Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Making It Hard to Read

    Learning and Living Scripture

    Joel Watts suggests that we might need to make laypeople learn some of the more difficult theological terms, and he quotes an Economist study to support his contention.

    I would relate his comment to my own suggestion about the different ways of reading scripture. I don’t think we always want to read slowly and in detail. There are those who don’t think rapid reading is valuable. It is, but it can be a problem if you only read fast.

    Informally evaluate your own results, and build up an array of approaches to reading and studying. An informal evaluation can involve simply sitting back, closing your eyes, and trying to remember key points of the material you just read. I often ask myself what the key points of each chapter were after reading scripture from one of the reading plans.

    Another technique I use is to read in one or another foreign language. I’m not talking about the original languages, which I also like to read, but I can slow my reading down progressively by moving from English to Spanish to French and finally to German. I’m slowest at the last. It’s hardest for me to read German, but having struggled through the text I’ll remember the key points of the chapter(s).

    But on the other hand I was discussing reading and understanding scripture with my wife just last night and she was commenting on how her study had progressed over the last few years. One of the elements we agreed on was the need to get acquainted with large portions of scripture–getting an overview. Her study is now bringing her more and more insights about the connections between various parts of scripture. That doesn’t come until you become thoroughly acquainted with many books, not just many verses.

    The book Learning and Living Scripture: An Introduction to the Participatory Study Method, which I co-authored with Geoffrey Lentz, devotes an entire chapter to these approaches to reading.

  • Worship Worthy of Your Understanding of God

    I started teaching a new Sunday School class today, or I should say it’s new to me. In our discussion one of the class members discussed who he understood God to be, and then commented that he couldn’t understand such a God requiring worship. His concept of God was rich and deep, so by this time I was wondering. Then he mentioned what he meant by “worship,” and what he was talking about was the very common things we do at our worship services.

    I think his question was very appropriate, even though the answer–as he acknowledged–was kind of built into the question. But it raises another question: Are our worship services worthy of God? Or perhaps I can make it a little easier: Are our worship services worthy of our best understanding of God?

    I spent some time writing about worship, and one of my key points was that worship should happen all week long. Worship is not something that just happens during a time of “worship” should help us to worship all week, and what we do all week should help us worship when we get together.

    So I ask: Is what we do on Sunday morning worthy of our God? Does it send people forth recharged to meet the world? If not, what can we do?

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Life Application Study Bible Giveaway

    For participation in a previous contest, Tyndale House has sent me a certificate for one free copy of the Life Application Study Bible (NLT), which they say is the #1-selling study Bible.

    I’m happy to be able to provide someone with a copy of an NLT. I’m going to do this a bit differently this time. I’m not going to just select a random commenter. Rather, I’m going to ask you to give me a maximum of 140 word application to life drawn from any portion of Genesis 11:10-32. I will randomly select one of every qualified entry.

    You can enter as many times as you want to, provided you provide a different life application. I’ll disqualify any entries that are more than 140 words. The word count will use the standard English concept of a word. For example, this paragraph contains 46 words.

    I’m going to give everyone tw0 weeks, so I’ll make my selection February 7, and mail you the certificate.

    Thanks to Tyndale House for providing this certificate, and for publishing the NLT in many fine editions.

  • Dave Black on Translations

    I was thinking of quoting this comment from Dave Black myself, but Rod Decker beat me to it. We should give translators more respect!

  • The Value (or not) of the Spiritual Warfare Metaphor

    My daily lectionary readings for the day included both Ephesians 6:10-24 and Mark 5:1-20. (I get my readings from The Voice.) It’s an interesting combination, because the Ephesians passage is the famous one about the armor of God and thus features in just about any discussion of spiritual warfare, while the passage in Mark, regarding the healing of the demoniac on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, is spiritual warfare.

    Now what interests me here is the demonstration of what is meant. In his just released study guide to Ephesians, Bob Cornwall notes:

    For Christians uncomfortable with military imagery, this passage can prove challenging. The ingenuity of it, however, needs to be recognized. The author took a picture that every one of his readers would immediately recognize, and used it to encourage them to become actively engaged in their faith, thereby helping to bring to an end the rule of the evil one. Such a calling would be difficult, which is why the word of encouragement is central to this message: Stand firm.

    There are several points here that I’d like to emphasize, because I believe spiritual warfare is often misunderstood and certainly misapplied.

    1. Spiritual warfare is a metaphor. It is not intended as an endorsement of violence. Notice how Jesus behaves in Mark. There is no violence or fighting, except on the part of the demonized man.
    2. Spiritual warfare is not a method. We’re not the ones who defeat evil by practicing some set of techniques. I know people who feel that they need to “pray on” the armor of God every morning or they might be susceptible to the attacks of the devil that day. Now as a spiritual exercise, I see no problem with praying through this passage, but this is not some magical ritual that protects you. It’s about belonging to Christ. Bob uses the excellent phrase “actively engaged in their faith.”
    3. A metaphor may be especially valuable to a particular time. I think spiritual warfare provides one way of understanding the conflict with evil. Unfortunately, when it gets into the hands of those who think violence solves everything, it just imports ungodly habits and behavior into our spiritual lives and the damage can be substantial.

    I really liked having these passages together, because the way Jesus is portrayed in the gospels is peaceful and confident. The evil spiritual realm falls, not to combat, but to a confident faith in God.

    Stand firm indeed!

  • Is Civility Our Greatest Need?

    In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, much of the conversation has been about civility. I was just watching CNN as Wolf Blitzer interviewed Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona. The sheriff was asserting that the caustic atmosphere created by people making caustic political comments contributed to making Jared Loughner go out at shoot a congresswoman and a number of other people. Pressured by Blitzer, he admitted he had no hard evidence but said that’s his opinion as a veteran of law enforcement, I believe 43 years.

    Personally I get a bit nervous when someone can’t present any evidence or logic, and yet they cite their opinion based on experience. I think that if experience teaches you something you ought to be able to express it. Of course, it may be that Sheriff Dupnik is correct. The problem is that we don’t actually know that.

    Now considering that I regard civility as extremely important, why do I think this is important? Why don’t I just rejoice that people are focusing on civility as a result of this event? The reason is simple–accuracy.

    I recall listening to a hearing some years ago in which a candidate for Surgeon General was being questioned by a senate committe working on his confirmation. One of his claims to fame was a particular program to prevent teen pregnancy. One of the conservative senators asked the candidate whether the evidence showed that this program had actually prevented teen pregnancies and how many. When it came time for Senator Edward Kennedy to question the candidate he expressed dismay at that question. I was left to wonder just why it was wrong to ask for evidence of the success of a program.

    Now as I recall I liked the candidate in question, and I felt some of the questioning from conservative senators was less gracious that it should have been. Yet that was a question for which I would have liked an answer. Why? Again–accuracy. We need to know what government programs are actually accomplishing.

    And this remains my concern about the calls for civility. Yes, civility is necessary, but so is accuracy. Let’s say two candidates, A & B, produce negative ads. Given the state of political advertising, it’s highly likely that both sets of ads are inaccurate, but that’s another matter. Few people care about the accuracy of positive ads. There will be a certain amount of voter negative response because both candidates have
    “gone negative.” But evidence shows that some of the mud will stick, so candidates get value from negative ads.

    But are both candidates A & B wrong for going negative? Let’s suppose that candidate A knows something about candidate B that actually calls B’s suitability for office into question. Should A not let voters know about this? I would say that A should let people know, though he should do it accurately. Thus when candidates “go negative,” my first response is to ask two questions: 1) Is the negative information true? and 2) Is the negative information relevant? In a voting decision I’d also ask whether A has enough positives, but I ask that regarding any candidate.

    The problem, as I see it, is that we give equal weight to information being negative without first inquiring as to whether it is accurate. There are candidates who are unqualified for office. There are candidates who are morally unsuitable. If that is the case, we should be able to discuss it. I would prefer this be done by energetic and accurate media, but absent such journalism, I have no problem with the candidates doing so.

    Doubtless we will disagree as to what is a valid criticism and what is not, but again, that is the nature of political debate. In addition, I think we should do our best to present such accusations in the most civil, careful, and accurate manner possible.

    Yes, I think civility is important, but if we took more care with accuracy, I think much civility would be restored. Thus I think accuracy is a more important goal.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • The Bible and Abortion

    John Hobbins is off to a promising start discussing what the Bible says about abortion. I’ll be interested in seeing his take on Exodus 21:22-25, and may post some thoughts of my own when the time comes.

  • Seeking Sinless Perfection

    Stripped image of John Wesley
    Image via Wikipedia

    Because I have some online watches for names of Energion Publications authors, I found the post In Search of Sinless Perfection, which quotes Alden Thompson. This comes from a Seventh-day Adventist background, but I must mention that I have been surprised by how much from my own SDA background simply translates into Methodism. One may easily underestimate the impact of the fact that Ellen White, early SDA leader viewed as having the prophetic gift, was a Methodist before she joined the Adventist movement.

    In any case, Ellen White quotes aside, Loren Seibold, author of the article gives a number of the reasons I have for questioning the idea of sinless perfection. Certainly the Wesleyan doctrine as actually taught by Wesley (try here for more, though you may find the account less plain than you imagined) seems less problematic than its various descendants.

    I love the introductory story, which ends:

    Then the perfect man hung up on me.

    Perhaps not the ending one imagined for a conversation with a perfect man!

    I too am a believer in sanctification. Where I must get off this particular train, however, is where one gets a personal knowledge that one is perfect. I just can’t see how that would work.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • A Test to Determine if One is a Christian

    Early Christian ichthys sign carved into marbl...
    Image via Wikipedia

    I’m pretty annoyed to have judges trying to make a determination of whether one is a Christian based on their knowledge. That reflects a very poor understanding of Christianity that probably comes from someone who has grown up Christian and doesn’t really understand someone who is a recent convert.

    The story is here. At least the appeals court has sent the case back for review.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • John MacArthur Discovers the Greek Word DOULOS

    T. C. Robinson posted the promotional video, in a post titled John MacArthur Charges Bible Translators with Conspiracy, which I’ll embed here for reference:

    One must make some allowance here for publisher hype, but nonetheless I find the promo a bit cringe-worthy. One of the commenters asks what MacArthur did before he discovered the meaning of the word doulos. Of course, I doubt he did discover it; this is marketing.

    On the other hand I believe there is some validity to the idea that doulos should be translated slave more frequently than it often is.

    What does bother me here is the implicit accusation against Bible translators. One way to get persecuted–today as in the past–is to translate the Bible. I like to have respect for these folks. They do hard work, and quite frankly get little thanks for it. It’s one reason I also object to pastors telling congregations that their translations are “wrong” or “inaccurate” and claiming that they’ll provide the correct translation. As I often say when I’m asked to translate on the fly, “Don’t expect me to produce a better translation while I’m standing here than a highly qualified committee produces working over a period of months.” In most cases, when I hear a pastor say tell the congregation that their English translations are “wrong,” it would be more correct to say the pastor is wrong.

    My favorite instance was when a speaker announced that a text was not accurately translated, then said it consisted of four Greek words (wrong!) and then he said the four Greek words, none of which were in the Greek text. I know this because I was, as usual, following along with my Greek New Testament.

    Besides the misinformation, this makes people distrust their English translations. There is a certain healthy level of mistrust that goes with any translation, but it’s easy to overstate, and it’s easy for people who don’t understand translation to misunderstand what does and does not work in translation.

    The fact is that while I’ll frequently complain about various translations, it’s not because the renderings are stupid or incompetent, it’s just that I disagree. Likely some members of the translation committee disagreed as well. But you have to use one rendering in the end.