On the Rhetoric of 'On the Rhetoric of 'A War On Terrorism'"

In his speech "On the Rhetoric of a 'War on Terrorism'" Dr. Kyle Fedler, a religion professor at Ashland University, examines the use of words. His proposition is that words are powerful, and as a result, can influence the shaping of policy when it comes to war.

Dr. Fedler makes many fine points in his speech. One has to do with the "dehumanizing" of our enemies through our choice of words (i.e. referring to them as "the enemy" or "vermin"). As Christians, we acknowledge that all men (even enemies) have dignity and therefore must be treated with the utmost respect.

I agree with Dr. Fedler when he says, "Language is a powerful tool," and agree with his main supposition--that language, because it can exercise a powerful influence over people, should be used carefully. But readers should beware, some of Dr. Fedler's rhetoric should be scrutinized as well.

In reference to the 911 attack Fedler says, "Even if God could produce some good from these events, it would not help explain them."

Fedler's choice of words cast doubt upon God's ability to bring about good from the terrorist attacks. It even seems to go so far as to say that those Muslim men got the best of God on this one.

But these words (which I assume were purposely chosen being that this was a public speech) do not reflect the Bible's rhetoric of God's sovereign decree. The Bible is clear when it says that God "works all things according to the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). Even something as horrific as the 911 terrorist attack most certainly falls under Scripture's general category of "all things." As a result, even the 911 attacks were part of God's foreordained plan.

Admittedly, the intricacies of God's eternal decree is concealed to men. For this reason we must remember that the secret things belong to God and that we must adhere to what is revealed (Deut. 29:29). But when it comes to the dreadful acts of men and the question of "where was God in it?", we are not left to vain (or despairing, in Dr. Fedler's case) speculations. Joseph's words still remain true: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Genesis 50:20).

But the sovereignty of God is not the only issue that perks one's attention in Fedler's speech on war rhetoric.

Fedler also seems to indicate a bit of a quibble with the Bible's masculine language. When speaking about the Devil, the Bible always refers to him with masculine pronouns. Yet Fedler suggests that there is room for debate regarding the devil's gender. In reference to an extreme quote from Anne Coulter Fedler says, "I can only imagine that the devil is licking his (or her) lips over the possibility of Coulter's all-out war on the just and unjust alike."

Had he referred to the devil in a neutral way (i.e. "it") we would have no cause to pause. For angels and demons are not sexual beings per se, like humans. But his insertion of the feminine pronoun makes us wonder if the Bible can be trusted when it speaks of the devil. Indeed, it leads me to wonder, if the gender of the devil is open for debate, why not discount the devil altogether. We could take it even a step further, since the Bible is not a guide in this instance, why should it be a guide at all?

Fedler rightly argues in his speech that a war on terrorism could easily slip into terrorism itself. But what concerns me is his attack on the Bible.

As Christians we affirm the plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is to say, we believe that every word of Scripture was given by God through the Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16) to be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. As God's Holy Word, the rhetoric of the Bible is to be taken seriously, never adding to it or taking away from it. In other words, the words mean something, and they are there for a reason: To serve as the only infallible guide for life and faith.

If the Bible is not taken as one's guide for life, one cannot have clarity on life's greatest issues, as Dr. Fedler so beautifully illustrates. With it you may possess knowledge and peace, Without it one is left with confusion and, ultimately, despair.

Dabney on God's Predestination

Whatever God does in nature or grace, he intended to do that thing from eternity. Being unchangeable, it is impossible that he should change his mind to a different purpose after he had once made it up aright under the guidance of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and holiness.

All the inferior wisdom of good men but illustrates this. Here is a wise and righteous general conducting a defensive war to save his country. At mid-summer an observer says to him, "General, have you not changed your plan of campaign since you began it?" He replies, "I have." Says the observer, "Then you must be a fickle person?" He replies, "No, I have changed it not because I was fickle, but for these two reasons: because I have been unable and have failed in some of the necessary points of my first plan; and second, I have found out things I did not know when I began."

We say that is perfect common sense, and clears the general from all charge of fickleness. But suppose he were, in fact, almighty and omniscient? Then he could not use those excuses, and if he changed his plan after the beginning he would be fickle.

Reader, dare you charge God with fickleness? This is a sublime conception of God's nature and actions, as far above the wisest man's as the heavens above the earth. But it is the one taught us everywhere in Scripture. Let us beware how in our pride of self-will we blaspheme God by denying it.

RL Dabney, Five Points of Calvinism

Illustrating the Need for the Effectual Call of God

RL Dabney's tract, The Five Points of Calvinism (here for audio version), is a swift and devotional sweep through the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. Those not familiar with the doctrine (or those adverse to it) would find it quite helpful. Dabney's writes on the layman level, with many colorful illustrations to help mentally grasp the doctrines.

One of the illustrations you meet regards the need for effectual calling (that is, we need the Spirit's to reach down and renew our hearts because we are dead in our trespasses and sins). My eloquence will not in any way duplicate the artful pen of Dabney, but it goes like this...

The truth of the gospel may be presented to a person all through their childhood. But this child may never profess faith in Christ and never have a saving relationship with Christ while in his parent's house. This is not the fault of the parents. They faithfully nurtured their child in the ways of God and always urged them to embrace Christ.

But later in life, say some 30, 40, or 50 years later, the same gospel breaks the heart of the hardened sinner. How can this be? We cannot say that the mere outward influence of the gospel was of any avail. It is man's nature to become hardened as he grows older. And words, with repetition, become vain and loose their significance to a person. If the mere words of the gospel were to effect any change, it would be more likely that it would happen while the child is still young.

Dabney concludes that "it was the finger of God, and not the mere moral influence, which wrought the mighty change." He then goes on to illustrate,

Let us suppose that fifty years ago the reader had seen me visit his rural sanctuary, when the grand oaks which now shade it were but lithe saplings. He saw me make an effort to tear one of them with my hands from its seat; but it proved too strong for me.

Fifty years after, he and I meet at the same sacred spot, and he sees me repeat my attempt upon the same tree, now grown to be a monarch of the grove. He will incline to laugh me to scorn: "He attempted that same tree fifty years ago, when he was in his youthful prime and it was but a sapling, but he could not move it. Does the old fool think to rend it from its seat now, when age has so diminished his muscle, and the sapling has grown to a mighty tree?"

But let us suppose that the reader saw that giant of the grove come up in my aged hands. He would no longer laugh. He would stand awe-struck. He would conclude that this must be the hand of God, not of man.