Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Mark Alluding to Judges, and a New Blog

    David Lincicum, “University Lecturer in the Faculty of Theology and Religion, and Caird Fellow in Theology at Mansfield College, Oxford” (About), has a new blog. Well, new to me. It’s been around for several months. It looks interesting.

    Today he posted on a possible allusion (my term) to Judges in Mark in his post Trees Like People Walking. I see what he’s saying, and I see the connection, though it would be very hard to prove such an idea. He notes the difference in terminology between the LXX and the story in Mark, but if what we have is just a reference to the idea of the story, that vocabulary wouldn’t matter.

    So it becomes something of a look into the mind of the author. Nonetheless, in the context, it makes sense to me. That may not mean much. I was accused way back when I was working on my MA with being obsessed with parallels. Nobody said “parallelomania,” but I suspect some of them thought it. Or maybe Sandmel’s term hadn’t gotten wide enough circulation at that point in time.

    In any case, check it out. What do you think?

  • Aim It at Yourself First

    One of the key things I say in teaching Bible study is: “Aim it at yourself first.”

    Now that’s a hard one to follow, and it doesn’t mean one can never discover what a text means for someone else. Rather, it’s a focus. I need to look at what I need to change. You need to look at what you need to change. But, of course, with the second sentence, I’m aiming it at you!

    Nonetheless, if I look at myself first, I think I will tend to be less judgmental.

    This focus is also important in the participatory Bible study method for which this blog is named. In fact, there is little new in Bible study, and little new in the method except for the emphasis on sharing. I imagine some wonder how “sharing” has to do with aiming it at yourself first. That’s because many of us are used to hearing the word “sharing” with reference to telling other people what we know.

    But sharing can and should be much more than that, not to mention less of that. Sharing is a form of accountability. Academics are acquainted with this type of sharing. One of the things I miss from graduate school is how easy it was to find someone who was studying a similar subject to mine. I could then present them with some idea I had, and they’d tear it apart. As a result, I’d be able to refine, or possibly discard my idea before wasting too much time.

    People outside of academic circles come up with ideas all the time from their Bible study. Sometimes they just dismiss them, assuming they can’t possibly know something the author of their Sunday School literature didn’t know. Other times, they build up a list of eccentric ideas that haven’t been tested.

    You can avoid either of these results by sharing. That means talking to other people about your ideas and listening to what they say. It means finding people who are not in your inner circle, who might think very differently, and hearing their point of view. Listening doesn’t mean you accept everything you hear. It just means you hear it, take the time to understand it, and then evaluate it, and your own ideas in light of it.

    Now for a link. Pete Enns posted today on the difference between a spiritual journey and a religious journey. He’s talking about just one key, but I think he has an excellent point. I think you’ll see how it relates. His title is Losing My Religion (At Least That’s the Plan).

  • God and Human Suffering

    Bruce Epperly challenges us to think more carefully about God and human suffering in his Adventurous Lectionary for the week.

    Takeaway:

    Adventurous theological reflection challenges images of God as unilateral punisher and bully.  These images are unworthy of Jesus of Nazareth.

  • The Conclusion You Want

    It was one of those great days in seminary, and I was in a small class studying prophets from the Hebrew text. The professor favored following the consonantal text as written. (For those unacquainted with the Massoretic text, there are occasions when something is specified “to be read” [Qere] that is not as it is written [Ketiv] in the text. There are various reasons for this [Wikipedia], but those aren’t important right now.) I would tend to choose one or the other text in a rather eclectic manner, so we had an ongoing discussion.

    That day we came upon a passage which was very important to this professor theologically, and the reading that best supported his theology was Qere and not Ketiv. He looks at me and says, “Henry, now’s your opportunity. You can finally accept the Qere!”

    I’m a contrary fellow, and it turned out that in this case, I thought a perfectly good translation of the Ketiv could be produced and that it was the better text. I don’t know whether I was right. I’ve been wrong about many things. But that isn’t the important thing here.

    As he said that, I was thinking, “You are just accepting that text because it suits your theology.” And as I was thinking that, he said, “You just reject that text because you want to undermine my theology.” Of course, neither of those accusations moved any discussion forward.

    I’d heard that accusation before, and I’ve heard it many times since. I do believe people often arrange evidence to suit their preferences. We should all avoid doing that. It’s important to look at your reasoning and see whether it will stand up to scrutiny from someone who disagrees, who would prefer a different conclusion.

    As an accusation, it doesn’t prove anything, nor does it advance the argument. In fact, it’s a way of avoiding the argument entirely. I know someone is wrong. How? Because he desires a particular conclusion and has so arranged his evidence as to make that conclusion plausible. But isn’t that what we do when we arrange evidence? We arrange it to point to a conclusion. It’s going to look like we did that. Ah, but the question is whether we came to that conclusion with an open mind by studying the evidence or whether we came to that conclusion prior to a study of the evidence. We would do well to watch for this problem in our own work.

    But there is a use of this accusation that troubles me, and my professor’s and my own mutual accusation illustrates it. It’s quite possible for the more progressive among us to assume that all conservative conclusions come from producing evidence to support a foregone conclusion, and for conservatives to think that progressives come to their conclusions for the very same reason. At the same time, each group looks at their own camp as truly following the evidence where it leads.

    Traditionalists can use this argument: You only say that because you want to undermine tradition. Progressives can use it: You only say that because you want to uphold tradition.

    One of the things I teach regarding Bible study is that we should learn to point the scripture we read and study first at ourselves. It’s easy to read scripture to find all the things other people ought to be doing. It’s much more challenging to read scripture to find out what I should be doing and how I should change.

    Similarly, it’s easier for us to see the bias in other people or other groups. Demonstrating that bias is a bit more work, but unless you do that extra work, you’ve done nothing worthwhile.

     

  • Duped on Ekklesia?

    On God Directed Deviations Miguel posts You’ve Been Duped! Ekklesia Does Not Mean “Called Out Ones.” He quite justifiably identifies the etymological fallacy.

    But in the comments, some folks are not so sure and don’t really see the issue. I can see why they don’t see it. As I’ve pointed out before, there’s a reason the etymological fallacy is so common. It often works. That is, words that relate in form often do relate in meaning. Compound words often do reflect their individual components in the meaning of the compound form.

    So it’s not a fallacy to define a word in a way that reflects its etymology. It’s a fallacy to define a word in that way because of that etymology alone. Having worked with reading Ugaritic, as well as several other Semitic languages from the ancient near east, I often used etymology. But that was just a starting point on a word that was obscure. The context rules in terms of the definition of the word.

    So how might the issue of translating ekklesia as “called out ones” be important?

    First let me note that there is a sense of “called out” in the definition of ekklesia. An assembly generally consists of people called out from amongst others who were not so called. I can feel that possibility in the various definitions. I suspect that might be how the word came to mean “assembly,” though I haven’t done enough research to be certain.

    So if the word developed historically from a sense of being called out (classified as a guess right now), why not use “called out ones” as the definition today? Simply because that gives an incorrect emphasis. That is not the main sense of ekklesia as it is used in our literature. In general, I believe the sense of “called out” is only present in a limited sense. The key is in the gathering together, not in being called.

    So even if we can see a sense of the assembly being called out (and I can), we need to focus on the gathering, and build the actual definition from the usage of the word.

    The etymological fallacy is very attractive precisely because it is sometimes right and often partially right. The partially right cases cause the most problems.

     

  • Cessation and Continuation

    Dave Black posted some notes on the difference between being a cessationist and a continualist (his term). I agree with his comments.

    Most commonly when we talk about “cessationism” we are talking about the gifts of the Spirit. Do these gifts, particularly the more spectacular of them, continue to operate in the church today? (I know that people divide these gifts differently, but in general, the question winds up whether the more spectacular of them, however, grouped, continue.)

    The fruit of the Spirit is much less controversial on paper, but do we show the evidence of the Spirit working in our churches? I maintain that the sign of the Spirit’s work that Paul was looking for in 1 Corinthians 12-14 was not the gifts, but rather the one Spirit under which those gifts operated. The gifts of the Spirit put some power behind the fruit of the Spirit, but without the fruit, they are not a sign of the functioning of God’s Spirit.

    In my experience, when people are looking for a gift of the Spirit they’re not that interested in gifts of helping or administration. What they want is miracles or prophecy. That is quite often a sign of a very wrong spirit, a spirit that seeks to dominate and stand out rather than to serve.

    So I like Dave’s list of things that need to continue. How many continue in your church? In your life? In mine?

    It leads one to pray, no?

  • Rhetorical Analysis of Hebrews 1:1-4

    I found Hebrews 1:1-4: A Study in Discourse Analysis via Dave Black Online today. Many elements here are not new, but this is the best concise presentation of these four important verses that I’ve found. Some may think that 19 pages on four verses isn’t concise, but considering the possibilities, I find it quite compact!

    While reading this analysis of the first four verses of Hebrews, it’s important to note the pointers to the way in which the book will be structured. The connection between verse 4 and what precedes, as well as follows it, for example, has often been misread as separating verse 4 from the prior 3 verses. It belongs with what precedes as part of the introduction, but it provides the link to what will be argued in verse 5ff.

    I need to post more of what I’m looking at right now in the book of Hebrews, but I have been short on time. Hopefully soon I will get to posting more.

  • The Problem with Eschatology

    The Problem with Eschatology

    I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is very interested in eschatology. We didn’t learn the term all that early, but we were subjected constantly to sermons about it. SDA eschatology is one of the key reasons I’m not SDA any more, but when I first joined a United Methodist congregation, I was surprised to discover that nobody really thought that much about the end times. One pastor I know had even invited an SDA to come in and teach on Revelation. Why? “SDAs know something about eschatology.” Of course, the corollary to that was that Methodists did not.

    But SDAs were not the primary source for the congregation. Most of them picked up what eschatology they knew from television and other popular media, which meant some kind of futurist interpretation including a seven-year tribulation, usually a pre-tribulation rapture, and a pre-millenial second coming. This eschatology, while built on a dispensational view of biblical interpretation and theology, was held without necessarily accepting, or even knowing, its theological foundations.

    Most Methodist pastors that I encountered during this time didn’t really teach or preach about eschatology. They preferred to avoid it. They might say that Methodists weren’t really committed to a particular eschatology. Some accepted the “left behind” eschatology themselves. But in general there was, and is, a void in this area of theology.

    Let me warn readers at this point that this is one of my posts reflecting on a book I have published. There won’t be much of a commercial, however. I’m just giving some of my thoughts on eschatology and why we should pay attention to it in the church.

    I believe the reason many pastors and teachers don’t talk about eschatology is that it has a bad reputation amongst those theologically trained. There is so much craziness that goes on, such as setting dates for the end of the world, that people just don’t want to go there. The “left behind” theology and the futurist view of the interpretation of Daniel, Revelation, and other apocalyptic literature is popular because it is proclaimed almost in a vacuum. If people hear only one view proclaimed, they can perhaps be forgiven for thinking it is the way to think about eschatology.

    And I believe that groups with even more peculiar views of the last days find an opening amongst Christians simply because pastors and teachers haven’t addressed the issues at all. I recall a comment by my uncle on a sermon which he called “fearfully and wonderfully made.” He didn’t intend it positively. Most systems or programs about the end time are, in that sense, “fearfully and wonderfully made.” They are also houses of cards, to be blown over if anyone studies the texts themselves without the guide. I find the SDA interpretation of the seals and trumpets of Revelation to be ridiculous, and rejected them while I was still a college student in an SDA school. But if you hear just that view, and look at just the texts (and the emphasized portions of texts) than an evangelist or other presenter wants you to see, it can sound very plausible.

    But even more importantly, eschatology is critical. It’s where we’re going. It’s why we are the church. I don’t mean to diminish the importance of now, and there are views of eschatology that do not diminish that importance. That’s something to consider. But when you’re making a decision as to what to do and how to do it, knowing where you’re going is important. One result of bad eschatology is the idea that because Jesus is coming soon (and just what does “soon” mean?) we don’t need to take care of the planet we’re living on. Why bother, when it’s all corrupted by evil and about to be destroyed in the fires of hell?

    The answer is to take this subject on directly, and as frequently as necessary to counter popular Christian culture. It is also important not to just teach some alternate scheme of the end times. Too often we teach conclusions in the church (and even in seminary), and not how to come to those conclusions, and yes, how to challenge them.

    9781938434105mThat is what Dr. Edward W. H. Vick does in his study guide, Eschatology: A Participatory Study Guide. Interestingly enough, Dr. Vick is a Seventh-day Adventist. But he isn’t teaching the SDA evangelistic message. He’s surveying the field of eschatology and teaching readers and students the terminology and the ideas they need in order to understand the discussion of this field. It isn’t a simple book, but it is direct and straightforward. You’ll need to study it carefully, lesson by lesson. You can’t jump in somewhere in the middle. It won’t tell you what you should believe about eschatology. It will provide you with the tools to study the topic and to understand what others are saying.

    I accepted this manuscript for publication because I think we need to think, study, and teach more on this topic. I am also convinced that on every topic we need to let people know not just what we conclude, but how we came to those conclusions. It builds on what Dr. Vick has already said in his books From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, and The Adventists’ Dilemma. The latter volume will be of particular interest to SDAs who often wonder just what “soon” means when you’ve been proclaiming that Jesus is coming soon for a couple of hundred years. Don’t worry. The church has been doing it for 2000 years. But perhaps we don’t know what “soon” means.

    There are those who may be concerned about using a book on this subject written by someone from a group that has peculiar views on eschatology. Let me assure you that Dr. Vick treats eschatology as an academic subject. I’m not going to try to characterize his view of SDA eschatology. I’ll simply say that in this book he presents an overview of this topic that is broad, intense, and extremely helpful.

     

    (If you’re interested in pursuing a study of basic eschatology in that manner, this will be the book for you. If you’re considering this book for use in your church, remember that you can request a free evaluation copy simply by e-mailing Energion Publications with a note telling us your intended use and the size of the group you intend to use it with.)

  • Losing Our Sense of Mission

    When it rains it pours, so I’ve been seeing a lot of posts about mission lately, and here’s another one that raises some very interesting points. (HT: Kouyanet).

    Having served on and led short-term mission teams, grown up with long-term missionary parents, and served on mission committees, I find that a great deal of this resonates with me. Read it all and give it serious consideration. This is to be a series. I intend to follow it.

    One thing that strikes me is that minor changes in the details are not the solution to the various problems (see Of Resources and Mission Priorities and Worship, Service, and Mission). Our problem is that we don’t view ourselves as on a mission in the first place. We view the church as a way to provide a moral education to our children, a place for networking, and in some cases a route to salvation.

    Perhaps our committees, agencies, and denominations lack a sense of mission because our members lack a sense of mission. Perhaps that lack of a sense of mission comes from a lack of understanding the basic gospel message.

     

  • Dave Black on Worship and Missional Theology

    Some important thoughts.