[lit-ideas] Re: Dispensationalism & the Peace Mystics
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:02:43 +0700
Lawrence Helm wrote:
You are dead wrong if you think modern Dispensationalist _didn't_
derive from John Nelson Darby through Chafer & Scofield & Dallas
Theological Seminary and Talbot Seminary."
Darby may have initiated 'modern' Dispensationalism, a point I have
not argued, but Dispensationalism, modern or otherwise, is not about
Darby's theology, your original claim.
Lawrence again:
"And quit saying I'm confused. You seem to like to offer unsupported
cheap shots. You do it again in regard to my notes on the Peace
Mystics. Don't just say it. Go back to one of my notes and disagree
with it. Offer an argument rather than a cheap shot."
Fortunately I have the time and am bored enough to oblige.
Let's begin with Lawrence's use of the term 'Peace Mystic'. In this
thread, Lawrence wrote:
"Well in regard to the Peace-Mystic argument there can hardly be a
doubt as to whom I am referring to -- if one has read my notes. This
began with a response from Geary. I dubbed his position
Peace-Mysticism because of his assertion that one ought to abandon
means (my interpretation not his) and just embrace peace (his term)."
According to Lawrence, when he refers to Peace Mystics, he is
referring to people who argue that peace is to be achieved without
concern for means. However, in a different thread Lawrence identifies
the rationale of Peace Mystics with a quote from Kagan, part of which
I include here:
"There was broad support for the notions that the Great War and the
terrible destruction that came from it were caused by the arms race,
the alliance system, and the willingness of Britain to commit a land
army of significant size to a war on the Continent. British leaders
were persuaded easily that the Western Allies had been at least as
responsible as the Germans for the war; that the arms race, stirred up
by munitions makers and their associates, had been a major cause of
bringing it on; that greater understanding, more generosity, and
patience were better ways to avoid war than by military deterrence.
There was a general feeling that to think and act on the basis of
strategic considerations, to try to preserve a balance of power to
admit to pursuit of national interest supported by military strength
was not only dangerous but immoral."
Note that this quote is exclusively focused on the 'Peace Mystics'
concern regarding means. World War I was, in part, the result of arms
races, alliances, and profit-making of munitions makers. Thinking on
the basis of strategic considerations and pursuing national interests
through military strength also increases the likelihood of war. This
is means-thinking, whether accurate or not. In short, Lawrence is
confused in his usage of the term 'Peace Mystic' in that his
definition is one that ignores means while he uses it to refer to
people very much concerned with the means for achieving peace.
Lawrence shows no interest in the many differences that distinguish
the varieties of peace positions, instead choosing one particular
definition and then applying it to all.
Again, another quote from Lawrence:
"Why, some of us might ask, don't the Peace Mystics examine the
history of Britain (and the U.S. for that matter) after the Great War
to see how their Peace Mysticism worked out?"
In addition to Lawrence's problematic reference to 'Peace Mystics,'
there is his attempt to use history as a premise for a logical
argument. If 'peace mysticism' did not work after WWI, then it cannot
ever work. It may be that the conditions for peaceful disarmament
were not present after WWI, but why should that mean that those
conditions will never be present? We can certainly learn from
history, but it is a mistake to think that history repeats itself.
(There is that reference to generals fighting previous wars leading to
tragic results.) Historical events are far too particular to
functions as proofs.
So let me summarize my criticisms of Lawrence's posts. First,
Lawrence is sloppy in his references to those who are identified with
the peace movement, using one particularly loaded term in order to
refer to various different, and often incompatible, peace positions.
If Lawrence wants to demonstrate the inadequacies of 'Peace
mysticism', then he should be consistent in his aim. Second, Lawrence
mistakenly uses historical events to develop logical arguments.
Drawing on historical events is important for developing
understanding, but these events do not prove anything.
Let me repeat though, that I enjoy reading Lawrence's posts,
particularly for the numerous references to literature I would
otherwise not read. I hope I am not causing further headaches for
Lawrence.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
