A Final Word to Steve Hays on Israel etc.

Steve Hays provides yet another response (“Dupes for Hamas”) to our exchange. I’d love to continue to respond and provide additional justification for various claims (e.g. discussing such events as the Deir Yassin massacre (“mass murder”), Palestinian ethnic cleansing, the millions of refugees subject, the general history of the secular state of Israel, etc.) and correct his argumentative errors and double-standards. But, as I indicated in the conclusion to my last post on this subject (below), answering a whole set of questions from a person who refuses to do the same – which prevents us from knowing what Steve really believes – is fruitless.  It’s like debating the doctrine of atonement with someone who you don’t even know believes the Bible is the Word of God, or discussing inerrancy with an atheist who won’t tell you if he’s an atheist, or what have you. It’s pointless. Until we know where each other is coming from and what assumptions we have, there can be no progress. That’s why I stated my position clearly in the last two posts, and it has mostly been ignored. Steve has made it clear that he does not want to (perhaps, because he cannot) provide a positive case for his own position, let alone summarize it. He simply wants to criticize without following through and providing anything more. I refuse to take part in that, as should anyone else.

So, in yet another failed attempt to bring matters to a head and get basic so as to avoid mis-assuming whatever Steve’s real position is, I concluded my last blog post with the following:

Ok…at this point, it’s clear that I’m obviously not being heard, so lets put the water on hold, and get even more basic than the five points in the last blog.

Steve,

1. Is it even possible for the modern-day nation of Israel to do anything worthy of condemnation?
2. And have they done anything that is worthy of condemnation in the past?
3. If they have, would it not be helpful to acknowledge and understand those events before blindly conceding to every effort to “support Israel”? (Because, if my neighbor commits sin, I don’t want to be responsible for having helped that sin to occur. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is present-day Israel incapable of doing something wrong as a national entity?)

If Steve can’t answer these plainly and charitably (e.g. that means not making claims of man-crushes, associating me with Britney spears, and Lord knows what else), this interaction is finished.

What was Steve’s response? Did he even attempt to answer the questions? No…

Ok…at this point, it’s clear that I’m obviously not being heard, so lets put the water on hold…

Jamin accuses Israel of unjustly manipulating the water supply. So I pose some basic logistical questions about his accusation. The moment I do that he decides to put that issue “on hold.”

This illustrates Jamin’s basic problem. He doesn’t subject his sources to rudimentary scrutiny. He fails to ask common sense questions about the factual claims.

Jamin then retreats into a set of rhetorical questions. [end of blog post]

Total dismissal. And on the basis of being “rhetorical” of all things!

Sigh. Just as we realized in the last post that Steve (as far as we know) wants RealApologetics.org to shut-down until it orients its standards to Steve‘s exact standards (all while claiming that the other guy is self-absorbed!), so in this part we realize that Steve has no interest in talking about the fundamental issues of present-day Israel and Christian theology. Thus, as I promised, “this interaction is finished.” But a few concluding remarks are in order before closing the exchange.

First of all, the quote about “mass murder” that I wrote and that Steve has continually referred to has yet to be quoted in context. Here‘s the full, original context that most of you probably haven’t seen:

Rosenberg forgets that, if modern Israel is the Israel of Scripture, covenant curses (e.g. losing the land) apply to the nation as much as covenant blessings (e.g. possessing the land). If that’s the case, then an argument must be given to how modern-day Israel has upheld God’s law. Because, as any student of Middle-Eastern history knows, the formation of the modern-day state of Israel is anything but pretty.[13] Beyond general secularism and violating other general biblical prohibitions (e.g. borrowing from other nations instead of lending, Deut. 28:12, etc.), Israel is guilty of committing countless war atrocities that qualify and surpass the covenant obligations in Scripture. Mass murder. Torturing men ages 14-60s. Unjust use of water supply and the abusive treatment of aliens and foreigners. The creation of millions of refugees. And so on and so forth.[14] In short, if Christian Zionists are going to try and apply the Old Covenant to modern-day Israel, they at least need to be consistent.

Steve never provides this citation in full – including the last, summative sentence. Why doesn’t he include it? Because then Steve’s readers would be exposed to an argument that he (apparently) doesn’t want them to be exposed to. It makes for more flashy, provocative blog posts if Steve only quotes the parts about “mass murder” and casting doubt on the source without actually quoting them in the context of an argument – one that deals directly with Scripture, and is the heart of Burge’s book Whose Land? Also, it’s not accurate to suggest that I think Israel is, right now, “unjustly manipulating” the water supply if that’s what Steve is saying. I was referring to Israel manipulating the water supply in its history as a national entity. I have no idea what the status is of Israel’s use of water today, and never made a claim regarding that. I could have made that more clear, but hopefully now there is no misunderstanding. (And, for the record, I’m not going to associate Steve with Britney spears, a man-crush, and voodoo dolls because he may have misunderstood my words, even though he did the same when I misunderstood his words).

Second of all, “Rhetorical questions”? Don’t we all wish! That’s precisely why I posted the picture a few days ago of the church sign (here). We’re not all on the same page as Christians when it comes to “Israel.” That’s reality. There is great diversity, and given what Steve has been saying, it was utterly necessary to address the more fundamental concerns of the matter – assuming he cares about them. A line of truth must be drawn for God’s people. That’s Christian apologetics. But, apparently for Steve, this is all just a “retreat into a set of rhetorical questions,” and nothing more regarding these central matters needs to be discussed! Sigh. Could anything be more dismissive for the real concerns that people have and questions that God’s people deserve to have answered? Seriously, what would Steve Hays of Triablogue say to the elders of this church, if anything? Does he even think the issue raised in the church sign is significant and worth talking about? We may never know.

“Doesn’t subject his sources to rudimentary scrutiny?” Uhhh, what? Steve hasn’t even read the book that I have cited from and that he criticizes by attacking its author. I think Steve’s method of scholarship needs “rudimentary scrutiny” if you ask me! From all that has been said, apparently Steve believes that if he can reveal an association between liberals/leftists and the author of any book, that fact alone automatically validates his objection to any information or claims in the book and somehow removes the burden of proof for his counter-claims (indeed, there is no neutrality here). That’s just silly, isn’t it? Suspicion because of a certain author is one thing, automatic dismissal is another.

But, why would anyone think that providing more sources or different sources would be adequate for Steve if he hasn’t even bothered to read the ones already given? Burge’s book does have footnotes you know. They would probably answer some of Steve’s questions (and I really don’t have the time to do someone else’s homework.)

And I wonder: If Burge wasn’t a PCUSA minister and didn’t write for Sojourners, would his book automatically, without change in its content, become a credible source – credible enough that Steve would bother to read and understand its main argument? (And I wonder: if I switched around and asserted that the Palestinians have done bad things in the past, would Steve criticize these factual claims just the same as if it were directed at Israel? Would he have even looked up the bio of the author of the source being cited, like he did for Burge and Whose Land? Doubtful.)

As a presuppositionalist, it’s a given that no matter how many sources, references, or facts a person gives Steve, that’s not the core issue nor will it be sufficient given his presuppositions. We already know Steve is convinced Burge’s works are generally bunk (not because what Burge says is actually wrong, but merely because Burge was ordained in the PCUSA and has contributed to a Christian-leftist publication…why that is sufficient to automatically, confidently discredit historical claims without providing any sources that assert the contrary is beyond me). Beyond that, it’s not clear where he stands. However, I’m willing to acknowledge my presuppositions plainly and publicly, as I have in the last 2 posts on this subject. I gave 5 points on what I believe about the modern day state of Israel – the position I think Christians should generally have – and I asked 3 basic questions for Steve that would allow him to plainly give us his heart on the matter. Steve essentially ignored these central issues and demanded additional justification for some of Burge’s claims that I have repeated.

Folks, again, if I thought that more sources was really what he was after, or additional justification of existing sources would be sufficient, I would take the extra time to provide them. But given that Steve hasn’t bothered to read the sources I have provided, and given that he continually dismisses the most basic issues and refuses to answer the most basic questions of the subject – as if they are rhetorical! – the only conclusion that’s left on the table is that Steve just isn’t serious. I know its hard for some of you die-hard Triablogue fans to believe. But there’s only so many times you can draw attention to the central issues and watch them be dismissed, so many times you can point out a person’s ignorance, and so many times you can straight-up, unashamedly be made-fun of in the lowest class of criticism before you realize, “OK, enough attention has been given here; time to move on.” And time it is.