Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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
  • Scot McKnight on Women in Ministry

    I’ll be eagerly awaiting the inexpensive ebook of his lecture at Fuller. The summary is interesting.

  • Last Day for Victim No More! Giveaway

    Victim No More!My company, Energion Publications is giving away a free copy of Shauna Hyde’s book Victim No More! through our Facebook page. All you have to do is comment on one of the threads related to the book there. This giveaway is related to Domestic Violence Awareness Month which ends tomorrow.

    Any comments on our Facebook page on any of the threads related to the book or Domestic Violence Awareness Month will qualify you. We’ll randomly select one commenter to receive the free book.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Another Gutted Reading – Psalm 89

    I’m looking at the readings for Proper 25A, and again I notice a large chunk of the Psalm removed from the reading, Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17, so 7-12 is left out.

    Now sometimes I see good reason for taking part of a Psalm, because one does need to keep the readings reasonable in length. As it is, many congregations only use a few lines from the Psalm.

    But in this case, one could divide the Psalm into three sections, with the first being 1-6, expressing the greatness of God, the second 7-12 talking about living under God’s judgment or anger, and 13-17 being a prayer for God’s favor. Now if you leave out the center part of the Psalm, one misses the sense of the prayer.

    In this case I suspect a desire of certain liturgists to avoid reading the really unpleasant verses, such as speaking of God putting our sins directly in front of him. Not comfortable reading, that!

    In any case, I think this Psalm, as most Psalms, should be studied more as a whole, rather than chopped up. As worshipers, we should be more patient with hearing the reading of the Word.

  • Brannon Howse and Justin Peters Dissing Visions

    The following video comes from Worldview Weekend, and is a conversation between Brannon Howse and Justin Peters. What’s interesting about this post is that pretty much every accusation they make against modern people who claim visions of or visits to heaven could be made against various Bible writers.

    In fact, they run into this difficulty in the middle of the video, just after 8:00, when they are criticizing Jess Duplantis for referring to God as having fingers. Suddenly they remember that the Bible also refers to God as having body parts, so they bring out the metaphor defense. Of course, that is a very good defense — it is metaphorical language. But why can’t Jesse Duplantis use metaphorical language?

    They refer to Paul’s statement that he heard things he couldn’t speak of when he was taken up into the third heaven, and thus suggest no modern person should do so. Can anyone say, “Revelation?” Yes, they notice Revelation as well, but apparently don’t notice the problem.

    The fact is that if you want to find weird things, you can find plenty of them in the Bible itself. My intent isn’t to defend everyone who claims a vision of heaven. I just don’t see any reason to exclude such modern visions if one accepts, as these men do, that such visions were ever possible.

    I’m putting the video below the fold to keep it from autostarting on views of the home page.

    (more…)

  • Revelation Requires Interaction

    In my book When People Speak for God I used the story of the one-ended telephone cord. Edward Vick makes the same point in much more profound language than I used.

    But even should someone intend to make known to me what I would otherwise never come to discover by myself, I shall not in fact know it unless I respond. The intention to reveal oneself, and the intention to know the other are not sufficient in themselves. Revelation takes place when there is giving and responding, an interaction between agents who are both free and purposive. Revelation is communication. Revelation takes place when what is ‘provided’ is grasped, what is ‘offered’ is ‘taken’, what is spoken’ is ‘heard’ (From Inspiration to Understanding, 174 [in advance copy]).

  • Connectionalism and Dysfunctional Churches

    I have made a few negative comments about conference dashboards keeping statistics on membership, apportionments, and other activities available to anyone who wants to read. I continue to question whether these numbers really tell the story of the health of the churches. There are, I believe, some very large and growing churches that have little or nothing to do with the kingdom of God.

    Nonetheless, I think we have a problem with accountability in the United Methodist Church. When I took my new member class in my first United Methodist congregation, I recall the teacher, who made a number of historical errors, emphasized connectionalism. But if I were to go by his discussion of it, connectionalism means simply that we all go help one another as needed; nothing was said about accountability.

    Those who are pushing the statistical approach are, I believe, responding to a very real problem. Pastors and church congregations in the United Methodist Church can go on indefinitely violating the discipline of the church or refusing to take necessary actions to make their church successful, while expecting that others will take up the slack.

    That is what happens when a church continually fails to pay its apportionments. Now I’m not 100% a fan of apportionments as they are currently implemented, but they do represent a critical element of connectionalism. We put our money together to accomplish things we can’t do separately. Whatever reforms the system might need, the basic concept is sound, and more importantly if you have such a system, and some churches don’t do their share, all suffer.

    This means that we need accountability as part of our connectional system. Churches need to be accountable to those who support them. In a more congregational system, an older church barely hanging on while slowly dying would have a hard time getting people to send money to help. A United Methodist congregation that refuses to take necessary actions, and continues to fail to support the team will nonetheless benefit from the resources of the denomination.

    We should be willing to give money to support the mission of the church. But supporting a church that is willfully imitating a sinking ship sliding under the waves is not mission—it’s bad stewardship.

    In addition, dysfunctional congregations continue to be part of the witness our denomination gives regarding Christ. Our “brand” can be tarnished by the actions of any of our churches. In the case of a denomination, tarnishing the brand also provides a negative witness—tarnishes the brand, so to speak—of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    My problem is that statistics can and generally do fail to get the entire picture. You can have good statistics and still not be building the kingdom of God. I welcome moves to make pastors more accountable. I think more could be done to make churches accountable as well.

    But accountability is going to take more than reading the numbers. It will require people with good discernment who can see the context, make the necessary decisions, and take responsibility for those decisions. It may be difficult. We may prefer to find some objective measure, but it is still necessary. An objective measure of a subjective set of values will, by nature, be deceptive.

    In critical ways, the church is not a business. Thus my call is for accountability carried out by human beings who exercise all their discernment and wisdom and seek to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Revelation and a System of Doctrine

    I really enjoy the last few days of work on a pending book release, because I include an opportunity to read the final form of the book at a more reasonable pace and without the constant distraction of working on editorial changes. Well, I should confess that I’m also always going crazy with production issues, but we’ll leave that to one side.

    Right now I’m doing my final run through From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully by Edward Vick. It’s an enjoyable process. I’m going to comment on it a bit more later. Today I’m just going to use one quote, regarding revelation.

    But the meaning of the Bible is not exhausted by being made the basis of a system of doctrine. There is much that escapes when ‘Bible’ and ‘system of doctrine’ are conflated. In fact, while by no means denying the importance of doctrine (why should a theologian do that?), one must say that if the importance of the Bible is made to consist in its being construed as a source of doctrine, it is being severely reduced, misunderstood, and indeed distorted. Revelation is not reducible to the communication of propositions, and faith is not identical with assent to propositions, in this case propositions repeating biblical statements, or being inferred or worked out from them (emphasis mine).

    Note that Dr. Vick is not suggesting, as the context makes even more plain, that there are no propositions involved or that propositions have no value. Rather, revelation is much more than and other than that.