clear about the superiority of his interpretive methodology: Literalism. Any other understanding is a manifestation of deliberate scriptural disregard or interpretive overcomplication. The disdain for any perspective that deviates from what he considers to be a “simple statement” is palpable. Anything short of his literal understanding is to require that God contradict his Word.

I suspect that most people share Mr. Viola’s unstated expectation: the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. The “it” is the literalist understanding of 21st century men and women. This sounds like a very spiritual very, righteous belief that gives highest honor to God’s power, Word, and integrity. But on second blush, realize the presumptuous reductionism buried underneath this metaphysical assertion. Or more plainly said: Notice the arrogant simplicity in daring to speak on God’s behalf.  “God will never contradict His Word,” is a metaphysical assertion about the nature of God’s existence. Meaning, Men have decided that God MUST possess specific characteristics that are measurable and then presume to impose an oblique moral standard on God’s conduct. So the underlying logic is this tautology:

God does not change his mind therefore he does not contradict himself.

Therefore,

He does not contradict so he does not change his mind.

As an interpretive standard, this makes each discrete Bible verse a divine command of its own standalone edict that brooks no review beyond the narrow simplistic sensibilities of the reader’s narrow historical perspective. A challenge to the interpreter’s sensibilities is transformed into a challenge to God’s character. Who could dare challenge God’s character? Well, only those people engaged in “overcomplication” or an outright disregard for biblical authority.

This is, of course, an absurd interpretive standard. Just because something is complex does not mean it is error. Christians believe some profoundly complex ideas— Pervasive Depravity, Federal Guilt, Limited Atonement etc.—that have been woven together from unrelated traditions. When was the last time you heard someone condemn those doctrines because they were overcomplicated?

Dear Spiritual Tyranny reader, do not fall for this argument to simplicity. It is little more than a cover for intellectual passivity and the hallmark of a very small mind that cannot prevail in the face of challenge. And that isn’t the bad part.

Notice that the tautology above is a False Choice, a.k.a. False Dichotomy or a Bifurcation fallacy.

Christians describe God as all powerful and able to do pretty much whatever He wants as it suits His GOOD pleasure. So why do mere mortals presume that God can’t change his mind? A few thousand years ago, standing on the side of a mountain, God decided that He didn’t want to spill the details on the Son of Man’s return. And in that moment, it was true: No man knew the day or the hour. But Jesus did not say that no man would EVER know the day or the hour. To be sure the moment the Son of Man cracks the sky, a LOT of men will know the day and hour. So Jesus cannot be saying that men will live a deaf, dumb, and blind existence for God to remain non-contradictory. Jesus’ point—while standing on the mountain—was the knowledge on date and time was God’s alone to give.

So here is a question: why is God’s GOOD pleasure restrained to tell whom He wills, whenever He wills? The disciples could have walked into Jerusalem the next day and Jesus said: “Guys, Remember what I said yesterday, well, never mind. My Father in Heave told me the Son of Man is coming back on October 21, 2011. Now, I know that means we will need a new calendar, but someone will change that in a few years. So it is all good.”  And how is that at any point a “contradiction”?

By calling any deviation from the literalist understanding a “contradiction,” jars of clay are insisting that God is obligated to act in accordance with their imposed rational limitation. Think of the conceit: A bunch of worms, demanding that God have a specific metaphysical nature, static consistency. How can Pervasively Depraved Man dare insist that God’s nature be understandable, let alone that He MUST remain dependent on their questionable grasp of reality? Can’t a “sovereign” God act how He dang well pleases? Since when did Man get such dictatorial power over God’s mysterious purpose?

This whole evolution is how Christians get the idea that there is no more knowledge. Whatever God “said,” that is it. There is nothing else. There is no expansion, or clarification, because WE have determined exactly what God meant for all eternity. So you just quit asking questions!

This is how church leaders get it in their head they should persecute Copernicus, and Galileo, and a host of other men and women who delved into the details of understanding and came up with ideas that ran contrary to mystic despots’ interpretive sensibilities.

OK … I’m laying it on a little thick, but you get the point. Frank Viola presumes that his understanding is the only “biblical” understanding and any challenge or deviation must necessarily be the product of …

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

Evaluating the implications of this specific point is the heart and soul of my article: the foundational assumption within this bumper sticker theology.

Notice Frank Viola’s logic:

  • Camping error = no peers.
  • Leadership + Influence + (n) people = peers.
  • Servants of the Lord without peers = inevitable error.
  • Leadership without peers = pain x (n) people.

But before we drill down too hard on this section, I want to point out the premise. If Harold Camping is in error because he does not have peers, Frank Viola must believe his ideas are accurate because he does. This means, by definition, the e-mail blast represents Present Testimony Ministry’s composite accuracy. Or said another way: There should be no error within this email because Frank Viola has peers.

Let us evaluate the effectiveness of this collective truth check. Fortunately, we will not have to look far. The first part of the e-mail will provide plenty to review. Frank (And Peers) open the e-mail blast with a response to a “Recent Controversy Over Hell.” He starts with an oblique critique that some unnamed writers will be making “millions” selling books related to the subject.

(Just curious … but doesn’t Frank sell books for money?)

Anyway, we will take up the discussion at point three, the asterisk sub points. (I have designated them A through E for reference.)

Frank Viola says:

3. Here are my concluding thoughts on the matter:

A) hell (judgement after death) is real. It’s ludicrous to try to dismiss this fact.

So this is how peer review argues a doctrinal point—by blithe rebuff? This “concluding thought” is a mere dismissal combined with an assertion of mental defect. So people are just stupid to disagree with Viola and Peers’ conclusions. I’m not interested hashing out the doctrinal details of Hell but rather to dissect the logic employed to demagogue a conclusion. Here are two errors. (Well, here are the two errors I care to talk about.)

1. Frank and Peers call those who disagree with their definition of “real” as mentally unfit. This is called Special Pleading: the use of arguments that condemns rational challenge against.

2. Frank and Peers are failing to make the effective distinction between facts and beliefs.

Let me dig deeper.

Point 1a: No need to spend time rebutting the special pleading; it speaks for itself.

Point 1b: For anyone with the argumentative ability of a 15-year-old, the rebuttal to the assertion that Hell is “Real” is: “Prove it!” Of course, Viola and Peers cannot prove the existence of Hell or of judgment after death. This is not detailed in the comment, but Frank and Peers are making an appeal to authority. The authority is what vouches for Hell’s “factualness” and “realness.” And my readers know the moment we start talking about authority, we are really having a conversation about force.

Point 2: I need to explain the distinction between facts and belief.

It is a fact that the Protestant Bible speaks of final judgment.

It is a fact that the Protestant Bible references a place of torment for “evil” doers.

It is a fact that the some English Protestant Bible translations render the words Gehenna, Sheol, and Hades as Hell.

It is a fact that medieval theologians integrated these “facts” (plus many others) into the doctrinal tradition that modern Christianity understands as the place of eternal torment where all the bad, bad sinners go because they didn’t believe the missionaries.

It is belief to declare the historic philosophy/theology—that specific synthesis of facts—the only valid understanding.

Frank Viola Says:

B) Whatever hell is, it’s monumentally unpleasant.

Here again are two errors that I want to address.

Point 1) Uh … yeah, so what? There are places on earth that are unpleasant: monumental or trivial. The Sahara Desert and Antarctica are monumentally unpleasant, but their existence is irrelevant to my habitation good pleasure. Equally true is this: Utopia is reported to be glorious but that does not mean it exists. Santa Claus’s North Pole with all the elfs and toys and hot cocoa is supposed to be nice, but that doesn’t mean it exists.

Point 2) These six words do not follow: a.k.a a non sequitur.  “Whatever hell is” is a concession to metaphysical ignorance, or maybe better said, it is conceptual punt. Frank Viola and Peers are fully aware that Hell’s specific characteristics are a metaphysical construct, so they have no rational choice but to concede what they cannot measure. By itself, this would be a manifestation of humility, but connected to the next three words, it is a window into the logical failing of Frank and Peers. “It is monumentally unpleasant” persists with the assumption that Frank and Peers know exactly what Hell is.

Let me expand. It is important to understand the conflicting logic in Frank’s “concluding thoughts.” Frank and Peers are taking the abstract idea—Hell—and treating it as if it has properties that they grasp. Of course, Western culture has heard the traditions of Hell for so long in so many contexts that it doesn’t really occur to us that the details have been woven together from dozens of cultural customs and pagan sources that have nothing to do with Judeo/Christian roots. That is the “Fact.” All of those diverse traditions, all of those metaphysical assumptions, come together to shape OUR conceptual understanding. One intangible element of Hell’s characteristics is “monumentally unpleasantness.”

Notice that Frank and Peers concede ignorance—“Whatever Hell is”—and in less than a breath presume to know exactly what Hell is—Monumentally Unpleasant”?

They treat the argument over Hell’s characteristics as a triviality all the while insisting that Hell’s experiential reality is a bad thing. And this is what makes Frank and Peers’ comment so dishonest. Hell’s WHATEVER is the debate’s point: the reason people argue over Hell’s characteristics is because of its traditional function as the ultimate moral extortion. The assumption is that Man will not act right unless there is an eternal threat hanging over his head. We think that God must extort our moral action with the threat of eternal sanction. If Hell’s nature is a big WHATEVS, then why mention it at all? Why be fussed that people are making millions writing about it?

Frank Viola Says:

C) The greatest Christian minds have disagreed as to its exact nature, and there is much about it that’s subject to speculation.

I read this point and scratch my head. How in the world can a peer group with intellectual integrity go from the absolutist assertions of point A to this broad equivocation in point C? How can this rational discrepancy exist? I thought having peers assured accuracy?

OK … These are rhetorical questions. Hang on for a moment and I think you will grasp what this is really about.

Frank Viola Says:

D) Christians lose their way when they spend lots of time trying to analyze the fine points of hell while showing mild interest in knowing Jesus Christ deeply and restoring God’s eternal purpose in Him. I’d love to see the same passion that some Christians have over the hell debate applied to pursuing the Lord Himself.

E) many people will be surprised as to who makes it in the end and who doesn’t (see Luke 13:28).

F) as I’ve stated once before, when I get finished exploring and declaring the unsearchable riches of Christ with my brothers and sisters, I’ll get around to dissecting the anatomy of hell!

Point E is a Red Herring and irrelevant to any discussion on the existence of Hell. By his own definition, Frank and Peers could be the very people who end up surprised … so we’ll let God sort that part out.

I contend that D and F are the real point of this whole Hell “Concluding Thoughts” exercise: everything else is pretext and preamble.

As I was reviewing the list of logical fallacies I couldn’t find one that fit exactly, so I think I’m going to invent my own. I am going to call it Argument to the Moral Metaphysical Ideal, or maybe the Argument to Triviality, or maybe the Argument to Nanee Naee Boo Boo, I’m better than you. Here is the reality: “Concluding Thoughts” D and F are unadulterated sanctimony. Frank Viola and Peers are engaging in Doctrinal Narcissism of the deluxe class.

Christians lose their way? Is the way lost by analysis? Is the way lost by using “lots of time”? Is the way lost by trying to understand the “finer points”? How are we defining “Mild Interest”? How did Frank Viola and Peers become expert on the general state of Christian attention, focus, intensity, dedication, or practice? What yardstick must a man believe he holds to pronounce the rational pursuits of others as inferior?

And this statement, wow: “When I get finished declaring and exploring the unsearchable riches of Christ … blah blah blah …” This is Frank Viola’s argument to triviality. This is an overt effort to define a reality that so far exceeds the trifling preoccupation of mere mortals that it ranks lower than the sludge on his boot. This is why Frank and Peers can be so absolutist in one breath and logically vacant in the next. This is why they hold themselves to no real intellectual standard. Their “peerage” has nothing to do with holding each other to the highest rational and critical standards. Their peerage is in service to affirming the reality of their own choosing. And this is EXACTLY what Harold Camping did. They have already decided that whatever they believe are the facts. “So, tut tut tut … Nanee Nanee boo boo, we are better than all you slobs, losing your way, expressing passion on baubles, thinking about things beneath our lofty attention. Our reality is the ONLY reality worthy of consideration.” And this is EXACTLY Harold Camping’s treatment of all rejections and criticisms.

And this is the crux of the issue. Frank Viola and Peers presume to define the highest rational expression. They are overtly saying their metaphysical expectations are the highest moral high ground, and any failure to aspire to that goal is beneath their lofty consideration.

And now I want to draw your attention back to the start of this article.

John Immel: “ … What tyrants succeed in doing is creating a “reason” to evaluate reality contrary to the cause and effect. They appeal to a transcendent ‘reality,’ a claim that dare not be evaluated or measured. They assert a morality that condemns all self-appointment. They do this to undercut how man knows what he knows.”

Now you can begin to see what I saw those days ago when this e-mail blast hit my inbox. With this in mind, reread Frank Viola’s comments about Harold Camping.

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

Again, this is Frank Viola’s logic:

  • Camping error = no peers.
  • Leadership + Influence + (n) people = peers.
  • Servants of the Lord without peers = inevitable error.
  • Leadership without peers = pain x (n) people

The error = No Peers is a Post Hoc and Hasty Generalization fallacy rolled into one epistemological criticism.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc means someone screwed up the cause and effect. And Frank has made massive leaps of cause and effect logic by insisting that Harold Camping doesn’t have peers. How can he know this? How does he define peers? How do we know that his definition is right? And equaiting inevitable error with inevitable pain as consequence for a lack of peerage is absurd. How do we know that Peers would have kept Harold’s hands off of a calculator?

Frank Viola (and Peers) are committing a Hasty Generalization when they say that being without peers means inevitable error. How can they possibly measure such a thing? Here is a short list that comes to my mind. One would have to measure isolation. How isolated is isolated? Is living in the desert for three years isolated? Would that man’s doctrine be disqualified? How about living in a monastery? We would have to measure doctrinal accuracy BEFORE entering isolation, and then measure doctrinal accuracy AFTER entering isolation. And we haven’t even begun to unravel WHOSE doctrinal accuracy is the defining yardstick. Anyone else seeing the absurdity in this?

Anyway, these two fallacies are peripheral to the much more problematic assumption underneath Frank Viola (and Peers) comments.

Epistemology is the study of how man knows what he knows or how man grasps truth. So when Frank Viola says that error = isolation, he is saying that individuals cannot know truth because individuality is the source of deception. He is saying that man cannot know truth unless he is part of a group. And more insidious: Truth is only found in a group of peers. Peers?  Defined by what standard? Qualified by what skill set? Confirmed by what governing power? Are we to understand that only this (ill-defined) subset of people is proof against error?

Really?

This is disaster!

Only the COLLECTIVE can know TRUTH? Only a special group within the collective can KNOW the TRUTH? How does that special group enforce its understanding to TRUTH? By rational persuasion? How can any form of intellectual inquiry be done when individuals are compelled to measure their ideas against a committee? The moment a man must subordinate his mind to the approvals of other men, he is no longer acting rationally. The inevitable conclusion says: Truth as property of the State and the State is empowered to use force. In ages past this was called Religious Orthodoxy. In the modern age it is called Political Correctness.

Frank Viola cannot have the faintest knowledge of Church history and offer Peers and proof against error. He is a Protestant for heaven’s sake. By definition, the failure of Catholic “Peers” are the reason Protestantism exists. Men protested the rational failures of those holding “influence,” over massive amounts of people.

Does he honestly believe that groups commit no wrong?

Here is a short list of groups hurting massive amounts of people: Cardinal Richelieu had the entire peer structure of Catholic orthodoxy and they were unrestrained bloody tyrants. The “Committee” of Public Safety was the Peer group that led the French Revolution battle cry “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” all the while whacking off people’s heads during the Reign of Terror.

How many Reformation Theology peers stood around and watched Michael Servetus burn at the stake? How many peers stood mute while little girls screamed for mercy as Salem Puritan despots burned them to ash?

And dare I mention the peer group of the Weimar Republic through the late 1920s to the early 1940s that did such a stellar job in beating back “influences” that hurt people: Paul Althaus, Gerhard Kittle, Emanuel Hirsch, Hanns Kerrl, Bishop Ludwig Muller, Herman Kappler, Joachim Hossenfelder, Lutheran state Bishop Heinrich Rendtorff, Friedrich von Bodelschwingh. This list represents the barest overview of the Protestant Church’s involvement—a connection that went all the way to the Final Solution.

Most people have no idea who these people are, so I will tell you. These are the names at the top of the list supporting the rise of National Socialism: men who worked to sustain the Third Reich’s Philosophical and Theological power. All of them were leaders within some facet of the Lutheran/Protestant church. All of them were in primary positions of authority with LOTS of peers who voted them spokesmen for their collective voice. All of them were sure that the people should “… follow them as they follow Christ,” because the Fuhrer was appointed by Gott. These are the people that helped create the moral justification that could not be challenged. They were the “authorities” that created a rational environment where the leadership could NEVER be disqualified. There is no excuse not to know the details of RECENT Church history!

Very few Protestant Christian voices rose against the rise of National Socialism because so few people had the fortitude, the moral clarity, and the rational strength, and the philosophical tools to stand against the collective tide. But one important voice did. While everyone else was demanding subordination to the community, deference to authority, peer-driven epistemology, and service to THE Moral Metaphysical Ideal, Dietrich Bonhoeffer defined rational individuality and acted against the pending tyranny.

Unfortunately, Bonhoeffer’s warnings were way too little way too late, with a massive hole in the center of philosophical resistance. But from his lessons we can learn the secret to prevailing against the tide of peer-driven error. Rational sovereign individuality: fully armed, fully trained, fully confident men and women with the fortitude to stand committed to their own rational judgment. Against such people, the Harold Campings of the world remain the circus side show they deserve to be. Against such people, the Adolf Hitlers of the world remain nameless painters, scrawling out their diatribes in deserved obscurity.

Dear spiritual Tyranny reader, the people who are far, far more dangerous, are those who appeal to a transcendent ‘reality’, morally condemn self-appointment, undermine critical inquiry, and insist: “We are right, because we are US.”

*    *    *

 

If you have been impacted by the ideas, and their worth consider exhanging value by offering a donation.

Copyright© Presage Publishing 2011.  All Rights Reserved



This blog is protected by Dave\'s Spam Karma 2: 78838 Spams eaten and counting...