Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount

    Scot McKnight asks the question: Is the Sermon on the Mount the Gospel? I think it’s an excellent question, and my answer would be yes. But I see this as similar to the question of whether the gospel can be found in the Old Testament, or in the law generally, to which I again answer yes. If we get law out of its place, and make it the means of salvation, it becomes bad news. Law in its place, following grace, is definitely good news.

    I wrote about this some time back in an essay titled A Fruitful Faith, which I originally published in my preblogging days (July 29, 2003), but have just moved to the Energion.com site.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Polls and Headline Writing

    Margin of error
    Image via Wikipedia

    . . . or how to lie with headlines.

    I get very annoyed with the reporting of polls. One way to create news is to incorrectly headline or even incorrectly describe polling data.

    For example, CNN uses the headline Poll: Romney & Gingrich Tied for Top Spot in reporting on the latest USA Today/Gallup poll regarding the Republican presidential race. In the text they explain that Romney and Gingrich are at 20% and 19% respectively, that this is well within the margin of error of the poll (+/- four percentage points), and is thus essentially a tie. The number part of this is essentially correct.

    Then they say that Cain is following close behind, but they don’t point out at this point that Cain’s 16% is also within the sampling error of both of the leading candidates, or rather, that the probable range of Cain’s percentages largely overlaps those of the leading two candidates.

    The margin of error provides a range within which the real percentage of the whole population is likely to fall. If you go to the Gallup site for this poll you’ll find that the confidence level is 95%, in other words, there is a 95% probability that each candidates percentage of the real population falls within +/- 4 percentage points of the poll’s result. Thus there is a 95% change that Cain’s percentage is between 12% & 20%, that Gingrich’s is between 15% & 23%, and that Romney’s is between 16% & 24%.

    If you’re wondering why the polls seem to swing quite a lot among the leaders, this would be your explanation. If in a future poll, the number varies by less than four percentage points, that number would not necessarily reflect any change in that particular candidate’s support.

    Essentially, the news writers can produce the story they want. It’s possible (though with multiple polls showing him dropping, it’s not likely) that Cain could still be leading this.

    Now this particular headline may seem minor. But if you examine the headlines after just about any poll you’ll find that different news services spin the results differently, and that by reading the headlines and the first few paragraphs, you’ll get a somewhat different picture than you would if you read to the end of the story, or even better, go to the source of the poll.

    In this story, while we are told that the difference between Romney and Gingrich falls “well within the poll’s sampling error” in the second paragraph, we don’t find the actual margin of error (+/- four percentage points) until the very last sentence. At that point, if we look back, we can see that Cain is also within that margin of error, or rather that the intervals of all three top candidates overlap considerably.

    (For a write-up on this, see the Wikipedia article Margin of Error.)

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Bruce Epperly Comments for the First Sunday of Advent (Cycle B)

    Bruce Epperly has an excellent set of comments on the texts for Advent 1B at Process and Faith. In particular take a look at the discussion of our perception that God has abandoned us in the comments on Isaiah 64.

    But are we abandoned, and what would it mean?

    Perhaps, as later Jewish mysticism suggests, God must withdraw for creation to burst forth in creativity and freedom.

    Read the rest . . .

  • Loving C. S. Lewis and Hating Rob Bell?

    Michael Patton, who often steps into controversial issues (which I do not mean as a criticism), asks why people love C. S. Lewis, but hate Rob Bell. His conclusion is that this is because Bell’s ideas that push the boundaries characterize his ministry, unlike those of C. S. Lewis.

    I must admit that I’ve read only a few lines of Rob Bell, while I’ve read just about everything related to Christianity that C. S. Lewis ever wrote. In addition, I’m not a universalist, though I don’t automatically call universalists heretics.

    But I ‘m going to suggest a different reason why people perceive these two men so differently. Rob Bell is contemporary. He may say many things other than what he said in his most recent book, but he has managed to become the poster boy for certain controversies. I’m not sure that his ministry is characterized by this one topic; it’s the publicity about him that bears that character.

    C. S. Lewis got started defending Christianity, and that certainly did make it easier for him to get accepted regarding other ideas. But he gets a pass on many doctrines that in others are regarded as heretical. In my view, other thinkers should get similarly gracious treatment.

    (Note: I ignore here issues of writing quality. In the little bit I’ve read, I’ve come to doubt I could tolerate reading an entire book by Rob Bell, whereas I really enjoy Lewis’s prose. But I haven’t read enough of Bell to make that a firm opinion of his writing.)

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Paul Was a Sexist Simpleton?

    Well, no, I don’t think so, but in one of the best demonstrations I’ve seen of how not to argue, that is a view attributed to others by writer Andrew Wilson on the New Frontiers Theology Matters blog (HT: 42).

    Within evangelicalism, four main lines of interpretation can be discerned. (Outside of evangelicalism, the response is fairly simple – Paul was a sexist simpleton who didn’t know any better; we’ve been enlightened now, so we should ignore him – although one wonders if the catastrophic track record of post-1960s white people when it comes to marriage will cause this approach to lose its lustre).

    Now it’s hard to tell just who this statement refers to, because evangelicalism is so loosely defined these days. I know I’ve been accused of ignoring Paul. But I get part of the foundation of my egalitarianism from Paul, while at the same time looking to him as a master of working with the culture as he found it. In other words while I suppose someone might find reason to call Paul sexist, though I think they’d be wrong to do so, calling him a simpleton is utterly ridiculous.

    (I’m not going to go through the rest of the article, but there are other, less glaring problems in characterizing the evangelical streams the author refers to.)

    So who might we say, “resembles” that remark? I know of nobody who does. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I am a member of a church that ordains women in leadership, and is egalitarian in its theology, and I’ve never encountered anyone who would say something like this about Paul.

    What I have encountered are a few people who think all complementarians are either secretly sadistic tyrants or, at a minimum, enablers of the same, something that I again know from personal experience is not the case.

    We’re going to make enough mistakes in understanding and characterizing one another’s positions. We need to avoid this kind of statement in Bible study.

     

  • My Wife is Giving Away Books

    Grief: Finding the Candle of LightCopies of her own book Grief: Finding the Candle of Light, that is. She’s written an excellent post on dealing with grief in the holidays, and she’s offering a free copy of her book to the first three commenters. So head on over there and be one of those first three and get your free copy of this little book. My (totally unbiased) opinion, as both her husband and publisher is that it’s well worth the effort!

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Point It at Yourself First

    One recommendation I make for Bible study is simple: Look for what speaks to, and yes convicts, you first. It’s very easy to read the Bible and find all the things that other people ought—or ought not—to do. This results in our practice of having lists of “clean” sins and “dirty” sins.

    Clean sins are the ones I’m personally tempted to. It’s just natural to fall for those temptations and I don’t really have to worry too much about them. For example, I’m overweight. I’m working on it, but I’m not a good example in that area. That’s my “clean” sin. Of course smoking, to which others are tempted but I’m not, is a “dirty” sin. It’s easy for me to condemn someone else for abusing their body by smoking when I have plenty of things to work on myself.

    Of course, what I mean here by “clean” and “dirty” is the way we treat those sins, as though my sins are OK, but those of other people are horrible, not the actual nature of the sins, none of which are “clean.”

    Today I read an excellent example of the right way to approach the application of a text of scripture Todd Wood is a creationist who teaches at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. I read his blog to get the perspective of an intelligent young age creationist who is also somewhat unusual in the exceptionally fair way he treats opponents.

    He was looking at II Timothy 3:16-17, and decided to look at the broader context. He noted the phrase “having itching ears” and “They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

    Now I’ve heard this verse any number of times, and generally teachers are prepared to point out the myths that other people believe, and explain how they believe that because of their itching ears. I’ve been the target of this, and I must confess I’ve done it myself.

    Not a good plan! Not the right way to apply scripture!

    I should look at myself first.

    That’s what Todd did:

    Now your average creationist reads that as a condemnation of evolution, right? That’s the myth what “itching ears want to hear,” or so we’ve been told.

    But I’m not your average creationist, so I wondered what myth I’ve turned to instead of “sound doctrine.” I think the danger is ever present, or Paul wouldn’t have warned Timothy so sternly to avoid it. That means the warning is for everyone, especially for those who think they’ve got it all together doctrinally (like us creationists).

    Precisely!

    Now if you think my point is that finally a creationist looked at the possibility he might be getting his doctrinal positions out of order, you’re missing my point. Todd is providing us with an excellent example of how we should approach a scripture. I’m a theistic evolutionist. It’s easy for me to see the faults and failings of young age creationists.

    In other words, the question to ask is what sort of myths am I going after? What do my itching ears want to hear? When you read this, ask what your itching ears want to hear.

    I’m not arguing that we should be unwilling to consider that our doctrinal positions or our scriptural interpretations are right. In fact, after we’ve done our best to study out a position, we need to stand up for what we believe to be the truth. But we also need to constantly look at ourselves.

    In addition to asking whether we’re believing myths, I think we need to ask whether we have placed some doctrinal position of our own in a place it doesn’t deserve, i.e. whether we have made an idol of some particular position. Have I made my position on origins, baptism, ecclesiology, education, or anything else more important than the good news of Jesus?

    Amongst the things for which scripture is valuable presented in II Timothy 3:17, are reproof and correction. Let’s receive it for ourselves!

     

  • Scot McKnight on Academic Freedom

    Scot McKnight wrote an interesting post today on the need for academic freedom in religious schools. First let me note that I agree with the need for academic freedom, and that I am sympathetic with all three cases McKnight mentions, and have had personal correspondence with one of them. In addition, I like to promote discussion that is as broad as possible.

    I do want to put a note of my own, however. I think that religious schools should be able to set the boundaries on what they are going to permit. Will some of them set boundaries I would disapprove? Of course. Many already do set boundaries that would exclude me. In a free market of ideas, I would only object if an institution advertised itself falsely, i.e. claimed to have standards of academic freedom which were not true.

    In addition, someone who intends to be a researcher at such a school should be aware of such limitations. If you are doing research at an institution that requires your results to fit in with a 6000 year old earth, for example, you must be prepared for a certain amount of disdain from mainstream science.

    Academic freedom is important, and if certain results are excluded a priori, one needs to be aware of the fact.

    Enhanced by Zemanta